Podcast Summary: "How Did This Get Made?" – The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Release Date: February 21, 2025
Hosts: Paul Scheer, June Diane Raphael, Jason Mantzoukas
Transcript Length: Approximately 72 minutes
Introduction
In this episode of How Did This Get Made?, hosts Paul Scheer, June Diane Raphael, and Jason Mantzoukas delve into the critically panned film "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." Chosen by fans through a Discord poll, the trio embarks on dissecting what makes this film a celebrated failure in the realm of bad movies. From beloved literary characters to baffling plot choices, the hosts leave no stone unturned in their comedic critique.
Plot Overview
"The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" presents an alternate history where iconic literary figures such as Alan Quartermaine, Dorian Gray, Captain Nemo, Mr. Hyde, and Mina Harker are united to prevent a looming world war instigated by the enigmatic antagonist, M (Professor Moriarty from Sherlock Holmes lore). The mission revolves around thwarting bombs scattered throughout Venice, intended to trigger a domino-like catastrophe.
Paul Scheer summarizes the premise:
“The movie hypothesizes in an alternate world, a bunch of characters from literature have gotten together... they're [brought] together to stop a world war.”
[04:37]
Character Analysis
Alan Quartermaine vs. Indiana Jones
One of the primary critiques revolves around Alan Quartermaine, portrayed by Sean Connery. Unlike his literary counterpart—a seasoned adventurer and treasure hunter—the film depicts him as physically small, wiry, and unattractive, with minimal action prowess. Jason Mantzoukas expresses his disappointment:
“I would love all of the extraordinary characters in literature. I did not expect to see Tom Sawyer... I was stunned.”
[04:29]
June Diane Raphael compares Quartermaine to Indiana Jones, highlighting the deviation from expectations:
“He's like an Indiana Jones type adventurer. But in this movie, he does none of...”
[16:20]
Dorian Gray and Mina Harker
Dorian Gray, traditionally immortal and vain, is portrayed inconsistently, leading to confusion about his immortality and reliance on his portrait as a weapon. Mina Harker, a vampire and scientist, lacks coherence in her abilities and contributions, leaving the audience questioning her role:
“Is she a vampire? Because she's also not just a vampire... Why don't they use that to greater effect?”
[31:28]
Mr. Hyde and the Invisible Man
Mr. Hyde is depicted with exaggerated physical deformities and inconsistent powers, oscillating between animalistic strength and comic relief moments. The Invisible Man, renamed Skinner due to IP restrictions, struggles with his invisibility gimmick, leading to awkward comedic attempts:
“Hello to both of you, my freaky darling. Hello to my freaky darling.”
[02:18]
Technical Criticisms
The hosts highlight numerous plot holes and technical inconsistencies that undermine the film's credibility:
-
Anachronistic Weapons: Set in 1899, the introduction of modern or out-of-place weaponry like tanks baffled the hosts:
“Everybody seemed to be terrified of it... it felt like a living metal beast breaking into the bank.”
[06:23] -
Bomb Mechanics: The film's bomb setup in Venice lacks logical execution, with bombs placed indiscriminately and the lack of realistic pressure effects:
“The bomb holes if we just get it up, we're fine. Like, that's a faulty bomb.”
[26:15] -
Nautilus Engineering: Captain Nemo's submarine is portrayed with dubious engineering feats, such as navigating narrow Venetian canals while barely submerging:
“The submarine is barely ever underwater. It's so thin as to be able to go through the canals of Venice.”
[23:48]
Character Dynamics and Teamwork
A significant point of contention is the lack of chemistry and teamwork among the protagonists. The team exhibits constant friction and disdain for one another, detracting from the potential synergy of their unique abilities:
“They are not connected to each other with, I guess, with the exception of Tom Sawyer and Alan Quartermain. But they all seem to not just not like each other.”
[37:57]
Jason Mantzoukas laments the absence of meaningful character development or arcs, stating:
“It's hard. The main problem is that they're not connected to each other... they seem irritated with each other.”
[37:31]
Adaptation vs. Source Material
The movie's deviation from Alan Moore's graphic novels is a recurring theme. The hosts express disappointment that the film did not capture the high adventure and swashbuckling spirit of the comics:
“These are based on a comic series by Alan Moore... they are high adventure swashbuckling. And this is not.”
[11:09]
June Diane Raphael adds:
“I pulled the comics after I watched the movie just to be like, yeah, what's going on here? It's dynamite, it's fantastic... it's not at all what this movie is.”
[58:34]
Overall Impression and Conclusion
The consensus among the hosts is that "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" is a joyless and flawed adaptation that fails to deliver on its promise of high-stakes adventure and charismatic team dynamics. Paul Scheer encapsulates their sentiment:
“We appreciate how this episode had people who love it and have a different opinion, but clearly, this movie... it's a joyless experience.”
[65:05]
June Diane Raphael delivers a scathing conclusion:
“This movie is bad, but not bad enough that it makes for a fun two-hour experience. We shouldn't let them [audience] vote. We've got to take away their vote.”
[65:21]
Audience Reviews vs. Host Critique
In a twist, the hosts present overly positive reviews from unsuspecting audience members who seem oblivious to the film's flaws:
- Chandler Cobb (2021): Praises the movie for resembling the Indiana Jones series despite recognizing some flaws.
- Danny Brawny 2 (2020): Highlights the joyful ending despite the main character's ambiguous fate.
Paul Scheer humorously counters these reviews by emphasizing the movie's shortcomings:
“79% are five stars. This is unheard of.”
[59:10]
Final Thoughts
The episode concludes with the hosts firmly standing by their negative assessment of the film, underscoring the dissonance between critical reception and audience opinions. They express frustration over the incoherent narrative, underdeveloped characters, and technical missteps, ultimately deeming "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" an unworthy addition to the pantheon of bad movies.
Note: This summary omits promotional segments and non-content discussions to focus solely on the hosts' analysis and critiques of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen."