Support NeoGAF

[Imm0rt4l]

set it in space!!!!!

I didn't like where they went with this. It started off alright though.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Haters. 2002 version was awesome. Guy Pierce is so rad.

It butchers Dumas' ending amongst its other problems. The best aspects of the film are Richard Harris, the score and maybe Henry Cavill.

 

[Devolution]

Haters. 2002 version was awesome. Guy Pierce is so rad.

It's one of those movies where you wonder why they even named it after the book if it's gonna deviate like that.

 

[PinkCrayon]

The writers of the recent Three Musketeers movie. How could this not be good?

Kill me now.

 

[Ikael]

set it in space!!!!!

This was one of the best adaptations of the Count of Monte Cristo ever, ending deviation nonwithstanding.

 

[duckroll]

David Goyer is a pretty terrible director and writer, so I'm fairly certain that it's going to be bad regardless of the approach to the material. Lol.

 

[jett]

This is going to be terrible.

And count me among those that enjoyed the 2002 movie.

There is already the definitive version from 1998, 400 minutes long

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDC_jmcnYfM

I've watched that. It's boring as all fuck.

 

[O.DOGG]

This was one of the best adaptations of the Count of Monte Cristo ever, ending deviation nonwithstanding.

I agree. After reading the book earlier this year, I consider it the best adaptation I've seen, barring perhaps a 1975 movie starring Richard Chamberlain, though I was just a kid when I saw it and don't remember much. The 2002 film was bullshit. And this news promise even more bullshit.

 

[EYEL1NER]

I watched the 2002 movie first and read the book two or three years ago and love them both. They are different but that is true a lot of times. The book's ending is fantastic but I can still appreciate the film's ending.
I will definitely catch a new movie.

 

[Arsenic Yellow]

I loved the 2002 version. Don't really care for the book.

The 2002 version is one of my favorite movies.
I've never read the book.

im also a fan of the 2002 version

Wait...some people don't like the 2002 version? WTF, that movie is awesome.

I'll be honest. I loved the 2002 movie till I read the book. Normally I can put aside movies as an adaptation and enjoy them on their own. But after reading the book, I just disliked the 2002 movie as it was a terrible adaptation that bears almost no resemblance to the source material.

Every person should read the book at least once. While you're at it, watch Gankutsuou

 

[IdreamofHIME]

Every person should read the book at least once. While you're at it, watch Gankutsuou

Seen it, it was ok but to say the 2002 movie wasn't good but then say an anime with crossdressing and mechs is faithful kinda irks me.

 

[DrForester]

Seen it, it was ok but to say the 2002 movie wasn't good but then say an anime with crossdressing and mechs is faithful kinda irks me.

Turning the crossdresser from the book into a crossdresser in the anime wasn't faithful?

 

[Shahadan]

 

[Trojita]

I liked the 2002 version.

 

[Arsenic Yellow]

Seen it, it was ok but to say the 2002 movie wasn't good but then say an anime with crossdressing and mechs is faithful kinda irks me.

Had the movie not been named Count of Montecristo and had no ties to the novel, it may have been decent. But the movie completely bastardizes the original source.

Theres cross dressing in the novel... unless you havent read the novel, I dont know how you missed that. Aside from the futuristic setting, the anime is by far the most faithful adaptation of the novel.

 

[massoluk]

This isn't going to end well.

Blade movies SUCK, the movies he was involved with that didn't suck got the Nolans' hands all over it. And you throw Resident Evil BS in there too?

 

[vio]

The best thing about Blade: Trinity -- other than Jessica Biel as Abigail -- was the hilarious behind-the-scenes reports of Goyer and Snipes going at it, especially since Snipes was in character the entire time he was on set.

I googled that. LOL
http://www.blastr.com/2012/11/the-time-wesley-snipes-ch.php

 

[duckroll]

I googled that. LOL
http://www.blastr.com/2012/11/the-time-wesley-snipes-ch.php

ROFLMAO! Shit, if they made a full blown documentary out of the making of the movie, it would probably be more entertaining than the movie itself.

 

[Xero]

Do not want. This is so unnecessary.

I really don't think Count of Monte Cristo works as a two and a half hour film. The most interesting part of the novel is how everyone's stories end up interlocking and I doubt you can pull it off in that time frame. Just do a miniseries on HBO or something.

The 2002 version is terrible. For people complaining that the book is soap opera-ish... that's kind of the point. But it's an incredibly well done and satisfying soap opera.

I thought the richard chamberlain version was very well done and pretty accurate. Any fans of the novel I highly recommend watching that version some how.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Movie needs to be made as a 3.5 hour epic.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Henry Cavill would make a good count. He has experience in period pieces and is already familiar with the source material having already played Albert. I like Sculli's suggestion of Hugh Jackman too.

 

[justjohn]

I'll be honest. I loved the 2002 movie till I read the book. Normally I can put aside movies as an adaptation and enjoy them on their own. But after reading the book, I just disliked the 2002 movie as it was a terrible adaptation that bears almost no resemblance to the source material.

To be fair to the people who made the movie, as has been said in this thread, it's impossible to make a faithful adaptation of the book in a two and half hour movie. I think considering everything, it was a fun movie.

 

[Loxley]

If Ridley Scott could bring his Kingdom of Heaven-level A-game, I would be all for him as a director. He seems to be at his best when doing period pieces.

 

[Xero]

To be fair to the people who made the movie, as has been said in this thread, it's impossible to make a faithful adaptation of the book in a two and half hour movie. I think considering everything, it was a fun movie.

As has also been said their have been very wonderful and relatively faithful adaptions done in less then 2 and a half hours. See the previously mentioned richard chamberlain version

 

[MYE]

This movie again? The 2002 one was just fine

sigh

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

Sounds like it could be horrible.

 

[JdFoX187]

Wow, Richard Chamberlain did a Count of Monte Cristo adaptation? I need to seek this out now. I loved his work in Shogun.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

I don't know what is sadder, the possibilities of this Goyer remake (19th century Dark Knight?), or the hate for the book.

 

[not psycho]

Awesome book, but the 2002 movie and anime both go off the rails and sabotage the themes of the story. Unfortunately this new one seems like it could be even worse.

 

[Dresden]

19th century Dark Knight? Goyer?

Wait and hope!

lol

 

[DrForester]

Awesome book, but the 2002 movie and anime both go off the rails and sabotage the themes of the story. Unfortunately this new one seems like it could be even worse.

I don't think the anime went off the rails of the core themes too much. Obviously things were changed, just due to the futuristic setting. It had a darker ending, but the themes about revenge killing you were much more literally executed in the anime.

2002 movie just went with, "revenge is awesome, and you'll be awesome for doing it!"

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Peter O'Toole depicting Abbe Faria would have been sublime, shame he's retired from acting.

I wonder who'll depict Mercedes.