Vaderisnothayden

ABC said:

C3PX said:

On the contrary my dear friend! I believe the "r" is quite UNnecessary. FInk!

 Ion Man ? Mmmhh... Why not.

__

Still, here again a new american cinema shit. (Is that racist?... Don't mind. Oh! About that, what about the US law wich obligates Hollywood & Co to have at least one black man/woman to appear in the films... I don't call that racism, I call that Hypocrisis).

Fools !

 Is there actually such a law or did you just mean that figuratively?

V said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

V said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

V said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

But I was pissed off about Samuel L Jackson being Nick Fury. I think it's racist to change the race of a character, at least if the character is well-established, important and popular.

 

No, its racist to say that every comic book character should only be played by actors of the same race.  Skin color doesn't matter, talent does.  I think Denzel Washington would be an outstanding Two-Face, but people like you would never get past that he's not the same color as the character from the comics. 

Vaderisnothayden said:

And why are they not using the classic character that was important for so long instead of some recent invention?

 

They did. 

 

 

And he was terrible.  The Ultimate version of Nick Fury is not only black, but is modeled after Jackson.  They couldn't have chosen a better candidate. 

No, its racist to say that every comic book character should only be played by actors of the same race.  Skin color doesn't matter, talent does. 

I'm sorry but that's absolute bullshit. Characters should be kept faithful to what they are. Black characters should not be made white and white characters should not be made black, etc. There's nothing racist about insisting on some faithfulness to the source material.

And so what if an attempt at doing the original Nick Fury went wrong before. That hardly proves it has to go wrong. With a different actor and a different script it could be quite different. 

And if they want to do Marvel they should do proper Marvel, not this "Ultimate" bullshit.

 

 

Being truly faithful would be getting the core of the character right, whether or not the actor is the same race.  It's the inside that counts, not the outside.  And if you want them to be your idea of faithful, that's exactly what they're doing by casting Jackson- black actor for black character.  But you still can't get past the fact that the Ultimate Fury is black.  You want Fury to be white because that's the only way you will accept him. 

Just because the original Fury was white doesn't mean they're chained and bound to making the character white in the movies.  The original Hulk had gray skin, the original Batman killed criminals, and the original Wolverine was a highly-evolved wolf but all those characters changed over time, just like Fury.  Doesn't matter if the Ultimate Fury's been around for a much shorter time, it's a version of the character than Favreau chose to go with.  And rightfully so, because the Ultimate Nick Fury is basically Sam Jackson as a comic book character, and Jackson playing him in the movies is pretty goddamn faithful. 

I don't have any problem with the Ultimate Fury being black. Don't make assumptions about me based on not knowing a thing about me. But I do have a problem with Marvel films being based on this new-fangled Ultimate stuff. It should be quite understandable that I would want Marvel movies to be based on the classic stuff I grew up with and not some new stuff I don't care about.

As it is, I came to this thread not having a clue that there was any such thing as a black SLJ-based Ultimate Fury and when I was told about it I wondered why are they using this new Ultimate stuff instead of the classic stuff?

I'd heard some things about this Ultimate stuff before (though not about their Nick Fury) and I haven't been positively inclined towards it. My attachment is to the original Marvel, not some new-fangled thing that popped up after I quit reading Marvel when Marvel stuff was getting shittier.

Being truly faithful would be getting the core of the character right, whether or not the actor is the same race.  It's the inside that counts, not the outside. 

A person's race is part of who they are. If you want to be faithful to the material you keep major details like race or gender consistent. I don't think it would be right to cast a white man as Storm and by the same token I don't think it would be right to cast a black woman as Spiderman. Not that Tobey Maguire is any use in the role.

And if you want them to be your idea of faithful, that's exactly what they're doing by casting Jackson- black actor for black character. 

Sure. If you want to do the Ultimate Fury instead of the classic one. But I still can't see why they want to do the new Ultimate stuff rather than the classic stuff that made the legend. It's kind of like choosing the SE over the OOT.

Just because the original Fury was white doesn't mean they're chained and bound to making the character white in the movies.  The original Hulk had gray skin, the original Batman killed criminals, and the original Wolverine was a highly-evolved wolf but all those characters changed over time, just like Fury. 

They're bound and chained to keep to something like what's in the comics. And I think they should base the movies on the classic stuff that made the legend rather than new-fangled Ultimate stuff. As far as I can tell, Fury didn't change into Ultimate Fury. Rather, Ultimate Fury is a separate character from a splinter line of Marvel. They had a choice whether to go with the classic stuff that made the legend or go with a new thing. I'd prefer the classic stuff. I don't know this SLJ Fury, but I grew up with the original Nick Fury, so it shouldn't be hard to understand me preferring to see him portrayed on the big screen rather than the character I don't know. And not portrayed on the big screen by Hasselhoff.

Doesn't matter if the Ultimate Fury's been around for a much shorter time,

But it does matter. The original Fury is the one that made the legend. He's the Original.

I wondered why are they using this new Ultimate stuff instead of the classic stuff?

Because they can.  Favreau believes that Jackson can play the comic book version of himself and would rather not take a chance with someone else.  If a character is directly moddled after an actor, then shouldn't that actor play the character?  It would be missing a huge opportunity.

A person's race is part of who they are. If you want to be faithful to the material you keep major details like race or gender consistent. I don't think it would be right to cast a white man as Storm and by the same token I don't think it would be right to cast a black woman as Spiderman. Not that Tobey Maguire is any use in the role.

Gender is a different issue.  If it were Nikky Fury, then your arguement for a male one would be a better one. 

But it does matter. The original Fury is the one that made the legend. He's the Original.

Nick Fury is hardly a legend.  You think the average movie goer knows who the hell Nick Fury is?  If he were this great character, he would have gotten an adaptation by now other than small roles in the Spider-Man cartoon and a DTV movie starring Hasselhoff.  He's a supporting character that's never taken off on his own.  Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, those are comic legends because everyone knows who they are, even if they haven't seen any of the movies or read any of the comics. 

 

 

I wondered why are they using this new Ultimate stuff instead of the classic stuff?

Because they can.  Favreau believes that Jackson can play the comic book version of himself and would rather not take a chance with someone else.  If a character is directly moddled after an actor, then shouldn't that actor play the character?  It would be missing a huge opportunity.

Of course, IF they choose to go with the Ultimate stuff. But I don't think they should go with the Ultimate because I think marvel films should be based on classic Marvel.

Gender is a different issue.  If it were Nikky Fury, then your arguement for a male one would be a better one. 

The actor cast for a part should look like the character. This applies to hair color too. Personally I prefer if they get actors with the right hair color to play parts. No blonds playing brown haired, etc. Dyeing doesn't solve the problem, because you can see when somebody's dyed (I can make exceptions when the character is red-headed (meaning I'd tolerate dyeing in those cases), because red hair is rare, but otherwise I prefer if they get the right color hair). Age, height and build should also approximate the real character or at least give a vague impression of doing so. There are so many actors out there with so many different appearances, it should be easy enough to find someone who looks right for a part.

Nick Fury is hardly a legend.  You think the average movie goer knows who the hell Nick Fury is?  If he were this great character, he would have gotten an adaptation by now other than small roles in the Spider-Man cartoon and a DTV movie starring Hasselhoff.  He's a supporting character that's never taken off on his own.  Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, those are comic legends because everyone knows who they are, even if they haven't seen any of the movies or read any of the comics. 

A lot of "average movie goers" read comics at some point when they were younger or had siblings who did. If so, they probably came across Nick Fury, because he appeared all over the place in Marvel comics. He was one of Marvel's more recognizable characters. Nick Fury is a legend among comic readers, a long-lasting classic character who appeared in multiple titles and was a major fixture of the Marvel universe.

TheBoost said:

I remember when the "Spawn" movie came out, and Spawn's buddy, a black dude in the comic, was played by a white man in the movie because the studio didn't want two black male leads, afraid that would make it a niche movie.

 That was racist. They should have kept him black.

Bingowings said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Bingowings said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

You mean you're not my sock? I thought you were.

 Bingowingsisnotvaderisnothaydenssock :D

 Areyousure?Really?Icouldhaveswornyouwere.

 Bingowingsisnotvaderisnothaydenssockwillyoupleaselisteniamnotvaderisnothaydendoyouunderstandhonestly!

 Didn'tquitecatchthat,sock.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Anchorhead said:

My point; I'm a huge fan of the film & the series.  I've been on board since the beginning.  However,  I have a grounded understanding of what it is - a modern take on old comic book\movie serial\pulp\bigger-than-life adventures. Also, I've not let my dislike of Lucas' handling of Star Wars cloud my judgment of an unrelated franchise that he doesn't even have total control over.

It's denial to ignore the way in which the 4th Indy movie shows distinct resemblences to the prequels and to ignore the obvious conclusion that the movie must have been influenced by the modern-day Lucas's prequels-style filmmaking attitude.

 "Distinct resemblences to the prequals" in the use of CGI and other modern techniques, or resemblence in that you don't like either?

Reduction of emotional depth and feeling of involvement, increase in silliness, reduction of sense of danger, plastic visual style. 

Anchorhead said:

My point; I'm a huge fan of the film & the series.  I've been on board since the beginning.  However,  I have a grounded understanding of what it is - a modern take on old comic book\movie serial\pulp\bigger-than-life adventures. Also, I've not let my dislike of Lucas' handling of Star Wars cloud my judgment of an unrelated franchise that he doesn't even have total control over.

It's denial to ignore the way in which the 4th Indy movie shows distinct resemblences to the prequels and to ignore the obvious conclusion that the movie must have been influenced by the modern-day Lucas's prequels-style filmmaking attitude.

Yeah but I Abrams actually talked about making the movie like Star wars and the dvd doc says the same thing. So it's something that was in the mind of those making the movie when they made it. They were consciously imitating Star Wars.

Bingowings said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

You mean you're not my sock? I thought you were.

 Bingowingsisnotvaderisnothaydenssock :D

 Areyousure?Really?Icouldhaveswornyouwere.  

I already did that for myself after watching the review. I have no need to do it to prove anything to you. That said, I may change my mind and come back and do it. We'll see. But I don't think other posters recognizing characters has anything to do with it or should be part of it.

Oh what the heck... Qui Gon is wise, underhanded, compassionate but a little ruthless, independent-minded, determined, a little arrogant maybe at times, something of a chancer.

TPM Padme is passionate, strong, crafty and prone to subterfuge, determined, commanding when she chooses to be, gentle when she chooses to be, an odd mixture of maturity with girlishness, devoted to her people, and is into guys two-thirds her age.

That's how it was done in the review. Just pick the character and describe them, no guessing games about who the character is. And no need to include characters from both sets of movies, just the relevant ones.

You mean you're not my sock? I thought you were.

Bingowings said:

Someone would but it would have to be superficially recognisable to make a lot of money out the brand (if that's something that's important...it isn't to me).

Hannibal Rising wasn't very good but the book sold well and the film turned a small profit, it probably would have made more money if Anthony Hopkins was there and a bit more if Jodie Foster was there (God knows how) because Silence Of The Lambs is the defining film associated with the series even though Manhunter came first.

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (for me) next to Raiders is a far better utilisation of the character than any of the other films but Harrison Ford is barely in it (not in the DVD sets at all), John Williams music isn't featured and it generally has a very different feel to the stories than the film series.

I'm not sure if it's the same elsewhere but hardly anyone in the UK, that I know of, is even aware that the series exists but KOTCS still did good box office despite being utter bollocks.

Personally I'd have to read a tonne of good reviews and receive recommendations from people who's opinion I generally trust before I'd see another Indy or Star Wars film in the cinema.

Otherwise I'd wait for the DVD to come out and be around long enough to purchase cheap...in fact I might make a point of getting it second hand if the word was that it was anywhere near as bad as KOTCS.

I still haven't got that on DVD because it's just not cheap enough to warrant buying for completion sake (and this is someone who has a charity shop bought copy of AVP).

 

The Young Indy tv series was an abomination that spat on Indy rather like how the prequels spat on Star Wars. Their version of the character was like the Hayden version of Anakin. Indy was ruined by that tv series long before Indy 4.

I don't know how you can say that. Those characters are written with a personality and are given plenty of personality by the actors. Most characters in the PT have a personality, even if it's less personality than they should have, such as Mace Windu or Obi Wan, or the wrong personality, such as Anakin as portrayed by Hayden. Neeson does an excellent job in TPM and Natalie does a good job in that movie (though not in the other two). I really don't know how you could miss it. Maybe by being so against the film as a whole that you're switched off to things like that. Just as the other two prequels don't get enough stick, TPM gets too much. It was a bad movie, not real Star Wars, very artificial and packed with cartoon characters, but it had some elements that were genuine and some humanity, which cannot be said for AOTC, let alone ROTS.

Anchorhead said:

 

 

Also they were done long before lucas lost it and made the special editions of star wars and the prequels.

Misplaced Prequel & SE hate - completely unrelated to the Indiana Jones franchise.

Untrue. The coming of the prequels and SEs marked a change a lot of people figure happened in Lucas. So it is significant that Indy 4 came after all that stuff. There was a distinctly prequelesque mentality in Indy 4.

Anchorhead said:

skyjedi2005 said:

None of those things was done with bad pointless and annoying cgi and worked in the context of the indiana jones universe

Correct, they were done with bad pointless and annoying models and fake-looking matte paintings that stand out from the live action. Had the technology been available in the 80s, they would have been done with CGI.

Look, man - your Kingdom hate is well documented here - well documented - I get it - really...I do. You manage to work it into half your posts, regardless of subject matter. However, if you're going to claim that the first three films are somehow void of silly & over-the-top pulp, you're not being honest.  The series has been comic book pulp since its inception. 

Monkeys jumping on soldiers driving a car are no more unrealistic than a monkey who says "uh oh" and then salutes a Nazi - and the raft falling out of an airplane, onto a mountain, then over a cliff, and then landing safely in a river is every bit as preposterous as a fridge being blown through the air.

You don't like your treasured memories to be sullied with 2008ness? - then just say so.  However, claiming that one of the three sequels is more over-the-top than the others is denial. They were all four done by the same people - they know their character and the world he exists in - they invented it, as well as shaped it.

  and the raft falling out of an airplane, onto a mountain, then over a cliff, and then landing safely in a river is every bit as preposterous as a fridge being blown through the air.

The fridge wasn't merely blown through the air. A guy survived a nuking by hiding in it. Yes that's different from what went before. And me and skyjedi aren't the only ones who think so, hence the expression "nuke the fridge".

However, claiming that one of the three sequels is more over-the-top than the others is denial.

The difference is that everything the 4th film was less convincing then what came before, as a result of the whole tone and mentality of the film. Not to mention pulling things like the fridge incident.

They were all four done by the same people -

I disagree. The person you are in the late eighties or earlier can be a different person from who you are two decades later. And a lot of people feel Lucas changed. 

Anchorhead said:

skyjedi2005 said:

 More crazy than flying through the air in a nuked fridge, monkeys helping attack russians, or mayan temples transforming into alien saucer ships?

Or falling out of an airplane in a life raft and landing on the ground safely and go over a giant cliff, or a mine car as a roller coaster that jumps broken sections of track, or a monkey that speaks English, or a boat that doesn't sink while it's being torn to pieces by a giant screw, or a gargantuan bolder that rolls along tree roots, or an airplane that drives through a tunnel after after having it's wings torn off in flight, or riding the outside of a submarine for miles?

 

The stuff in the old films worked. I didn't have a big problem with the monkeys or the temple turning into a flying saucer, but the nuking the fridge was going to far. Also the multiple water fall rollercoaster thing was too much like they were at a theme park. Things just didn't work as well in Indy 4. One problem was that the sense of threat and danger was gone or reduced, but that wasn't the only problem.

It's in the movie we know, plain and easy to see. Not everything about TPM is bad. It's AOTC and ROTS that have no redeeming features. Qui Gon was a great character and Padme actually worked as a character in the first film (but only in that film).

I'm watching it now. Some of the criticism of the characters is total bull. Qui Gon and the TPM version of Padme have plenty personality. I have no trouble describing them, even if the people he recruited couldn't.

Also, what's with the way this guy talks? And his idea of what a protagonist should be is overly narrow.

"The new movies are about shoving as much crap into each shot as possible" -he's right about that.

He's also right about the lightsaber battles.

ferris209 said:

vote_for_palpatine said:

I disagree with the idea that romantic attachment is dangerous, even though my luck with women has been the platonic ideal of horrible.

I'll say this, my spouse of 9 years as been a blessing for me. She actually contributed a lot to settling me down from my wild ways. Bringing our baby girl into this world pretty much sealed the deal on making me wiser and act in a more mature fashion with regards to daily life. I live less recklessly, seek out battles less often, and only challenge authority when absolutely necessary. I find that I think diplomatically more and of using force a lot less. I would imagine that in real life, having love would be a benefit to a Jedi. It would serve to make him wiser quicker, I think. Although I understand the dangers this could cause, I think the rewards would be far greater.

Being married reduces testosterone in men, so the male jedi would probably become more jedi-ish if they got married.

miker71 said:

EDIT: The CIA - Mossad link analogy was intentional all along.

 Curious here, where's there a CIA-Mossad link analogy? 

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

So you'd prefer nice Protestant Jedi (Methodists?) who are allowed to marry rather than Jedi resembling the East Asian monks that they are so clearly inspired by?

And it is worth noting Yoda never gives a word of 'no attachment' advice to anyone who is not weilding a superhuman power that has an active and malignant Dark Side.

Yeah but Yoda's advice sounds like it's meant to apply generally not just for force wielders. And a lot of people will go to that film and go "Wow, Yoda is wise. I have to follow his advice," and try to apply that stuff in their lives.

And I'm not in favor of any group we're supposed to look up to being portrayed as being against love or sex or relationships or whatever. And despite them being shown to have some faults, there is a lot pushing the audience to look up to the jedi. That's pushing an anti-relationship/anti-love attitude as a good thing, as does the plot of ROTS. Love and sex and relationships are a natural part of life and it's unnatural to ban them. Pretty funny for a bunch like the jedi who are supposed to be in touch with life.

 Yoda's advice was 'learn to let go of people who are going to die.' Franky, I think that's fairly decent advice.

I happen to know a couple Buddhist monks. They abstain from lots that I enjoy, including meat, sex, marriage, and TV. They are wise men and amazing athletes (and kick my ass at basketball). Their compassion is almost overwhelming, and yet I've never walked away froma meeting with them thinking "These guys hate life and love!" In fact, I'd say they're some of the most in touch with life people I know.

And I certainly hope no one left a sci-fi movie thinking "man, the CG muppet told me to avoid attachment... I need to divorce my wife!"

I dont think Jedi are anti-love at all. I think Obi loves Anakin deeply. Luke plainly loves Han and Leia. But Obi's attachment to Anakin isn't so strong he can't slice him up when he goes all Vadery, and Luke learns that his love of his sister can't be a need so strong he's willing to go to the Dark Side for it.

Well I'm not discussing Buddhist monks. I'm discussing jedi, prequelized jedi. And these jedi seem to be against a lot that's healthy and natural, even against kids seeing their parents. Yoda seems to be against not only relationships but love as well.

As for prequel Obi, I don't think he feels anything deeply, let along loving Anakin deeply. He was portrayed without feeling, fitting the prequel movies that lacked feeling, fitting the anti-feeling message of those movies with their anti-feeling jedi. 

And I certainly hope no one left a sci-fi movie thinking "man, the CG muppet told me to avoid attachment... I need to divorce my wife

I'm sure someone did. This is real life. People can be awful stupid. And kids can be impressionable.

 Yoda's advice was 'learn to let go of people who are going to die.' Franky, I think that's fairly decent advice.

There was more to Yoda's advice than that. He basically told him not to give a damn about people dying, not to mourn or miss them. Pretty cold stuff. And no I don't think saying you should let go of people who are about to die is good advice. I think it's cold. Let go of them after they die? Ok. But before they die? That's cold. He also told him attachment to people is bad. So basically you shouldn't care about people and you shouldn't give a fuck if they die. And while the word love isn't mentioned it's pretty clear Yoda is saying love is bad with all his bull about attachment and not mourning or missing people. Yoda is encouraging people to be cold fish and the film is teaching that message to little kids. Complete with Anakin's example to show how love is bad.

The Golden Globes made a joke of themselves with awards for Cameron's big gimmick-fest.

skyjedi2005 said:

All though episode II and III went further to being lol rofl trainwrecks of unimaginable lengths.  I still can't watch them and imagine they got past the scripting phase.

There's fun to be had going through those just to pick on moments of lameness. There are spectacular ones. Padme telling Annie it's ok to murder children, Anakin talking about sand, Yoda vs Dooku, Yoda vs Palpatine, just about any Annie-Padme conversation, so much of the scenes on Mustardfart, the Nooooo, etc.

TheBoost said:

captainsolo said:

I just think of Luke and Mara Jade. If that works, so can anything else. I'm very tired of all the prequel "attachment/possession" nonsense.

I think of Anakin and Padme. If that can go bad so can anything else.

I'm very tired of this EU "Jedi can do any damn thing they want- marry, have kids, get a job, leave the order, rejoin the order, fight against the order, have a beer, murder a star system, go-to-the-Dark-Side-and-always-come-back-because-it's-no-big-deal" nonsense.

Jeez, the EU writers just want their audience to have some fun, unlike the way the audiences of the prequels had a lack of fun. I think the eu approach is more reasonable than the prequel vision of the jedi. Though they do bounce back and forth between the dark and light sides a bit too much.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

Wtf has happened to Star Wars?

So you'd prefer nice Protestant Jedi (Methodists?) who are allowed to marry rather than Jedi resembling the East Asian monks that they are so clearly inspired by?

And it is worth noting Yoda never gives a word of 'no attachment' advice to anyone who is not weilding a superhuman power that has an active and malignant Dark Side.

Yeah but Yoda's advice sounds like it's meant to apply generally not just for force wielders. And a lot of people will go to that film and go "Wow, Yoda is wise. I have to follow his advice," and try to apply that stuff in their lives.

And I'm not in favor of any group we're supposed to look up to being portrayed as being against love or sex or relationships or whatever. And despite them being shown to have some faults, there is a lot pushing the audience to look up to the jedi. That's pushing an anti-relationship/anti-love attitude as a good thing, as does the plot of ROTS. Love and sex and relationships are a natural part of life and it's unnatural to ban them. Pretty funny for a bunch like the jedi who are supposed to be in touch with life.

Titanic was seriously overrated too. Not much emotional depth. Just this big exploitive spectacle made out of a profound tragedy. Boring fucking film. I was waiting for DiCaprio's dork to croak the whole time and they took ages getting around to it. No way did that film deserve any oscars. I think Cameron is a seriously overrated filmmaker.

Apparently there is some theory out there that climate change can affect earthquakes.

Is he really saying the earthquake is the result of the climate summit? I think it's not clear what he means.