Troll Lord Games

Holy Steampunk Batman! Musketeers! With Airships!

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810175478/video/25856814

That movie looks VERY cool! Personally, I'm OK with the airship thing. I mean, how many times have we seen this movie before? It's time for a cool twist like that.

~O

It's definitely a different take. I like the steampunk vibe...though I think they'll take less flak from critics if they had chosen a different name for the movie.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Holy Steampunk Batman! Musketeers! With Airships!

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810175478/video/25856814

Roger on that, Plus Milla Jovovich and period costumes

What a bloody travesty!! Come one guys, has anyone in hollywood ever read the friggin book?? To call this The Three Musketeers is making Dumas roll in his grave. Jeesh the last peice o' c_rap with Keifer Sunderland was bad enough but this has no resemblance to the book at all. Why even pretend it does? Just give it a different name and start a new franchise already. I sure as heck don't want my son to see this and think this is what the three musketeers really is. The only real Three Musketeers movie is the 1973 deal, with Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, and Michael York, that one actually followed the book's plot and was a fun movie.

Now, if they change the name of the movie, and the names of all the characters, then it does look it might be a pretty cool action flick, but please Hollywood, stop besmirching one of my favorite book series!!

Go0gleplex wrote:It's definitely a different take. I like the steampunk vibe...though I think they'll take less flak from critics if they had chosen a different name for the movie.

*pfft* Flack. These folks are very wisely capitalizing on the steampunk vibe. Course, I'll wait for what the critics say. Because if they don't like it, and from the looks of it they wont, I shall thoroughly enjoy this movie. 95% of the time, if a critic likes a movie, I wont.

I've seen pretty much every Musketeer's variation there is, I think, and I've enjoyed them all. Even the one with Keifer Sutherland.

Course, I'm a big fan of the books too, and not just because I am, distantly, related to the author.

gideon_thorne wrote:*pfft* Flack. These folks are very wisely capitalizing on the steampunk vibe. Course, I'll wait for what the critics say. Because if they don't like it, and from the looks of it they wont, I shall thoroughly enjoy this movie. 95% of the time, if a critic likes a movie, I wont.

I've seen pretty much every Musketeer's variation there is, I think, and I've enjoyed them all. Even the one with Keifer Sutherland.

Course, I'm a big fan of the books too, and not just because I am, distantly, related to the author.

Well, I'm glad another fan of the books is more tolerant than me. Kinda off sets my sourness about it.

gideon_thorne wrote:

Go0gleplex wrote:It's definitely a different take. I like the steampunk vibe...though I think they'll take less flak from critics if they had chosen a different name for the movie.

*pfft* Flack. These folks are very wisely capitalizing on the steampunk vibe. Course, I'll wait for what the critics say. Because if they don't like it, and from the looks of it they wont, I shall thoroughly enjoy this movie. 95% of the time, if a critic likes a movie, I wont.

I've seen pretty much every Musketeer's variation there is, I think, and I've enjoyed them all. Even the one with Keifer Sutherland.

Course, I'm a big fan of the books too, and not just because I am, distantly, related to the author.

I was just thinking of the purists, for whom any deviation of the book is as abhorrent as 4e is to those not recognizing it as D&D. Frankly, I think the critics are too damn full of themselves and have forgotten how to simply enjoy a movie for its own sake.

I sure as heck don't want my son to see this and think this is what the three musketeers really is. The only real Three Musketeers movie is the 1973 deal, with Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, and Michael York, that one actually followed the book's plot and was a fun movie

Dachda, don't get me wrong, I LOVE the book and I would never say a movie like this is true to the story. I agree that the 1973 movie was actually close enough to the book to be the actual Musketeers, but this movie just looks fun. Yes I wish they would change the name, but I can still enjoy the movie and ignore the liberties they took with the story. That is if the movie lives up to the teasers and is a good/fun movie.

I can see a purist not liking it, even I at times get my hackles up at a movie that should be closer to the book/history etc, but then I normally step back and enjoy the movie for the movie's sake if it is actually a good movie. If I want "pure" I read the book (which is my default) If I want a fun movie I try and enjoy a good movie regardless of the name of the movie.

I think the critics are too damn full of themselves and have forgotten how to simply enjoy a movie for its own sake.

Too true

Its got an airship battle in it. That alone is worth the price of admission. I can't think of anyone else who's done this outside of a cartoon?

I don't see the need to change the title. It provides the audience immediate scaffolding of character and story on which to hang the movie, yet the trailer shows us a musketeer movie like we've never seen before. It certainly has my attention. As for Dumas, well, he certain understood making a buck, so I don't see him objecting (other than perhaps for not getting his cut).

Some excellent casting choices, but I'm most intrigued by Jovovich. I'm trying to remember if she's ever played a proper villain. I suspect she'll do well in the role.

Hopefully much isn't lost going from 3D to 2D.

Yeah this looks really cool!
I liked the Charlie Sheen, Keifer sutherland and Oliver Platt verison (that said, I havn't seen it since it came out, so today? maybe maybe not)

I assume the original novels were in French, right? What's a good / the best translation to read, to "read the original"? (book, not movie) ((this is totally in the wikipedia article, isn't it?)

Relaxo wrote:
I assume the original novels were in French, right? What's a good / the best translation to read, to "read the original"? (book, not movie) ((this is totally in the wikipedia article, isn't it?)

See if you can find the Penguin Classics version.

One wag has referred to it as "Lace Punk". Without having seen it, I can only say that it looks 'interesting'. Witht the advent of CGI there seems to be a trend to put it in almost everything. Sort of MSG for the eyes. It isn't necessary but it 'enhances' the flavor!

As far as Jovovitch playing a 'baddie' goes, check her cameo role in Zoolander as the beautiful but naughty Katinka Ingabogovinanana.

gideon_thorne wrote:

Relaxo wrote:
I assume the original novels were in French, right? What's a good / the best translation to read, to "read the original"? (book, not movie) ((this is totally in the wikipedia article, isn't it?)

See if you can find the Penguin Classics version.

I went with the Oxford World's Classic edition. Partly because that publisher actually prints all FIVE in the series.

The Three Musketeers
The Vicomte De Bragelonne
Louise De La Valliere
Twenty Years After
The Man in the Iron Mask

I've actually read all five and haven't yet met someone else who has. Maybe that's why each movie that gets further and further from what the books are, drives me batty!

dachda wrote:

gideon_thorne wrote:

Relaxo wrote:
I assume the original novels were in French, right? What's a good / the best translation to read, to "read the original"? (book, not movie) ((this is totally in the wikipedia article, isn't it?)

See if you can find the Penguin Classics version.

I went with the Oxford World's Classic edition. Partly because that publisher actually prints all FIVE in the series.

The Three Musketeers
The Vicomte De Bragelonne
Louise De La Valliere
Twenty Years After
The Man in the Iron Mask

I've actually read all five and haven't yet met someone else who has. Maybe that's why each movie that gets further and further from what the books are, drives me batty!

I have. It was high school class reading. I was fortunate in a few teachers that went beyond the curriculum.

I can relate to being driven batty by movies that don't match the book, granted. But I'm all about a good airship fight.

gideon_thorne wrote:

dachda wrote:

gideon_thorne wrote:

Relaxo wrote:
I assume the original novels were in French, right? What's a good / the best translation to read, to "read the original"? (book, not movie) ((this is totally in the wikipedia article, isn't it?)

See if you can find the Penguin Classics version.

I went with the Oxford World's Classic edition. Partly because that publisher actually prints all FIVE in the series.

The Three Musketeers
The Vicomte De Bragelonne
Louise De La Valliere
Twenty Years After
The Man in the Iron Mask

I've actually read all five and haven't yet met someone else who has. Maybe that's why each movie that gets further and further from what the books are, drives me batty!

I have. It was high school class reading. I was fortunate in a few teachers that went beyond the curriculum.

I can relate to being driven batty by movies that don't match the book, granted. But I'm all about a good airship fight.

Holy cr_ap you read them all!! Awesome. I do have to admit that airship deal, may still get me into the theater. Or at least some day, in front of my dvd player.

dachda wrote:

Holy cr_ap you read them all!! Awesome. I do have to admit that airship deal, may still get me into the theater. Or at least some day, in front of my dvd player.

Positive side of being all introverty. Time to read a lot!

MSG for teh eyes, I LOVE it!

I read the book several times and love it. (I think I've read 3 of the 5; I didn't know that #2 and #3 existed.)

I pretty much like every version I've seen. Naturally the Michael York one from the 1970's is pretty cool, but I also liked the Sutherland/Shean/O'Donnell version as well.

I like steampunk and airships, so hopefully this one will be cool as well. Kind of strange, maybe, but hopefully cool!

I read the book several times and love it. (I think I've read 3 of the 5; I didn't know that #2 and #3 existed.)

Me too.

Well if I don't find a classroom to teach in soon, I'll have plenty of time to read them...

As suspected...the movie purists are starting to nitpick this one to death too over on TMP. :LOL:

Off the top of my head, my biggest criteria for a movie like this (in order):
1. Is it well written?
2. Is it fun to watch?
3. Is it realistic/historical?

So as long as the thing is well done and fun, I can probably get over them not really following the books. Kind of like the new "Battlestar Galactica" which I think was great scifi and would have been a lot better with a new name.

Just my two cents.

finarvyn wrote: Kind of like the new "Battlestar Galactica" which I think was great scifi and would have been a lot better with a new name.

Just my two cents.

More or less my thoughts on the Lord of the Rings movies.

As for the new BSG, the only good thing I had to say about it was, I liked the ships. I was completely unable to relate to any of the characters.

I saw the new Musketeers movie trailer at the theatre. It was pretty much the same one I saw online, but naturally larger. I had hoped that larger would have made it seem more exciting, but not so much.

All of the Musketeers seem pretty much interchangible. One thing that the old Charlie Sheen / Kieffer Sutherland one had going for it is that each actor seemed different enough (and since they were famous I could tell them apart) that it helped me keep the story straight. I'm having trouble with these new guys who are all dressed in dark leather and look kind of the same to me.

And I'd rather have Orlando Bloom as one of the Musketeers than the Duke of Buckingham.

Anyway, preview was larger and thought I'd report back.

I'm with Dachda on this. I love me some steam-punk, but why can't they come up with an original script and name for it? If you're going to make the Three Musketeers, make the Three Musketeers, not "Space 1629". IMO it's a sign of Hollywood's crippling insecurity - someone has a cool idea (steampunk in the 17th century) but they all agree that it can only be 'sold' by grafting it onto the only other 17th century story that they can imagine their audience a) having heard of and b) wishing to see. Drives me nuts!

edit: oh, and I agree that the 1973 movie is the best screen adaption of the Three Musketeers to date. I read the first three novels, but got sidetracked and never finished the series.

Geleg wrote:I'm with Dachda on this. I love me some steam-punk, but why can't they come up with an original script and name for it? If you're going to make the Three Musketeers, make the Three Musketeers, not "Space 1629". IMO it's a sign of Hollywood's crippling insecurity - someone has a cool idea (steampunk in the 17th century) but they all agree that it can only be 'sold' by grafting it onto the only other 17th century story that they can imagine their audience a) having heard of and b) wishing to see. Drives me nuts!

edit: oh, and I agree that the 1973 movie is the best screen adaption of the Three Musketeers to date. I read the first three novels, but got sidetracked and never finished the series.

FINALLY!!! Some one here agrees with ME!!!! Thank you Geleg!! I knew I couldn't be the only one.

Does anyone know when the new Musketeers movie is supposed to be out? As odd as the preview looked, I'm still into my flying ships!

Geleg wrote:I'm with Dachda on this. I love me some steam-punk, but why can't they come up with an original script and name for it? If you're going to make the Three Musketeers, make the Three Musketeers, not "Space 1629". IMO it's a sign of Hollywood's crippling insecurity - someone has a cool idea (steampunk in the 17th century) but they all agree that it can only be 'sold' by grafting it onto the only other 17th century story that they can imagine their audience a) having heard of and b) wishing to see. Drives me nuts!

Agreed.
Problem is, no one wants to drop 150 million bucks on a movie that isn't going to make back 200 million bucks, so risk is not in the equation.

I saw the first trailer for this a few months ago and was aghast. On newer viewings, I find myself mildly intrigued. I have little doubt that we will see a fun little action flick with stunning CGI effects and stunt scenes so beautifully choreographed that the shade of Nureyev will weep in envy.

Will it be the three Musketeers? Will we recognise one damn thing about the characters, besides the names and the big hats? I very much doubt it. And with that in mind, why not drop all pretence and call it something different? Why can the production company not grow a pair and have the courage of their own convictions? It's not as if hardcore Dumas fans are likely to be the target demographic and sadly the target demographic may not even have heard about Dumas, but think the Musketeers was something about a cartoon dog.

The Salkinds have nothing to worry about.