Your going to be a DAD!! Hey, congratulations!!!

Yikes.

I sure hope this time around the lazy fucks (we didn't even get the option of the original cut last time) included the theatrical cut via seamless branching. Goddamn it! What's with the bullshit Lucas revisionist history where we don't even get the choice?

Sometimes it IS o.k. to buy the same flick again...

And really, how can you not laugh at the 'beartrap' scene? It's gory, but ridiculous - and AWESOME! They shoulda had the stomach literally growl slightly beforehand because it was "hungry"!!

I think comedy is wank at the moment, Harry. The last comedy to make me LMFAO was BORAT. I cannot wait for BRUNO.

My reservations with the movie as a whole keep confirmed the more I watch it, however. The script needed more work, more development, and for that, Favreau takes the blame. Too many missed opportunities for subtext or added depth, which this film was sorely lacking. I didn't care for the flashback storytelling of the beginning, and felt there was too much extraneous stuff in those flashbacks. Why spend so much time on the awards ceremony sequence where Stark fails to show? After a few seconds, I get it already, tell Obadiah to shut the hell up. I don't care about his acceptance speech. I think a normal sequential development to the story would have served the film better. I did like the media montage of Stark with all the Rolling Stone and Fortune mag covers, and felt this would have been a better intro to Stark, in fact, perhaps lengthen it, where this is our first intro to the "character" of Stark, complete with video clips from news stories or talk shows, and perhaps when we first see the "real" Stark, he's already overseas. I felt Dr. Yensen should have had more of a hand in the development of Iron Man other than being a laborer and water boy. Too many story elements introduced were not effectively followed through. I could go on and on. I don't think "Iron Man" is a bad movie, I just think it's an empty one, with too many missed opportunities.

I'm ready for the sequel to kick off with the ball rolling much like The Dark Knight did, coming from Batman Begins.

It's this thing of giving us the unrated WITHOUT the CHOICE of the original that shits me. Which is why I said the George Lucas thing. Speaking of which, while it seemed Americans got the last edition of E.T. with both the original and "Walkie-Talkie versions, only the new version was released O.S. I'll tell 'em where to stick those Walkie-talkies...

Although DK pretty much stands on its own, whether you have that little bit of lipservice scattered throughout or not. No-one I know who saw the 2nd film and not the first (old relatives, a pretty good litmus test) thought anything was amiss at all and didn't even really notice the nods to the 1st film. Having said that, pretty much everyone anywhere knows about Batman so...

Harry, you're supposed to be the head editor of this movie review website, and yet your command of the English language is fucking terrible.

The extras are only SD anyway, and go all the way back to the LASERDISC version! It's pretty funny that fans will be all hyped to hear the commentary and then they mention "on this Laserdisc"...!

But since FSM was the most under-the-radar of all the Apatow movies, I doubt it has a shot at any Golden Globes recognition, unfortunately.

It annoys me that I actually share your overall opinion of Iron Man's emptiness.

Aaaaah!

De Laurentiis originally didn't even want Kong to be an ape but a Neanderthal man instead!

Yeah Giger and Rambaldi were at odds, but the way you wrote it at first looks like you attributed the design to Rambaldi, especially as you didn't even mention Giger, who is the reason an incredibly well-made but essentially gothic horror/ten little indians/b-movie is looked at as a masterpiece. I do love it - don't misunderstand. And I think Agatha Christie would have approved. That's why I criticised you at first, but thanks for clarifying.

And you didn't even get Rambaldi's name right at first!

Look, I'm not saying Rambaldi was a hack. He's fantastic. E.T. is brilliant. His weakness was just gilding the lily and promising things he couldn't deliver. Continuously.

In the end, I reckon if I was going to use 3 examples for Rambaldi, I'd say the Close Encounters 'spider'/long-limbed alien, Dune guild navigator, and E.T. (he's not responsible for Baker's screw-over there!)

I hope we're cool now. Cheers mate.

And I think (this is memory though) that "Enter from Italy" which intimates Rambaldi was hired AFTER Baker's inability to deliver the goods, is inaccurate. Rambaldi's suit was made with black bear skins stitched together over the top. That looked bad, so he cut it short, which supposedly looked worse. So much for hand-punching, not to mention the wearer (Baker). According to the director, a complete failure. There's a documentary I have (that I just can't find at the moment but I'll let you know if I do) about Kong that goes into the whole thing which might help. A discovery channel thing done before Jackson's Kong. I sure don't know how you discount the director's quote though. As for the 'design contest' maybe I wasn't clear enough. It was Di Laurentiis that pitted them against each other. Baker had 2 assistants and one month, and Rambaldi 20 and was a month LATE. That's why I make the 'gild the lily' comments. There definitely was a 'contest' before they started working together.

Your assertion that Baker "was just the man in the suit. You can ask him. Didn't even sculpt it." is garbage. Garbage garbage garbage and obviously I can't disagree more. As is the "Baker made the skins/baked the molds" rubbish. Baker wasn't allowed because of union issues. He was allowed to supervise, but not do it himself. He SCULPTED them though. And the big mechanical arm/hand? I can't remember if the thing about Jessica Lange almost being crushed because it malfunctioned is real or another pub stunt. Do you recall?

Yes Baker was treated like shit. Waiting around in full suit, with scleral lenses in, and no-one would tell him even if he wasn't needed. That's from Baker's mouth in an interview.

Yeah like I said the 1:1 working robot was ridiculous but good press - wasn't there like a full page Variety ad or something? Or a newspaper? My memory's pretty rusty on that. I'd also forgotten the full-size working t-rex silliness.

And your Reardon thing is way cool. Thanks for that tidbit - I'd forgotten! I like that Reardon has always been a craftsman and artist who is committed to excellence without necessarily feeling he must have his own shop or direct or something to be viewed as "successful". Another guy like that is Jon Berg. And there was some other guy who designed the heartlight, but I can't remember his name. Not Rambaldi though.

You know, I think my main problem is that you don't make the distinction between design as in drawing/sculpting, and design of the mechanism, which is something else ENTIRELY. You don't say visual design as opposed to mechanical design. That's what is tripping you up and setting me off. You've done it again there with the Kong "design of the face" thing. And you say "personally drawn concepts" again, - for the mechanism maybe, but not the external design of the face. Baker definitely sculpted those heads. You can't have the second (mechanism design) without the first (character design and form), and although a well-designed mechanism is super important for the performance, the look is THE most important thing. A simple hand-puppet like Yoda proves that. Bugger-all/not much articulation especially in the mouth, but people swear he could make phonemes (and yes I know that's Freeborn). You know what else proves that? Rambaldi's own work! The Close encounters alien's movements are actually pretty awful and mechanical if you look at it objectively - but the awesome visual design colours your perception and makes the movement seem 'otherworldly'. Same with E.T. Even his eye blink mechanism is very 'robotic', but it's fast enough and those big Einstein eyes so expressive (Rambaldi's CHARACTER/VISUAL design is a masterpiece on the same level as Yoda), that we tear up anyway.

Things have changed, but why do you think separate expression heads were sculpted in the 70s and 80s? Because the mechanisms weren't sophisticated enough, and the materials as pliable to allow movement in different directions. That was the time of cable and pneumatic controls, which have movement in one axis. The best characters are still designed with a level of expression and caricature rather than completely 'default'. Look at Hoggle. An example of a completely 'default' expression/look that was supposed to be carried by the Henson mechanism. It's not completely successful, technical leap forward or not. Even Kermit has an 'expression' built in.

What's so great about Rambaldi is that his interest was in all the cable-controlled stuff, but he was initially a sculptor. Baker I think comes from being more sculptor than mechanic and hired/hires great guys for that part of it. Don't you find it funny though that language aside, you can't find interviews with Carlo?

I'll try to find more accurate stuff that can confirm or dismiss what we've both read. Cool? Oh and P.S. - VadER. ;)

And to show I'm not just out to attack you - one of my favourite pics is Rambaldi 'drawing' a picture of E.T. (I love those cheesy after-the-fact shots!), with the actual E.T. over his shoulder. I also loved that cheesy ride they had at Universal. Too bad they pulled it down, my kids woulda loved it.

And is that your site?

Yeah I know all about "Monstermaker"/"Monsterbaker" on various boards and I bought his zbrush tutorial of the old woman. Man, he may not have been at the digital stuff for all that long, but his 3d sculpting was instantly streets ahead of most 'tech-heads' due to his voluminous knowledge and eye for (important) detail. I love how he turned the bust of his Dad into Popeye!

Just realised I have nearly a complete collection of Cinefex (duh!) - if anything can be relied on for accuracy that'd be it I reckon. I even remember there was a special Baker issue about the time of Greystoke. Time to go digging...

It's just a little novelty thrill for fanboys and an ad for more Marvel product at the cineplex in a few years time. Storywise all it really does is tease, and dilute the strong stuff that happened before the credits. Laaaame-o. I'd RATHER have it without, myopic ultimate crossover-type fanboys be damned. Actually, they are!