Talk:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film)

message: Is it appropriate to add that reference is made to the events of Van Helsing, and that the character Mr Hyde features in both movies, suggesting they are set in the same universe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silent Bean (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting 

message: Pattern 1916 Stahlhelm on the pseudo-Germans, quotation marks in the newspaper headlines (not usually in larger font cases of the era). 24.94.44.253 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire film falls under suspension of belief with regard to the mixing of characters, technology and timescales.  Just sit back and enjoy the ride.  It's not that bad really.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronisms 

message: Anyone else notice the conning tower of the Nautilus is in the shape of a lingam/yoni statue? 24.94.44.253 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nautilus 

message: In the description here 
Hyde is described as such: "also in the novel Mr. Hyde is a short man with murderous instincts and not a giant beast like in the film".  However, it is mentioned in the novel and in the second comic book series that Jekyll was withering from the lack of his sins while Hyde had grown due to his indulging in them.  The hulking Hyde is appropriate.  It is the lack of civility when not on a rampage that is in error in the film. 68.48.174.136 17:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The modern representation of Hyde is in general large to the point of enormous. This is very likely an effect of The Incredible Hulk. 31.209.55.158 (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Hyde's size 

message: Sorry I added this without any proper referencing...if anyone has anything to add, I'll be a very happy man. Iwan Berry 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition the the criticism list 

message: The descriptions of characters do not make sense. The following is taken from the Allan Quartermain section:
"The character matches with his original storyline as we are informed that he had two wives and a son. Since he doesn't die in any of the books we are led to believe that this adventure takes place after all the others."
There is also a serious fault on Harker's profile. She was never made a vampire in the books, and that is a fact that can not be ignored. She was in the process, which made it possible for the rest of the gang to defeat Dracula, but the whole point of doing so was to save her from fully transforming into a vampire. Actually, I think I'll have to edit that
This is badly structured and assumes a knowledge of the film, and the structure/timeline of the original comic. Therefore, it is not properly encyclopaedic.
I will attempt to re-write these so they make sense to a first time reader (i.e.. me), after doing a bit of research into the differences between the film and comic.
fatbarry2000 22:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Copyright extends for 70 years after the death of the author in many countries and Wells lived a long timeColScott 02:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  H.G. Wells is English and Enlgish copy right law last 70 years after the author die as said above, as H.G. Wells died on the 13th of August 1946 the copyright ends on the 13th of August 2016 which means we have to wait till then for the use of the original invisible man.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.125.49 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Problems 

message: Having added a list of perfectly rational criticisms of the Venice scene, I was surprised to discover that someone had written that the LXG is set in an alternate Universe, and "Venice in that universe is not our Venice.". That's perfectly reasonable of course, but makes for poor storytelling and detracts from the reliability of an already plot-hole filled film. If it has St Marks's Basilica, maskerade balls and gondolas on the canals - not to mention the word "Venice" appearing on screen when the scene begins - it probably is "our Venice". The scene is a perfect example of how the studio had very little knowledge concerning what they were handling, and wanted to make an action flick rather than something intelligent and compelling. 84.65.36.118 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, perhaps they DID want to make an action flick rather than something intelligent and compelling? It is based on a comic after all (and one by a much-overrated writer at that). Wiki is for facts anyway, not what YOU thought about ONE scene. It's as bad as the Slavs and the other lot trying to shit up the internet with their engrish debates that nobody gives the slightest shit about.86.164.113.83 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Venice Problem

message: I along with several friends remember the ending scene having Quartermain's hand come up through the grave and grabbing the rifles, but I can't find any evidence supporting this.  Can anyone help?
Dodrian 03:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quatermain's name is misspelled ("Quartermain") on his headstone.  That's a common enough error (made several times on this page alone), but maybe it was deliberate, a suggestion that all wasn't as it seemed. WHPratt (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Ending? 

message: I found no evidence supporting the claim made in the "The Ending" section that there is going to be a sequel. Therefore, I have deleted it.--Farquaadhnchmn 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance of a reboot? Sean Connery retired from acting, so a sequel seems unlikely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.221.144 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequel?

message: n/t Salad Days 03:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There certainly are a lot of fair-use images on this page

message: I just stumbled upon this page and saw that warning, but i'm surprised nobody is talking about it. As far as I can tell, the plot description is WAAAAAAAY too long (longer than the plot description for 'The Godfather') and convoluted, and nothing on the page describes the central concept for the movie. I think the opening paragraph should have an extra sentence, something like "It is an adventure film set late in the 19th century, featuring an assortment of literary characters appropriate to the period." Then should come a list of characters, because that's important to the understanding. Then a short summary of the plot.
Just my two cents.ThatGuamGuy 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In response to that warning

message: which is it phantom or fantom
its phantom. why someones decided it's spelled fantom I have no idea... Twitchmoss 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: F/Phantom

message: :Image:Lxg214S.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lxg214S.jpg

message: :Image:The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.jpg

message: This article seems to attract vandalism. Poking around because of some odd transitions I found there were quite a few wholesale deletions of sentences and sections, only some of which were caught by bots. Somebody more familiar with this article and/or the material should go back a ways and see what has been chopped out. --Dhartung | Talk 10:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: There is a bit about Roger Moore playing a character in the sequel, but the two sources give for this claim are not very good, one doesn't even contain the word "roger" and the other mentions sources for the claim, but doesn't provide them. The main reason I doubt the claim is that Roger Moore would have been almost 80 years old by the time they started making the planned sequel and wouldn't be very well suited to play James Bond again. JayKeaton (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatley people persist in the misguided notion that the comic was better, when it wasn't (it had so many references to cram in they forgot to include a storyline until the last chapter!), so the sequel will never be made. 86.164.113.83 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger Moore in sequel 

message: There really needs to be a section in the article describing the problems with copyrights and whatnot, to explain what was basically a complete rewrite of the novels, which bear absolutely no resemblance to the film.  It begs the question, "why make the film at all, if it requires butchering the original material that was so good it made people want a movie version?"
In fact, if it was so hard for Fox, how did Moore get around all of the same issues in order to write his graphic novels?  198.213.171.98 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added on 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was a matter of being "hard" for Fox.  I believe Fox didn't want to rack up huge legal costs and such to fight the lawsuit, and so settled.  Everyone always tries as hard as they can to avoid going through a trial phase. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the article today is the first I've ever heard about the lawsuit by Cohen and Poll. If, as the anonymous IP above says, that the film's resemblance to its credited source material was minimal at best, why did Moore think he needed to exonerate himself? The article does not indicate that he was named along with Fox in the suit beyond the implication of that statement (if he was a defendant, he could refuse to settle, I would think). And I read at the time of the film's release about one difference. It was pointed out that where the graphic novel had H. G. Wells' actual Invisible Man Griffin, the film had some thief who had gotten his hands on the formula. Why single this out (and strongly imply that it was not typical) if deviations from Moore's original work were in fact wholesale? Are they indeed so great that a section in the article listing them (as I came here to suggest) would be unwieldy or worse? --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between the graphic novels and the film 

message: Are Sanderson Reed and Karl and/or Eva Draper from Victorian literature, or were they invented? Daibhid C (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original characters?

message: Is Nemo's first mate, Ishmael, the character from Moby-Dick? If not then the article contains an inappropriate link. HairyWombat (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Ishmael from ''Moby Dick''? 

message: Are we to assume that the figures for the returns on the home media are global? If they are for a specific region (my guess would be the U.S.), it should say so, to maintain encylopædic rigour, and remove national bias. Jock123 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures from The Numbers would seem to be from the United States but it is not made clear. WP:WORLDVIEW strikes again but it is better to have the figures such as they are than to delete them. Other sources might help clarify, DVD review websites tend to have better details. -- Horkana (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Media 

message: The features section is incomprehensible and doesn't add anything to the article. I've moved it here for posterity. 
:==Features==
:When the League find that Moriarty had been making submarines, one of the League called them "Nautiloi", with a Greek-type plural ending.
:One of Moriarty's men is in heavy metal armor and has a flamethrower of roughly USA Army type with two big tanks and a smaller propellant tank.
:There is a geography fault: the Nautilus sails up the Amur river into a frozen lake in Mongolia, with all the water along the way being wide and deep enough for a big submarine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.47.110 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features secion 

message: The lead for the article states that Sean Connery made a comeback in 2010, but this is not cited, no mention of it his made in his Wikipedia article, and all his post LXG credits on the IMDb are voice work.  I will be deleting this section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.40.97 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sean Connery Comeback? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5XrcV3T8s?url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3141720.stm with https://www.webcitation.org/5XrcV3T8s?url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3141720.stm on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3141720.stm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130615084010/http://www.zonetroopers.com/5/post/2011/10/king-solomons-mines-1985-1986.html to http://www.zonetroopers.com/5/post/2011/10/king-solomons-mines-1985-1986.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://royalarmouries.org/stories/guns-in-popular-culture/
©Geni (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible source for nemo's guns