I'm new at Reddit and looking back this post became way longer than expected, so hopefully worth the read, my apologies if not. But for sure, there is no doubt a longer version of the movie, and I for one truly believe it would make a major difference in how TROS is perceived, as I’m getting really tired of these, still continuous, media references on how ‘bad’ this movie was. I happen to be one of the many, but less vocal, people that really loved The Rise of Skywalker. Yes, now that it has been analyzed and discussed to death, that ancient Sith knife and how it outlined the death star took some liberties, but it certainly didn’t ruin it for me. The Millenium Falcon light skips were unexpected compared to previous known capabilities, but certainly nothing compared to R2-D2 suddenly flying in the prequels. Palpatine and the thousands of star destroyers definitely could have been explained better, but if I had a real concern it would probably be the pacing, and the lack of downtime between the main characters, which is why I feel an extended version would really enhance the experience and make me and a lot of people even happier. Yes, I realize it was a big thing a couple of months ago with the “secret JJ cut”, but this humble opinion post is more of an equal attempt to argue for why an extended edition would make perfect sense, and equally why the so called general opinion of this epic movie is misplaced, and why it deserves another chance to show its merits. Although I have little doubt that it will become a classic on its own in due time, I firmly believe a longer version would appease some of its more vocal critics, reduce some of its perceived problems, and display its full potential.
Let me start by first saying that I don't believe for a second that there are secret versions, that George Lucas has made his own version, or that there was political, behind the scenes, conspiracies against JJ Abrams by Disney. I know that most of you do not believe that either, but I just wanted to emphasize that this is not that kind of a nutcase viewpoint. What I am 100% sure of though is that an initial 3 hours and 8-minute cut exists. How do I know? Well, the chief editor, MaryAnn Branson, said so in an interview, and she should know. She also said that the movie was never going to be that long, so it could be that this cut is filled with stuff that doesn't make sense or has lots of place holders, but I really don't think so. They obviously filmed so much that a first rough cut, just to get an everything-of-interest-in-there version of the film to start editing, would have been much longer than that. No, this is something they worked on, that made narrative sense, and was a solid initial take but too long, and my feeling is that they felt it was too long from a commercial perspective, as opposed to an artistic. This cut may, for lack of a better word, be 'duff' in that it is too slow in some areas or too repetitive or have other problems and it is most probably also missing many VFX shots. But it would seem to me that in between the 142 min we got, and the 188 min they started from, there is, with some goodwill from Disney, a great extended edition waiting to be released. We also know that John Williams originally produced 135 minutes of score, which indicates a considerably longer movie than 142 minutes compared to previous movies. According to co-writer Chris Terrio it was initially such an extensive scope that it was proposed to split the film in two parts. Admittedly, this discussion probably occurred at a story telling phase before actual filming commenced, but it nonetheless indicates a substantially more ambitious approach based on the written material.
JJ Abrams has said in interviews that he does not want to do it, as once he is finished with a film he is done. I can understand that. He has edited and created a film into an artistic experience with a certain pacing and feel, and it must be exhausting to go back and open that door again. Ending a trilogy is hard in itself but ending a triple trilogy must be close to directorial suicide, and although I would argue the critique is partly a media phenomenon, it clearly didn’t generate the uniformly positive response he was hoping for, or used to from The Force Awakens. Interviews with JJ have also indicated that he was aware of the challenge and that it would take a miracle to unify the fandom after The Last Jedi. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, for example, had some very solid books that were universally acclaimed to rest on. The Marvel Cinematic Universe had even more movies to conclude than Star Wars, but in this case Endgame was not only an ensemble movie, with many of the characters already having had their own stories examined and developed separately, it was also split into two parts with each of the parts over three hours long. In this perspective it is less surprising that many felt The Rise of Skywalker felt a bit rushed, which, together with some plot devices being underdeveloped, seems to be the most common concerns with TROS. There is probably little debate that, if TROS had another year of development, some of the pure story telling devices might have looked different and would have had time for another review.
But more surprising, compared to for example Endgame and Return of the King, is that it was relatively short. A movie of this magnitude, wrapping up something this epic, generational and emotional, is like two movies in one. It must have a story line that allows it to stand on its own, but also allow for some time to say goodbye to the characters and wrap up their individual stories. This was done very well in both Endgame and ROTK, and although TROS displayed fine craftsmanship it could certainly have spent a bit more time here and there. Going from adventure to adventure keeps the audience busy, but the ending becomes more abrupt if you feel there was little to no personal time with the characters. Scenes like Rey building her lightsaber, or Kylo Ren meeting the oracle, does perhaps little for the story itself and certainly pulls down the pacing while making the movie longer (and a lot of viewers most likely don't care or can't stand too long movies), but this is where an extended edition comes in. With an extended edition many of these concerns will fade and feel less significant. Agreed, many times extended editions are pointless and really does not add anything. However, those times it does, such as in Lord of the Rings, which Extended Edition movies were 4 hours long, it truly added nuance and was very gratifying to fans, not to mention sold another truck load of DVDs. An extended edition would generate money for Disney, would renew interest in the canon, and dare I say it would show the fandom that Disney do care.
Let's face it, in contrast to common disdain in certain parts of the fandom, Disney has been a tremendously positive incubator for Star Wars in general. The Force Awakens gave it a renaissance that makes it hard to even remember what it was before, unless we only look at the 40+ year old’s that remember the original trilogy from their childhood, trying to convince their kids that the old movies are much more watchable and fun than Ironman and Captain America. A hard sell I would say. Today's youngsters want to be Rey and Kylo Ren, but Obi-Wan or Count Dooku not so much. Solo was perfectly fine and Rouge One gorgeous, an instant classic. And it is not only the movies. Mandalorian is obviously wonderful, which was almost a no-brainer given Jon Favreau’s Midas' touch, and visiting Galaxy's Edge is a fantastic, surreal experience, and it sure was great to get another season of Clone Wars.
Nonetheless, TROS did have less than stellar reviews, especially compared to the others. Again, personally I loved it, but it comes back to how expectations have been stratospheric on such an epic wrap-up. I'm arguing that TROS suffered more in the general opinion than anything else by being too short, and that an extended edition could help eradicate some of the issues people had. Everybody knew it would always be a challenge to end this, so no matter what, some people would be disappointed. I get it, some things didn't turn out the way expected, or some things were a bit cheesy. I feel the same way. For example, I've always felt that when scenes or monsters occur in muddy darkness, like most of the end battle and the interactions with Palpatine, it is because VFX was either rushed or on a budget or both, and there certainly were an element of that, and I think that is fair. From all interviews I've read, with Brandon, Abrams, the firing of Trevorrow, there is no doubt it was rushed, they had little to no pre-vis and they even did editing on the set in the end. Yes, concerns we have, but guess what, with the possible exception of A New Hope, I've had these concerns and wished some of it was done differently in every each one of these movies. It is of course not rational, as very few things in life are perfect, but more of an expression of how much some of us care about these movies and want them exactly the way we want them. A religion indeed.
I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here, so bear with me, but there is also the elephant in the room, with the dilemma of the trilogy’s middle movie having a slightly rebellious director. Rian Johnson decide to somewhat take the story line astray, and in effect 'back-loaded' the third act with multiple story items to clean up. This is not to say the movie was poorly done or bad in any way, and I know many, especially film critics, thought it introduced interesting twists and was cinematographically beautiful. I think we can all agree on that. However, and this is where it becomes divisive, I would argue that that some of these ‘twists’ were not well thought out in terms of its consequences, and did not follow the original intent and therefore introduced massive damage control for the third act. It is not retroactive continuity if you have an overall story arc, even though not fully fleshed out, and the middle part suddenly gives mixed signals that seems to indicate a sharp turn in direction, which the third act then has to spend time clarifying. We've all heard how this sequel trilogy, just like the original, was intended to be written and formed by each part's director. However, there are also numerous interviews with Kennedy, Abrams, etc that explains that there were story points and milestones that had to be met. Quoted from Kennedy interview: “Colin was at a huge disadvantage not having been a part of Force Awakens and in part of those early conversations because we had a general sense of where the story was going,” Kennedy further said, “Like any development process, it was only in the development that we’re looking at a first draft and realizing that it was perhaps heading in a direction that many of us didn’t feel was really quite where we wanted it to go.” There were similar thoughts expressed after TLJ, which is likely why Disney didn't want the same happening to the final movie which had to wrap it all together. If Kylo Ren for example always was meant to have a redemption arc, it is not hard to understand why Disney felt hesitation continuing with Treverrow, similar to the way Rian Johnson likely did in his movie with some elements (that Disney/LucasFilm for some inconceivable reason let slide). We all know the debate, but I have to go there again with two of the most astonishing examples, not to argue a preference per se (although I have one) but more to show the challenge JJ faced after TLJ.
First, it is true that Luke were a already on the isolated island at the end of The Force Awakens, but that didn't mean he felt the whole Jedi had to end or that he would refuse to come to his sister's aid. And it certainly didn't mean that Luke Skywalker had turned into a person that would even consider killing his sister's child, who was put in his trust, and in his sleep. To me personally, these are unforgivable character assassinations of my childhood hero, and I think JJ felt the same. Listening to the TFA commentary track, when Rey and Luke looks at each other and she reaches him his old lightsaber, Abrams tells us how he loves the expressions on these two actors, and I quote "Luke looks at her and knows what it means, to accept this plea, and to come back to help". How Disney could allow Johnson to instead then let Luke turn his back on her in this moment, rejecting the plea for help in favor of a hermit life, and making the lightsaber handover a slap-stick comedy moment by having him nonchalantly throw it away, is beyond me. No wonder Mark Hamill continued to have strong reservations about this movie in all the interviews he made. He knew his character, and that is not how his character would have behaved.
Second, from a pure logical and story telling aspect it was another cheap trick to circumvent audience expectations by making Rey's parents nobodies. What is the point in that? Johnson have explained it with an interest in exploring what would be the worst that could happen to Rey, comparing it to Luke's father being a dark lord, and in an effort to misguidedly democratizing the force, coming to the conclusion that it would be if her parents were nobodies. Rian, let me explain this for you; Rey is sad that she was left behind and is seeking a belonging, while at the same time desperately wanting to know why. I don't think she for a second cared if her parents were the King and Queen of Naboo or nobodies. Just like George Lucas said himself, these stories rhyme, and I think it was beautiful that she experienced a similar thing as Luke in that her lineage was the worst possible in terms of evil. This is obviously something that is much worse than being a nobody, and it is ridiculous to think that someone like Rey would be disappointed in her parents for not being special or prominent. But regardless, let's just marinate on the term "The Skywalker Saga" and what that indicates. Did Johnson really think that anyone deep down would think it was satisfactory that the original trilogy was about Luke Skywalker, the prequels about Anakin Skywalker and then the sequels about a nobody scavenger girl that gets to enjoy the company, completely unrelated to the bigger picture, of the Skywalkers? It didn't occur for one moment that she would either be or somehow end up a Skywalker, and that this would make more sense? This story was admittedly about Kylo Ren/Ben as well, but it was much more so about Rey. The craftsmanship is wonderful, but this is a director who is obsessed by deflecting expectations, and that desperately wanted to introduce his own take and a clever twist. I'm sorry, but that is just egregious, self-pompous, and utter disrespect for the task given. It is actually easier to come up with plot vehicles that throws everybody off than it is to explain an expected story line in an engaging way. Not everything has to be a detective story. Well, this all became a bit of a rant, but my point is, TROS not only had a story to wrap up, it also had things to clear up that were left confusing from TLJ. Not necessarily retconning, but clear ups, as nothing in TROS really goes against what occurred in TLJ. I really love most of TLJ, and especially now that I can watch it knowing that some of the more questionable choices have been cleared up, but it also fair to say that I like it despite Johnson’s choices, and not because of them. (The casino excursion is still a fast-forward, again sorry, but I like to see one movie at a time. Rose was absolutely great, and I look forward to see Kelly Marie Tran in another movie where she is properly cast, and not shoe-horned in by a director just trying to create his own mark.)
You can't please everybody, but with TROS being the end of the saga, many die-hard fans expressed their feelings and it would seem a fair amount of them in wrath. As I myself loved it, it was initially interesting to read these reactions, and what it was that upset them that I had missed. Yes, this is admittedly not Shakespeare nor Ingmar Bergman, or as Harrison Ford himself said "It aint that kind of movie", but beyond all the usual trolls, and the unfortunate swath of people that somehow are attracted to trolls and their negative spew, there were arguably logical, reasonable, and well informed fans as well that were critical. It was as if many almost seemed to go through the classical stages of grief. They were in denial (where is the real JJ cut?), angry (this is all Kathleen Kennedy's fault), bargaining (Disney will erase the sequels from canon), depression (just going to pretend there were only six movies) and acceptance. Acceptance will take longer for these fans, similar to the way it did with the prequels. I believe an extended edition could not only help appease this part of the fandom, but a longer version now that the story is already known could actually allow them to enjoy it with their guard down, and ease the acceptance that their beloved story indeed has come to an end.
So were people in general really more disappointed with TRoS than, for example, ROTJ, which capped off the original trilogy back in its days? I took the liberty of looking into this. Starting with Rotten Tomatoes and the infamous 51% score. It is to begin with worth noting is that this score reflects the number of critics who were positive vs negative, and is not a rating per se. 240 critics gave a negative review and 250 gave it a positive. What is perhaps more telling is that ROTJ had an average rating among these of 7.23 out of 10 vs 6.27 for TROS among the top critics. Obvious advantage for ROTJ, but the 51% score for TROS is undoubtedly misleading. Looking at the audience exit score ROTJ have a very impressive 94%, but ROTJ is no slouch either with 86%. In fact, it is the same audience score as for The Force Awakens, and twice that of The Last Jedi at 43%. Looking at the actual audience rating, ROTJ comes in at 4.42 vs TROS 4.31, or close to a tie. To balance Rotten Tomatoes I also took a look at IMDB, where ROTJ have a very solid 8.3 and TROS a much more moderate 6.7. I would argue though that the scores for both TLJ and TROS were unproportionally affected by trolls, as 5% of TROS voters gave it a score of 1 out of 10, which basically makes all of these voters outliers on the bell curve. TLJ fared even worse, with 6.9% of voters giving it a 1. Looking instead at the median, i.e. the actual rating most people gave, it was a solid 8 for ROTJ and a 7 for TROS. Only 1% rated ROTJ at a 1. Based purely on comparing these two movies, it is probably also fair to expect the numbers for ROTJ being slightly affected by nostalgia, as obviously IMDB didn't exist at the time. This naturally apply to all pre-IMDB movies, but nonetheless worth noting when comparing sibling movies like this. In summary ROTJ earned a higher score than TROS, but TROS was held in high esteem with high ratings from its audience, and half of its critical reviewers. It fared less well at IMDB, but even its somewhat lower score doesn't reflect the more vocal complainers.
So why did it pull in less money than expected? This one is tougher, as money undoubtedly talks. It certainly wasn’t because of lack of interest. Referencing Wikipedia: "Pre-sale tickets went on sale on October 21, 2019 and the film sold more tickets in their first hour of availability on Atom Tickets than the previous record-holder for ticket sales, Avengers: Endgame. It became Atom Tickets' second-best first-day seller of all-time behind Endgame, selling more than twice the number of tickets as The Last Jedi sold in that same timeframe, while Fandango reported it outsold all previous Star Wars films." So what happened? Again from Wikipedia: "It went on to debut to $177.4 million, which was the third-highest opening ever for a December release and the 12th-best all-time, and it was also noted that Saturday (which saw a 47% drop from Friday's gross) was the busiest shopping day of the year, likely affecting ticket sales." However, wikipedia also notes that: "Deadline Hollywood did write that "we can't ignore" the less than stellar audience exit scores, which could affect the film's legs moving forward." Somewhere here that negativity herd started, and regardless of its motivation, bad word of mouth started to take its toll. For various reasons I had to see it a couple of days after the premiere and people were cheering and applauding in a packed theatre. However, I talked to a friend of mine directly after who asked, "How was it, was it as bad as they say?", which really is telling that something was going on. He went on to see it shortly after and absolutely loved it. I can't count how many reviews or forum comments I've read that said something along the lines that they initially really liked it at the theatre, but the more they read about it they realized it was bad. Besides saying a thing or two about people's strength in their own opinions in this day and age of social media, it is interesting how it almost can become a sport to bring down creative work that has involved thousands of people's hard work, and for what?
I'm going to bring up one professional reviewer as an example, because this critic, Scott Mendelson at Forbes, didn't just review TROS, he went on a personal, almost daily, crusade explaining how much this movie sucks and on so many levels. One has to question the motivation behind this, but a recurring theme was how TROS was blatantly retconning TLJ, something Mendelson apparently could not accept nor watch quietly. Or it could just be that negative articles generates better click bait, and that he gets paid based on viewers. His actual motivation doesn't matter, but googling TROS in the weeks after the premiere was sure to bring up at least one or two of his highly critical articles. He was admittedly not alone, but it is scary how general opinion is formed by what it written on the internet, and especially by well-known publications and their factory contributors that has to produce two or more articles a month with high readership. In comparison you seldom see a positive reviewer exposing this kind of behavior, which skews the perception a regular person's experience trying to figure out which movie would be fun to spend money on. I'm not sure why TROS received this kind of predatorial behavior, because even if we hypothetically assumed the movie was bad, clearly it wasn't so bad that it warranted a hunt. I'm sure analytics experts at Disney have been looking at this for months, but it would appear to me that once social media, with top search hits consisting of these pseudo blog journalists and youtubers, sniff out a possible issue with a highly prominent and exploitable event, such as a major film launch, there is endless click bait fodder to be gained. What is amazing is that this drum beat can even topple the marketing machine from a player like Disney. If people say a movie like TROS is garbage they are clearly not being rational, but for some reason almost politically obsessed to interpret things in black or white. (Come to think of it, perhaps this behavior actually do make perfect sense in our current political environment.) We know that Star Wars is a religion, but it never ceases to surprise to what extent. Toxic behaviors like this shows that the threat comes from within, and that we as fans are our own worst enemies. Of course, at the end of the day people love to categorize their impressions in black or white, good or bad, love or hate and I guess it is somehow easier to live life like that. But should at least more main stream media publications show some restraint in their endless click-baiting? I often enjoy bringing up Star Wars with people and I have yet to meet anyone that didn’t enjoy this movie. I have met a few though that haven’t watched it yet but heard it was bad.
I recently happened to re-watch The Dark Knight Rises, also a trilogy wrap-up, and some of you are undoubtedly thinking, sacrilegious, how can you even compare these! And the point is you can’t, they are very different movies with different restraints. The Nolan trilogy is truly epic and an astounding and dramatic take on the caped crusader, but it was also very dark and serious. Star Wars is much more adventure, it is supposed to be fun, and it is supposed to have stakes, but at the same time being watchable for a younger audience. One really has to keep this in mind. They both evoke strong emotions, but Star Wars has a bit of safety net built-in that Nolan never had to consider. Nolan further didn’t have to consider neither continuity nor an original creator like Lucas. This also brings the leaked script of Duel of the Fates to mind. It is certainly a very interesting script and I would have loved to watch and experience it. But, I can also see why this would have been another Rian Johnson version that neither fully respect nor rhymes with the previous ones. There were scenes and portions in DOTF I kind of wished Abrams would have kept, but it is also understandable that the story had to feel right and fit into his vision. I guess what I’m trying to say is that is not a question of whether TROS could have been a better movie or not. We know it could, as everything could, but by the same token it could also been a lot worse. It has many wonderful parts, and for most of us it was an amazing movie, that pulled in over a billion at the box office. Disney may not need to, but by releasing an extended edition this movie almost gets a second chance, and perhaps give even the most hard-liner critics a chance to re-evaluate their stance.
Perhaps an Extended Edition or Director’s Cut was, and has been, the plan from Disney all along? Something to fill the gap until the next movie or to spice up Disney+? It is certainly odd that we haven't seen any director's commentary, and not a single deleted scene yet. Could it be that these deleted scenes are being saved for a reason? Fingers crossed.

Actors Who Were Considered For Oscar Nominated Roles - Would They Still Have Been Nominated/Would They Have Won? Best Actress 1990s

Casino Royale (2006) is a thematically faithful adaptation of Flemings influential novel, a masterpiece and the greatest James Bond movie ever made. Here is a comparison I made between the movie/novel & my thoughts on both of them.

Over the last week I read Ian Flemings first James Bond novel Casino Royale for the first time and later re watched the movie. Here are some thoughts on both, including a comparison of similarities, differences and the over all enjoyment I get out of both of these pieces.
Technical aspects:
Casino Royale (novel, 1953), written by Ian Fleming [27 short chapters, around 250 pages, depending on edition]
Casino Royale (movie, 2006), directed by Martin Campbell [144 minute runtime]
Before diving into further comparisons, there are two obvious, but also significant differences between the movie and the novel. The first being the time it is set in, both are contemporary to their release date. Meaning the novel is set in the Cold War whereas the movie is set in the 21 century. Because of the resulting differences in international relations historically speaking, you could transfer it (but you don't have to) to the second difference. Flemings novel is a political espionage thriller, whereas Campbells movie re-boot is basically an action movie.
----------
Structure:
The over all plot of the movie is very similar, nearly identical to its source material.
James Bond, a fresh 00, is set in a high stakes Poker game against Le Chiffre, a desperate (& near bankrupt) banker working for terrorist organizations. Bonds allies are Mathis, Felix Leiter & Vesper Lynd. Bond wins the money, Vesper & him get captured, following the torture, Le Chiffre being interrupted/killed by a member of a mysterious organization. After Bond & Vesper seek a happy life, the latter is confronted with her "real" identity/past & kills herself, leaving Bond emotionally broken & eventually cold.
As said in my first paragraph, Flemings novel isn't an "action" novel. There is an early assassination/botched bomb attempt in the early chapters (similar to the airport sequence) but it's nowhere near as action heavy as the movie, which follows parkour chases, knife fights & bus/plane explosions, stairway fights & the closing crumbling house set piece.
Narratively Bond meets his allies way earlier, in the movie Vesper & Mathis are introduced around an hour in, whereas in the novel already in the first few chapters, Felix Leiter is introduced very late in the movie and only after Bond is struggling in the Poker game. The whole Dimitrious, Ellipse stuff isn't in the novel.
----------
Main characters:
- James Bond:
Bonds portrayal is very close to the novel. He's described as a very tough man, perfectly shown by Craigs physical appearance, his hard & masculine face & the early corporal fight scenes & chases. His attitude fits the source material. Bond is smart & charming, but he can switch of in any moment to being a ruthless killer.
- Vesper Lynd:
A big part of Vespers character in the novel is her beauty. There are long passages describing everything about her body & face. She certainly is beautiful in the movie, played by the gorgeous Eva Green. Yet in the movie she comes across as much more independent & aware. She's smart in the novel, but much more worthy in a psychological duel with Bond in the movie. In both the movie & novel she is a double agent, who got blackmailed & had to take this identity in order to save her boyfriend, but then fell in love with James.
- Le Chiffre:
Le Chiffre, in both movie & novel is a scary fucking dude. There still is something a bit charming about Mikkelsen presence though. He's described as considerably ugly in the novel, and basically as the epitome of evil. In the movie he comes across as more "human", desperation etc (make no mistake he's a vicious bastard, but he's not the devil).
- M:
The obvious difference is the gender swap in M. In the novel, Bond respects & in some way even fears M. The Bond/M relationship of Flemings books never really translated onto the bigger screen (it's tough to find someone intimidating against the charisma of Connery to be fair) so the change is an interesting touch. While he certainly respects Judi Denchs M, there is more slick and clever dialogue coming out of the conversations.
----------
The Poker Game:
The Poker game in the novel, as basically all of it, is set in France, whereas the movie jumps around Madagascar, the Bahamas, Venice & Montenegro, the latter being the setting of the poker game.
Also, in the novel they play Baccarat, which was very popular at that time, in the movie they play Texas Hold 'Em, which (surprise) was popular in that time. The game itself is similar structured, back and forth until Le Chiffre wins a big one and Bond is in huge desperation but comes back in the last round winning all of it (with the help of Felix Leiters money).
In both movie & novel, Le Chiffre tries to prevent/"attack" Bond during the last hand. In the movie he gets poisoned, which nearly causes him to pass out. In the novel, he is directly physically threatened by a bodyguard of the Le Chiffre with a gun under the table/chair.
--------
Remarkable similarities:
- Practically the entire torture scene is directly taken out of the source material. Bond gets stripped naked and tied up to a chair, then punched to the balls multiple times until the near pass out. Only difference is that in the movie Le Chiffre uses a rope, in the novel it is a carpet beater.
- Some dialogue & lines are extracted out of Flemings novel. Such as the VespeMartini order.
>Three measures of Gordons, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel. Got it?
Or the iconic line.
>The bitch is dead.
---------
Other differences:
- The whole Mathis alleged double cross plot point only appears in the movie.
- Vespers double cross, signaled by her seeing the man with the eye patch is left to a good bye letter in the novel that Bond reads after she'd poisoned herself. In the movie, she gives the man with the eye patch the money briefcase and after the shoot out in Venice, she traps herself in the elevator and drowns in the crumbling house.
- In the books, the mysterious organization is SMERSH, a russian anti spy organization. In CR it is still unnamed, though in the later Craig films revealed to be SPECTRE.
- The book ends very depressing as her betrayal letter is the last thing. The movie ends on a higher note with Bond capturing Mr White & ending the movie in his iconic introduction lines.
---------
I have certainly missed a ton of differences of both, but I feel like I have done enough to highlight most of them. Here are some of my personal thoughts:
The novel:
I had a ton of fun reading it for the first time. It's certainly colder & much more serious than a lot of James Bond movies but I liked that it felt more grounded and had espionage instead of thrills. There is a lot of political subtext added by Ian Fleming that reflects on the cold war and on spy agents themselves. It also features some great insight on the Poker game as Bonds mind is on full display with mathematical & stochastically relevant information throughout every hand. I think it ends on a very depressing and sad note, setting the tone for the character to come.
The movie:
I have always considered Casino Royale to be one of my favorite movies of all time. I think it's head and shoulders above every other James Bond film and every time I watch it I discover new things I love about it. The way the movie starts, with the cold blooded double-O earning in a noir fashion, then goes over to the gorgeous credit sequence with so much ingenuity sprinkled across it, is amazing. I'm also amazed by the action the movie has. The Parkour chase has some terrific stunt work & innovation. Or the airplane sequence is packed with enormous tension and suspense. Or the closing Venice shoot out is packed with bad ass moments by Bond. A lot of my love for the movie also comes from the cast. It does contain my a.) favorite Felix Leiter (played by Jeffrey Wright), b.) favorite Bond girl (Vesper Lynd by Eva Green), c.) the best M (played by Judi Dench) and one of my favorite Bond villains (played by Mads Mikkelsen, who is as terrific as ever). Martin Campbell has rock solid directing, focussing on the great stuff of the source material and just like in GoldenEye knowing how to introduce a new Bond & a new way of Bond into the franchise. Daniel Craig is relentlessly amazing. He has the charms, he definitely has the looks, he is believable in the kills, he has a soul, he has a heart, he has emotion. Only Connery is better. The movie also looks gorgeous. Not only its vast settings of exotic locations, beautiful women, high class restaurants, cafes or hotels, pieces of clothing and so on, but also its sharp image and cinematography, by Phil Meheux is astounding. Despite being literally written by three people it also contains some ingenious dialogue. Especially the Bond/Vesper interactions flow so crisply and soft. It's a joy to watch every second of it and I could be talking about it for hours.

All in all, Casino Royale is a great novel and in my opinion, an even greater movie which is a faithful adaptation but also adds many layers and new things to it, knowing that it already is part of a 20+ movie series and therefore adding nostalgia, references or treating its timeless main characters legacy with honor and self reflection.
What do you think about Casino Royale, both the novel & the movie?

Removed comments/submissions for /u/daan1234daan

The Junius Theory - & How Hays Could Crack The Case

(NB: for those who think ‘spoiler’ doesn’t go far enough - this post contains a theory about the role of an actor listed in the final 2 episodes on imdb - based only on his character name, previous roles & real-life physical appearance. In other words - ***IMDB Spoiler***)
Will Purcell is found dead, placed in the pose of his communion photo (taken by a Priest from St Michael’s Church of the Ozarks), and with straw dolls found leading to the scene (made by Patty Faber of the same church). Patty says that she sold these dolls to a black man with a filmy eye, these dolls were given to the children by two ghosts at Halloween, and the Priest says Julie was excited about seeing her Aunt (she has none).

The children had been lying to their parents about a secret playspot where they played Dungeons & Dragons, & had been given a bunch of new-ass toys - some of which had a third party's fingerprints on. Several statements place a white woman, a black man with a filmy eye/scarring, and an ‘upscale’ brown Sedan near to the playspot, murder scene & devil’s den in the months leading to and night of the murder.

Sam Whitehead says many black men sustained injuries whilst working on the chicken line. Lucy Purcell worked on the chicken line for Hoyt - who’s daughter (let's call her Heiress Hoyt) lost her child. This black man - let’s call him Junius (similar to the Latin 'juvenis', meaning 'young'/'children') - and let's say he looks exactly like this (actor Steven Williams, decent body of work, listed by imdb as cast as Junius for the final two episodes https://www.reddit.com/TrueDetective/comments/al6hkc/this_who_we_lookin_for_ppl/) could have sustained a facial & optical injury working on the chicken line, but his attitude/behaviour in his dealings with Hoyt in subsequent compensation conversations impressed the Hoyts, & maybe he ends up getting a much better job within the organisation, as an aide to Heiress Hoyt, say. Maybe he's romantically intertwined with the Heiress, I dunno. He buys himself a fancy brown Sedan once he's in his new role. Anyway, he's her right hand man, & following the loss of her child, Junius is directed to begin scouting children that the Heiress can Angelina Jolie (adopt/give a better life) to replace the one she lost.
Junius knows Lucy from the chicken line, her lifestyle & negative feelings towards her marriage and motherhood. He also suspects abuse within the home, given the way she talks (perhaps he even witnesses her beating her kids after work sometime). He works Lucy Purcell, & he is the conduit putting her & the Heiress in contact with eachother. He could have gotten photos for the Heiress of Julie & Will (communion photo) either from Lucy or from the Church that he bought the straw dolls, whilst scouting for new children (he bought lots of dolls 'for his nieces and nephews', says Patty Faber).
Lucy arranges meetings between the children & the Heiress with Junius supervising. Lucy tells the children not to tell their father about the meets. The Heiress falls in love with Julie. Sure, she could go down the adoption route for any child she liked. But this is the child that she wants. And the heady combo of being a millionaire spoilt brat who never hears the word 'No', & the mental health issues that come with losing a child & wanting *THIS* child to replace the one she lost is too great. Those around her have to make it work. She runs her plan past her father, Hoyt Sr, and he is livid. He pours cold water on it right away. Terrible idea. Warns her not to entertain it. But the Heiress doesn't care. She's got her heart set on Julie now. The Heiress directs Junius to arrange for Lucy to part with Julie for a fee (this cannot be done legally because Tom would not agree to it) and to set up Julie with a new identity. She waits for Hoyt Sr to be out of the country, on safari in Africa, before she snaps her plan into action.

Lucy is drawn in by the money, being able offload the motherhood responsibilities she never really wanted, and is comforted by the knowledge that Julie will go on to lead a better life (“children shud laugh”). Julie wasn't planned, she never wanted more kids, & at least now Julie can go on & experience tons of shit that she never would have growing up at Shoepick Lane (Shoepick?/Choupique? Choupique is caviar, right? The valuable offspring of mudfish/swamp trout? Damn, I need to crack a window up in here..). It's for the best. She gets paid, and Julie gets better. And fuck Tom, he, in all likelihood, isn't Julie's baby Daddy anyway (the Purcell grandparents allude to as much at the funeral, saying Tom was welding offshore in Texas when Julie was conceived). That's how Lucy feels about it. Maybe she says as much to the Heiress. Maybe not. But when the Heiress learns this, she begins to tell Julie that her parents aren't her parents, that SHE in actual fact is her real parent, and that Julie will be going somewhere not only better, but her TRUE home. Julie is now onboard. She's an aristocrat, and going home! The Heiress' mental health continues to decline. In her trauma, her lost daughter and Julie are now beginning to merge into one in her mind. She's losing the ability to distinguish between the two.

The children did not know that Nov 7th, 1980 would be their last day together, that their mother has sold one of them, as they cycle off to the meet spot. Maybe Will wasn't even supposed to go this time, but he goes out of protective instinct for his sister. When they realise what’s happening, they reject it. Will defends his sister, and distracts the adults, telling his sister to scatter & hide - he’ll find her later using his scouting ability (Hays in 1980 "you can imagine that little boy looking out for his sister. He was trying to defend her. That's what happened to him"). She flees on her bike. Will breaks free and cycles off in the opposite direction, forcing Hoyt & Junius to chase one or the other. They ignore Will, and pursue Julie. She's the target (West in 1980 - "they never wanted the boy"). After some time, thinking the danger has passed, Will tries to find his sister, asking Freddie Burns at Devil’s Den if he’s seen her. But Freddie chases him off. He runs back into the woods and back into Junius & the Heiress, who have found Julie and are taking her away. He tries to stop them taking her, and gives them little choice if they want their plan to succeed. During the struggle he is killed. To placate Julie, they place him in the cave in his communion pose (this is the Heiress' crazy way of trying to suppress Julie's screams & also convince her that her new Mom is compassionate, everything'll be okay) before marking the spot with straw dolls from his bag and leaving with Julie. They drive off, away from Devil's Den, in Junius' fancy brown Sedan.

On the way out of Arkansas, Junius contacts his cop on the Hoyt payroll and tells him to get on-scene to make sure he's in a position to tamper with any canvassing of neighbours or potential witnesses in the area. He’ll get a great job out of this off the Hoyts in the private sector, he’ll make sure if that. Sure enough, all mentions of a brown Sedan driving around, away from Devil’s Den, a black man with a filmy eye/scarring, by several neighbours are not included in field reports. The farmer was also interviewed by a white man with a badge immediately after the abduction, but this was not submitted either. The Hoyt Cop does his job well, & Hoyt’s Ozark Children's Outreach Centre charity disrupts the investigation with the reward, flooding the task force with bogus tips (Hoyt Sr knows nothing of this in Africa - he's left his corporation in the trusty stewardship of the Heiress, who makes the most of his resources while he’s gone). Finally, Junius completes the picture by passing evidence to the Hoyt Cop to plant on the Wrongfully Convicted Man - closing the case in 1980. Shortly after, the Hoyt Cop leaves the force & begins his six-figure salary job.

When Lucy realises what's happened to Will, that something terrible and unplanned has happened, she loses it. Her initial reaction is to blame & hit Tom ("All you had to do was watch HIM"). Although Will's death was unplanned, Lucy knows she's out of options. She has no choice. She has to stay silent. Telling the truth would result in either her murder or her imprisonment for child trafficking. After all, she played a part in this too. Junius calls her to underscore this warning. Later, seeing Tom's anguish, Lucy sends a ham-fisted note to her own home to inform the task force & her husband that Julie has not been harmed. The FBI agent even says ”the envelope’s handwritten, this isn’t a brainiac”. Lucy stays silent, and descends into alcoholism & despair. Out of guilt, she later commits suicide in Vegas, where she spends the last of the money the Heiress gave her (Sharon Stone in Casino-style). Prior to her death, hearing of her addiction (or that she was throwing around a lot of loose cash), her cousin, Dan O'Brien, visits her under pretence of caring for her welfare. Lucy tells Dan what she did before offing herself. Or maybe she didn't off herself. Maybe Dan's just a greedy fuck who sees the money Lucy's carrying, how she's suicidal, and sees the win-win. He spikes her needle with a hot shot, takes the money, & goes to find Junius to extort the Heiress for more. He's just as stupid & greedy as Lucy was. Junius brutally silences him, dumping his body, broken in a hundred places, in a quarry in Missouri.

Julie never accepts her new family after witnessing Will's death, and as soon as she is able, she flees, seeing her only choice as living as a homeless kid on the street (in 2015, Hays foggily recollects “in 90 I found the video footage, we learned about Julie Purcell, that group of street kids”). Approaching the authorities is not an option for her, as they would simply return her to the family she believes beat & sold her (she doesn’t yet know her mother is dead, believes Tom isn't her birth Daddy; & the peephole wasn’t a peephole, the children would pass messages to one another when Lucy would beat them). The Heiress despatches Junius & his mercenaries to hunt Julie down in 1990. Junius knows they can’t convince Julie to return to her new home - they just have to silence her. Hays was right, the clock is ticking - they need to find her first. And they don't.

In Episode 2, a website Elisa Montgomery shows Hays in 2015 is titled ‘The Purcell Murders’ - plural. Sadly, I think the Heiress' people get to Julie first. Her murder in 1990 causes her father, Tom, to commit suicide, devastating West. Or maybe the task force does find Julie, and returns her to Tom. Maybe Roland is real happy with himself, & promises Tom 'everything's gonna be OK from now on, buddy'. But right before she has a chance to settle in, be rehabilitated, & talk to the police about what happened to her & Will, Junius finds her & kills her. Either way, the end result is Julie is dead, & Tom takes his own life - and Roland is crushed with anguish. The Heiress' mental health completely implodes. West & Hays are pressured to withhold any evidence that does not support the conviction of the Wrongfully Convicted Man, and Hays, insisting they pursue the 'black man with scarring & white woman' is forced out for his insubordination. West knows Hays is right, but goes about things differently. He's a more sophisticated political beast, and doesn't have quite as big a mouth. He knows they'd need police resources to solve this case. So he bites his tongue, plays along with the Attorney General's request, and watches as his buddy gets canned. The case is closed, and it would appear that up to 2015, the Heiress' conspiracy to abduct Julie, which resulted in the murders of both Will & Julie, has not yet been publicly exposed.

My theory is that Hays continues to pursue the case in 90. Off the force, he will need all the investigatory help that he can get from Roland & Amelia to go rogue as a true detective and solve the case - just like Rust needed Marty. West is a careerist, but privately devastated at what happened to Tom Purcell, a man he steered from suicidal depression back to functioning sobriety only to lose him because they were too slow in getting to Julie first (or failing to protect her adequately once they did). He is onboard all the way. He owes Tom for what happened to him & his kids. He, like Marty in S1, 'has a debt', and just like Marty, he will bring police resources into play on the DL to repay that debt.

So - what ways can they go to crack the case wide open? :
- Option 1: Find Junius. Get that list of all work-related injuries sustained at the Hoyt plant by African-Americans. Check their vehicles, fingerprint all of them by open or clandestine means, and correspond fingerprints to those found on the children’s toys (requiring West's police access). This should give them a hit on Junius, who will give them the Heiress, who will give them what happened to Julie & Will.
- Option 2: Find The Hoyt Cop. Rundown all the police who worked canvassing during the ’80 investigation. Locate all the neighbours, which ones feel their statements were either redacted or suppressed, and whose signature is on them? Where are those cops now, what did they do, who left the police during or after the investigation, and who has links to Hoyt? Who came into money during or just after 1980? Who made large purchases, home, car during or after 1980? The evidence that was planted on the Wrongfully Convicted Man - who found it? Who processed it? Whose signatures are on the scene? West can provide that information. Once you got a list, take that damn photo array to the farmer. Have him ID the cop who visited him. This should give them the hit on the Hoyt Cop, who will give them Junius & the Heiress.
- Option 3: ID The Sender of the Letter. Compare family handwriting samples with the envelope handwriting the letter was sent in. West would need to supply this. This would give them Lucy, but she is dead, and so can't be compelled to talk. But at least now they know that this wasn't an abduction. This was child trafficking. Which gives them Option 4.
- Option 4: Follow The Money. Investigate Lucy’s finances. Child trafficking is highly profitable. If there was a transaction, the money must be somewhere, & come from someplace. Although, it would be difficult for West to investigate this without attracting the attention & fury of his superiors.

The only route here that protects West while still using his police resources without his superiors noticing is for Hays & West to pursue the Hoyt Cop (probably now an ex-cop, in a better paid role - similar to Junius, thanks to the Heiress). I think they find him (this is the guy - https://www.reddit.com/TrueDetective/comments/alk2ml/theory_the_suited_manwhat_hays_left_in_the_woods/), and beat him heavily for information. The ex-cop gives them Junius - everything he did, killing Will, snatching Julie, interfering with the investigation, and having Julie killed... But he senses he won’t make it out of this interrogation.. He makes a move, & tries to grab Roland's gun. Hays draws quickly & guns him down. This wasn't part of the plan. They're murderers now. The Hoyt Cop joins the Vietcong in Hays' 2015 hallucination of all the men he has killed. But now they gotta make this look right. They bury the Hoyt Cop deep in the woods (he is who Hays' 2015 hallucination of Amelia is referring to when she taunts him about what he ‘left in the woods’) before burning their clothes (that's what he's burning in the BBQ in the 'coming soon in the weeks ahead' trailer). This changes everything. They know who they're after now. But they killed their way getting there. There's no going back.

They track down Junius, and Roland needs no invitation to deal with him. "You had the last one, Purple. This one's all mine..." He looks at Hays. "For Tom." Hays watches as Roland brutally beats & tortures Junius. Finally satisfied, Roland pulls out his gun and takes aim at Junius' head. But before he can execute him, a familiar hand pushes his arm down once more. "Don’t. Wait a minute. I want to know the whole story" says Hays. "Tell me why. What was all this for, a paedophile ring? A trafficking ring? Who's running the show? How many other girls are out there?" Junius says it was neither. It was all about Julie. He tells about the Heiress, her lost child, her trauma, how he tried to get her to go down the adoption route, but once she met Julie, it was all about her. And Lucy agreed to it. She got paid. It was win-win-win: a willing mother's pain soothed, an unwilling mother's burden lifted, & a better life for a little girl. Or at least, that was the plan. But Will wasn't supposed to be there. It wasn't supposed to go down like that. And once Julie fled the nest, having witnessed that, they could never let her talk. He never really had a choice. Hays is rocked. But Roland is unmoved. Still focused. "We done here, Purple?" Hays nods, and moves aside, stunned by this revelation. Roland puts a bullet in Junius' good eye. "Now they match, motherfucker." He goes to spit on Junius in his vengeful rage, but Hays pulls him off. “DNA.... DNA, man! C’mon! Get yourself together.”

This leaves only the Heiress. They track her down to the castle-type home drawn in Julie's pictures. But when they finally catch up to her, they look at each other, stunned. She's now almost completely vegetative in her mental collapse. Hays shakes his head. No, man. We can't do this. Let's just do this legit. Put all what we got so far on the table and send her ass to jail. Roland darkens. He can't believe what he's hearing. He shakes his head. "Im sorry partner, but u whistlin’ Dixie on this. Think. Think! Think on what she done. Will! Julie! Tom! A whole entire family. Wiped out like a turkey grease spot. Because of this person. This woman. Now, she got to pay. And even if we got all our evidence admitted in court, we'd surely go down with it....... Junius? The Hoyt Cop? We'd be in the jail cell right next to hers. Except she ain't going to jail, son. When Daddy Hoyt gets wind of this shit, he's gonna spend every last million he has getting his daughter off the hook. She's crazy, your honour. Diminished capacity. She never done nothing, your honour, she was just rambling crazy! They’ll put as much of it as they can on Junius. Best case scenario, she eats the manslaughter wrap, cushy psychiatric discharge to a mental facility. She'll live out her last days in pretty much the same way she doing now. Comfortable. Warm bed. TV. Regular nappy changes. Visits from family whenever she wants. Don't you see? Don’t you SEE? Whether she eats the conviction or not, her life won't change. It won't make a difference. She won't pay for what she done. And to let her skate, after doing what she done? No. We got no choice. We got to put her down for real. For good."
But Hays believes in a fair kill. He hunts boar because if you miss, they can kill you too. He'll only hunt deer with a bow - & never with bait or using a stand. He'll only pull the trigger when shot at. He killed the Hoyt cop because he drew him down first, and he killed in Vietnam because they were shooting at him. No. This ain’t him. They've gone all the way, done so much in this case together, but this, he can't do. The Heiress is defenceless. It’s not a fair kill. Hays puts a hand on Roland’s shoulder. “I'm sorry, partner." Hays walks away as Roland takes a deep breath, & puts his leather gloves on. He takes long, shaky, multiple swigs from his hip flask. And then he murders the Heiress.

The Heiress doesn't appear in Hays 2015 vision of all the people he killed, because he put it on Roland. That ends their friendship in '91. Hays can't look at him anymore - and Roland can't look at himself. Roland hits the bottle big time. He's glad he got Junius for Tom. He had to do that. But murdering a woman with your own hands? That's not him. But now, it is him. This was something he never thought would be in his life. And now he can’t shake it. There’s no one he can talk to about it. He'll never forgive Hays for putting all that weight on him. His drinking collapses his relationships. His girlfriend doesn't understand why he's lit all hours of the day, always angry, always tense, or won't talk about it. The nail in the coffin of their relationship comes when State Attorney General Kindt figures out that Roland's been pursuing a closed case.
Kindt walks into West’s office & closes the door. Roland looks weathered, still wearing his hangover, but lights up when he sees a real friend for a change. “Mornin’ Sir”... Until he sees the look on Kindt’s face. “Take a seat, West.” "You were given strict orders Lieutenant West. Your remit was to lead a task force supporting the conviction of the Wrongfully Convicted Man. The murder of Julie Purcell closed that case. Now, Hays wanted to go off all half-cocked and pursue 'a black man with scarring', was it? And start running down former cops from '80? He wanted to go off running his own detail unsupervised. So he got canned. And lookie here, in the news. A black man with scarring found shot up. And a former cop from '80 is reported missing by his family. Now, I'm not saying it's you, West, but there's no way Hays could have done this without access........ I sure liked you....... But you're done. Turn in your badge and gun by the end of the day." Kindt gets up to leave, before turning around. "But because I liked you, I'll be fair. Drop on your sword. If you resign today, and you keep your mouth shut about all of this? You can keep the pension. Your good name. Your freedom. Or we can go that other way. I'll make sure you end up in the same cell as half the men you put away. You ever hear what happens to cops in prison?...............Yeah.......... Good day to you...... Mr West.” West knows this is checkmate. He's toast. He got no moves here. He is constructively canned, and walks into his home to tell his girlfriend he just lost his job. They don't last long after that. West lives alone with his demons, bitter & haunted, into old age.

24 years pass.

By 2015, Hays has been robbed of his memory of these events by his dementia. Hays does not solve the case in 2015. He simply figures out that he already done solved it in 1990! Maybe, with his condition, this isn't the first time he's gone through this process. He's trapped in a locked room. Having the same dream. Again. And again. And again. Time is a flat circle for him now. 2015 Roland knows this. He sees his friend's condition. He just doesn't wanna go back into that head place. Maybe this is the first time Hays has approached him about this, maybe it's the 10th time. But Roland don't wanna know, don't wanna go back there. The bleakest time of his life. He smoked his own career to make that shit right. But the murders they done. Tom's suicide. Their failure to protect Julie, breaking his promises to Tom, all whilst he was steering the task force. And the murder of a woman (the Heiress) by his hand. All that pain, death & anguish. "Nah, man. I don't wanna think about that shit or eat no boar meat, man. Motherfucker. Just get me two fingers of Southern Comfort."

The purpose of the 2015 timeline is twofold: 1. to help Hays remember (maybe not for the first time, but for the final time) that he brought satisfactory closure to the case, and also to his life. Amelia is dead, & Roland won’t go beyond cryptic hints about what they done. But Hays’ visions of Amelia & interactions with Roland & Elisa help him finally piece together & remember what they did. He finally reads the closing chapter of his Wife’s book, which contains a warm & loving tribute to him, with hints that she knew exactly what he & West went through to bring justice to the children's killers. What it cost them. What it cost him. In their souls, their careers. Carried for life, like a weight. And that in the end, as a marriage, they did live a genuinely loving, loyal & happy life together. And now, satisfied in remembering that, Hays can take the handgun from his drawer and return peacefully to be with his wife ("I may be deciding I don't want to stay alive without your mother"), whilst also simultaneously tying up the one last loose end of the case....
The second purpose of the 2015 timeline is to blow the Hoyt corporation & the political careelegacy of State Attorney General Kindt into the ether, and overturn the conviction of the Wrongfully Convicted Man. This couldn't be done in the past, because in blowing the lid off this mess, Hays knew he would be exposing himself to a murder charge, & possible retribution from the Hoyt corporation. But in 2015, with the Hoyt family mostly deceased, and no death row awaiting him in the afterlife, Hays is comfortable blowing the lid off this godforsaken mess, giving Roland some sweet revenge on his old boss Kindt, & giving the Wrongfully Convicted Man's family the peace of mind they deserve. Because now that he has found peace of mind & closure, Hays realises that everybody deserves peace of mind & closure. And he wants to give it to them.
After Hays' funeral, his son, Henry, finds a note directing him to the dictaphone, which details from start to finish the real truth about the Heiress' child trafficking activity, Junius, the murders of Julie & Will, Lucy's complicity, the Hoyt cop, Kindt’s purposeful obstruction of justice.... and Henry gives it all to Elisa.

Elisa gets exactly what she wanted. True Criminal goes viral globally - Serial style - blowing the case wide open. Elisa obtains Sarah Koenig-style celebrity, but more importantly, this allows the Wrongfully Convicted Man's family to finally clear their father's name, with the reputation of the Hoyt corporation & the political career of State Attorney General Kindt blown to dust. Hays & West become folklore renegade heroes for their acts, just like Rust & Marty.

But Henry knows the details now shared could expose his father's old buddy Roland to a charge, despite his age. He owes that old man a visit, an explanation, maybe some modern legal advice on how to protect himself from the media & legal intrusion that's a-coming by pinning all the murders on his father, Wayne. He secretly loves that his father did that vigilante shit. He's happy for him to take the weight. Maybe Wayne already did put the weight on himself in the dictaphone message, maybe Henry taped over the bits that mentioned murder, but the media/law are still surely gonna come knocking for Roland at some point now, with questions. Cause this shit is worldwide. It's viral. Everybody’s gonna want a piece of Roland. They need to co-ordinate, he owes him that courtesy as a minimum.

The final shots of the season are of the family of the Wrongfully Convicted Man paying their private respects at the side-by-side graves of Wayne & Amelia Hays for salvaging their father's name (if the Wrongfully Convicted Man is Woodard, maybe it would be cool if they sung the Native American Warrior's Mourning Song with a solemn dignity, draping their father's Vietnam medals over Wayne's grave in respect https://youtu.be/uzf3bjyDNAY); and Henry Hays arriving at Roland West's home to give him the dictaphone, tell him what his Dad said, and co-ordinate.
As he arrives, Roland is hollering & hoo-eeeing with delight at his TV watching the news as the cuffs go on Gerald Kindt. They go outside & share a Soco dub on the porch in a knowing, satisfied silence. They look up, watching the big harvest moon. What it means to them. How before, it was just a reminder of the cold. Of all the pain. And now, how it floods everything with light. After some time, Roland glances at the dictaphone that Henry brought. Roland grins, looks toward the harvest moon, then, at peace with his past, finally, drawls "Y'know, sunnnn... The thing about yr Daddy.......... He always did have a big fuckin’ mouth". They laugh. Henry: "Yessir :) He sure did.. He sure did."
CREDITS.

Cowboy Bebop - 1x03: "Honky Tonk Women" Episode Discussion

MCU Movies Behind the Scenes Facts *Wanted to do this for fun* Day 1: Iron Man

So i'm going to go on IMDB and look at each MCU movies behind the scenes facts and POST THE MOST INTERESTING ONES here, I will post each movie a day instead of what I did before where I did 10 posts, I will start with the first Iron Man today and each day will be the next MCU movie after it, ending with Guardians 3, if people like this and want me to do the Netflix shows, Agents of Shield and Agent Carter, please let me know...OK....let's start

IRON MAN

1. The script was not completely finished when filming began, since the filmmakers were more focused on the story and the action, so the dialogue was mostly ad-libbed throughout filming. Director Jon Favreau acknowledged this made the film feel more natural. Some scenes were shot with two cameras, to capture lines improvised on the spot. Robert Downey, Jr. would ask for many takes of one scene, since he wanted to try something new. Gwyneth Paltrow, on the other hand, had a difficult time trying to match Downey with a suitable line, as she never knew what he would say.

2. Paul Bettany has never seen the film, and is unfamiliar with the plot. He said J.A.R.V.I.S. was the easiest job ever, and it was almost like a robbery, since he only worked for two hours, got paid a lot of money, then went on vacation with his wife (Jennifer Connelly).

3. Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) was originally a much smaller part. In fact, the character at first was only called "Agent", and as filming went on, and it became apparent with Gregg's chemistry with all the other cast members, they added more and more scenes.

4. Director Jon Favreau wanted Robert Downey, Jr. because he felt the actor's past was right for the part. He commented: "The best and worst moments of Robert's life have been in the public eye. He had to find an inner balance to overcome obstacles that went far beyond his career. That's Tony Stark. Robert brings a depth that goes beyond a comic book character having trouble in high school, or can't get the girl." Favreau also felt Downey could make Stark "a likable asshole", but also depict an authentic emotional journey once he won over the audience.

5. To avoid spoilers about the final press conference, the extras were told that it was a dream sequence.

6. Tony Stark's computer system is called J.A.R.V.I.S. (Just A Rather Very Intelligent System). This is a tribute to Edwin Jarvis, Howard Stark's butler. He was changed to an artificial intelligence to avoid comparisons to Bruce Wayne's butler Alfred Pennyworth.

7. This is Marvel Studios' first self-financed movie.

8. In an interview with Britain's Empire Magazine, Robert Downey, Jr. thanked Burger King for helping him get straight in 2003, with a car full of drugs. He had a burger that was so disgusting, it made him rethink his life, and dump the drugs in the ocean. He repeats this, with his impromptu sit-down session with the press, upon his return from captivity. Burger King also promoted the film with toys based on this movie, as well as the sequel.

9. Jeff Bridges said he felt really uncomfortable not having a script or rehearsals, since normally he is very prepared, and knows his lines to the "T". But realizing it was like he was in a "two hundred million dollar student film" took the pressure off of him, and made it fun.

10. The Iron Man (1966) theme track can be heard in the film on several occasions: in the casino, in Stark's bedroom, and as Rhodey's ringtone.

11. Roughly four hundred fifty separate pieces make up the Iron Man suit.

12. To prepare for his role as Iron Man, Robert Downey, Jr. spent five days a week weight training and practiced martial arts to get into shape.

13. The roadster on which Tony Stark was working is owned by director Jon Favreau.

14. According to Paul Bettany, he did not know on which film he was working. He merely did the job as a favor for Jon Favreau, with whom he worked, in Wimbledon (2004).

15. This is the last film special effects expert Stan Winston completed before his death.

16. Jon Favreau celebrated getting the job as director by going on a diet and losing seventy pounds.

17. Four hundred extras were meant to be filmed standing at Tony Stark's press conference, but Robert Downey, Jr. suggested they ought to sit down, as that would be more realistic and comfortable.

18. Stan Lee, the creator of Iron Man, had originally based Tony Stark on Howard Hughes, who he felt was "one of the most colorful men of our time: an inventor, an adventurer, a multimillionaire, a ladies man, and finally, a nutcase." Robert Downey, Jr. further described his portrayal of Stark as "a challenge of making a wealthy, establishmentarian, weapons-manufacturing, hard-drinking, womanizing prick, into a character who is likeable, and a hero."

19. An early draft of the script revealed Tony Stark to be the creator of Dr. Otto Octavius' tentacles from Spider-Man 2 (2004). Octavius is a villain from the Spider-Man comic, but at the time, this wouldn't have been allowed, as Sony was the film rights holder to Spider-Man. However, Sony and Marvel agreed to share the film rights to the character in 2015, with Spider-Man/Peter Parker (Tom Holland) first appearing in Captain America: Civil War (2016), where he's introduced to Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.). Downey reprised his role in future Marvel Cinematic Universe films alongside Tom Holland as Peter ParkeSpider-Man.

20. Jon Favreau shot the film in California, because he felt that too many superhero films were set on the East Coast, especially New York City. As of May 2018, only seven of the nineteen films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe have featured New York City in some capacity. These being The Incredible Hulk (2008), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), The Avengers (2012), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015); Doctor Strange (2016), Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), and Avengers: Infinity War (2018).

21. For the first three Iron Man movies, director Jon Favreau thought of making the Iron Monger the main villain of the second film. Stane was going to be Stark's friend and confidante in the first film, but then would become his enemy in the second installment. However, Favreau was worried how to handle The Mandarin, who was to be the villain of the first film, so he decided to re-work the character into a behind-the-scenes presence, and make Iron Monger the first villain.

22. (At around one hour and fifty minutes) Just before the final press conference, Tony Stark is reading the newspaper with a grainy, amateur photograph of Iron Man on the cover. The picture is part of a video, shot by onlookers hiding in a bush during initial filming, that appeared on the Internet in 2007.

23. (At around one hour and twenty-five minutes) When Pepper discovers Tony removing the damaged Iron Man armor, Captain America's shield is on a workbench. This same scene was shown in many trailers, but the image of the shield was edited out.

24. (At around fifty-eight minutes) Obadiah Stane plays on the piano a musical piece written by eighteenth century composer Antonio Salieri. Salieri is best known as a jealous rival of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and was said to have murdered Mozart (although historical records have proven that, on the contrary, both had collaborated on, and promoted each other's work on several occasions). This serves as an appropriate parallel of Stark and Stane's relationship in the film.

25. Gwyneth Paltrow only needed to travel fifteen minutes to get to the studio. She claimed that this is a part of the reason she took the role, as she could be home with her two children during the entire shoot.

26. To prepare for his role as Obadiah Stane, Jeff Bridges read some of the "Iron Man" comic books that featured Stane. He also grew a beard and shaved his head, which he said was something he'd always wanted to do.

27. There are about five sets of armor in the film, all inspired from the "Iron Man" comics: Mark I armor, Stark's first suit, is a simple suit constructed of iron. Mark II armor is a silver suit, the prototype Stark develops (this can also be counted as the War Machine armor, as Rhodes looks speculatively at it). Mark III armor is the final red and gold armor. J.A.R.V.I.S. first presents the Mark III armor in full gold, the look pays tribute to the all-gold "Golden Avenger" armor Iron Man wore early in his career. J.A.R.V.I.S. later presents the armor in silver and red, making it look almost identical to Iron Man's "Silver Centurion" armor that he wore in the 1980s.

28. During the final battle, there was originally going to be a sequence where Tony, in the Iron Man suit, drives an Audi R8 that would crash into Iron Monger's legs then flip over, after which Iron Man would split the car in half and jump out. However, the Audi R8 was so well-built, that it refused to flip, despite repeated crashes and the roof wouldn't split the way director Jon Favreau wanted it to, because the car's frame was so tough. As a result, the whole final fight sequence was re-written. The filmmakers were so impressed by the toughness of the car, that it was decided that the convertible version was to be featured in Iron Man 2 (2010).

29. (At around one hour and forty-five minutes) During the highway battle with Iron Monger, a building can be seen in the background with a Roxxon logo. In the Marvel Universe, Roxxon is a notorious conglomerate known for illegal activities, agents of which were responsible for the deaths of Stark's parents.

30. During pre-production, Robert Downey, Jr. set up an office next to Jon Favreau's office, to discuss his role with him, and to be more involved in the film's screenwriting.

31. It took approximately seventeen years to get the film into development. Originally, Universal Pictures was to produce the film in April 1990. They later sold the rights to Twentieth Century Fox. Later, Fox sold the rights to New Line Cinema. Finally, Marvel Studios decided to handle their own creation.

32. Jeff Bridges, hearing that Obadiah was a Biblical name, researched the Book of Obadiah in the Bible, and was surprised to learn that a major theme in that particular book is retribution, which Obadiah Stane represents. However, the name "Obadiah" means "servant and worshiper of the Lord", which Stane obviously isn't.

33. In the comics, Obadiah Stane ran his own company (Stane International), and was actually a business rival to Tony Stark, rather than being part of Stark Enterprises.

34. Agent Phil Coulson repeatedly states he is a member of the "Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division" (finally shortening it to S.H.I.E.L.D.). In the comics, the S.H.I.E.L.D. Agency originally stood for the "Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage/Law-Enforcement Division", then in 1991, it was revised to the "Strategic Hazard Intervention/Espionage Logistics Directorate".

35. An early draft of the script had the Mandarin appear in the film, re-imagined as an Indonesian terrorist.

36. The production met with about thirty different writers, and they all passed, as most of them felt that Iron Man was a relatively obscure character in the Marvel universe. They were also a bit nervous about working for an untried studio better known for producing comic books. Even the re-writes led to many refusals.

37. In the comics, Tony Stark participated (and became Iron Man) in the Vietnam War. Later, this was changed to the Gulf War. In this film, the character's origin was changed to Afghanistan, as director Jon Favreau did not wish to make the film a period piece, but instead give it a realistic contemporary look.

38. Gwyneth Paltrow based her performance on 1940s heroines (who she claimed were sexy, witty, and innocent all at once).

39. In the Ultimate Marvel Comics series, the character of Nick Fury is portrayed as African-American, with his look and personality tailored after Samuel L. Jackson, all carried out with Jackson's explicit permission. During one of the Ultimate Avengers issues, while discussing the possibility of a movie being made about them, and which actors would play which heroes, Nick Fury comments that nobody else but Samuel L. Jackson could play him. Jackson, himself a comic book fan, played Fury in this movie. Later on, the popularity of this character led Marvel to introduce this character into the mainstream comics as "Nick Fury, Jr.", the son of the original Nick Fury, in a move to work towards retiring the original from the mainstream universe.

40. According to Jon Favreau, when making this film, there was a lot of pressure for it to succeed. This was particularly due to Marvel using their characters as collateral when they received a five hundred twenty-five million dollar, seven year deal, called a non-recourse debt facility, allowing them to make original films based on their properties. Marvel wanted to have complete creative control over their characters, build a film library, and greater profit potential than the deals they've inked with other studios owning the film rights to their characters. Marvel also changed its name to Marvel Entertainment, Incorporated, to establish a Hollywood presence. If the film didn't succeed, Marvel would've lost the intellectual property rights to their library.

41. Rachel McAdams was Jon Favreau's first choice to play Pepper Potts, but she turned the role down. She played a role in Doctor Strange (2016).

42. The Iron Man Mark I armor weighed ninety pounds.

43. An animatronic puppet of the Iron Monger was built for the film by Stan Winston Studios. It stood ten feet tall, and weighed eight hundred pounds, and was built on a set of gimbals, to simulate walking. It required five operators to run it.

44. According to Jon Favreau, Clive Owen, and Sam Rockwell are among the actors that were considered for Tony Stark during pre-production. Rockwell played Stark's rival Justin Hammer in Iron Man 2 (2010).

45. Chapter One of Phase One in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

46. Hugh Jackman was offered the role of Tony Stark.

47. According to Terrence Howard, he and Robert Downey, Jr. competed physically on the set: "I'm forty to fifty pounds heavier than him, so I'm lifting and I push up about two hundred twenty-five, and knocked it out ten times. Robert wanted to go about two hundred thirty-five, and he did it, so I pushed it up to about two hundred forty-five. Robert and his competitive ass almost tore my shoulder trying to keep up with him!"

48. The cave that imprisons Tony Stark was a one hundred fifty to two hundred yard-long set, which had built-in movable forks, to allow greater freedom for the film's crew. It also had an air conditioning system installed, as production designer J. Michael Riva had learned that remote caves are actually very cold.

49. This was the first in a planned six-picture deal between Marvel and Paramount, before the acquisition of Marvel by Disney, which transferred the distribution rights of The Avengers (2012) and Iron Man 3 (2013) to Disney, while Paramount kept the rights to Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), and Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) until Disney acquired them.

50. To prepare for her role as Pepper Potts, Gwyneth Paltrow asked Marvel to send her any comics to aid her understanding of the character.

51. For some of the shots of the first incarnation of the Iron Man suit, director Jon Favreau performed the motion capture.

52. Rock guitarist Tom Morello assisted Ramin Djawadi in composing the film's soundtrack. Morello had a cameo in the film as an Insurgent who gets killed when Tony Stark escapes the cave (perhaps fittingly, since Morello is a member of the band Rage Against the Machine).

53. Originally, Iron Man's archnemesis, the Mandarin, was going to be the film's villain, but Jon Favreau felt him to be too fantastic and dated, so he was re-written into a "working-behind-the-scenes" presence. Favreau cited "Star Wars" as a case: "I looked at the Mandarin more like how in 'Star Wars' you had the Emperor, but Darth Vader is the guy you want to see fight. Then you work your way to the time when lightning bolts are shooting out of the fingers, and all that stuff could happen. But you can't have what happened in Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) happen in Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)."

54. (At around one hour and forty minutes) In the film, Rhodey (Terrence Howard) looks at the Mark II armor and says "Next time, baby!" hinting at War Machine, Rhodey's alter-ego. An animation of a War Machine suit, with a Gatling gun attached to a shoulder, can be seen in the closing credits. War Machine appeared in Iron Man 2 (2010), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), Captain America: Civil War (2016), and Avengers: Infinity War (2018). However, in those films the role of James Rhodes was played by Don Cheadle.

55. In the comics, the chauffeur, Harold "Happy" Hogan, is a confidante of Tony Stark, who later marries Virginia "Pepper" Potts, after a tragedy draws them closer, though they later divorce. Additionally, the origin of Happy's nickname in the comics, is that he was a former professional boxer who earned that nickname, due to his reputation of never fighting back.

56. When Robert Downey, Jr. was carrying out motion-capture work on the film, he would sometimes wear the helmet, sleeves, and chest of the Iron Man armor over the motion-capture suit, to realistically portray Iron Man's movements.

57. In October 1999, Quentin Tarantino was approached to write and direct the film. Later, Joss Whedon, a big fan of the comic book, was in negotiations to direct the film in June 2001. In December 2004, Nick Cassavetes was hired as a director, with the film to release in 2006, but everything fell through. Finally, Jon Favreau was hired as director in April 2006.

58. (At around forty-seven minutes) Obadiah Stane tells Tony Stark "We're iron mongers, we make weapons." Stane's supervillain moniker is the Iron Monger, and thus foreshadows Stane's own transition in the film to an armor-clad antagonist.

59. First film released in 2008 to pass the $300 million mark at the U.S. box-office.

60. One of the cars in Tony Stark's garage, is a Tesla Roadster, which had not yet been released during the film's production.

61. (At around thirty-four minutes) The code that appears on the computer screen is a utility that downloads firmware into Lego robotic toy (called RCX). It may suggest that Tony Stark used this program to download firmware into his robotic suit.

62. The sound used during a target lock-on in Iron Man's Head Up Display (HUD) is the sound of the laser cannon firing in Space Invaders (1978) video game.

63. There are various references in the film to the Mandarin, Iron Man's archnemesis: -The organization that kidnaps Stark is called "the Ten Rings", after the ten rings that comprise the Mandarin's arsenal (Jon Favreau has stated that The Ten Rings, in fact, works for The Mandarin). -Commandant Raza speaks of Genghis Khan and Asia. -Commandant Raza is seen occasionally fiddling with an ornate gold ring. -The rings are worn by Stark, Stane, Rhodes, and Raza (that is to say those in positions of power).

63. According to Jon Favreau, it was difficult to find a proper opponent for Iron Man to face, since he wanted the film to remain grounded in reality as much as possible. It was decided to have a foe in the film who would serve as a parallel of Stark (for example, an armored opponent). Well-known enemies like the Titanium Man and the Crimson Dynamo were considered, but finally the lesser-known Iron Monger, Obadiah Stane, was chosen as Iron Man's adversary (Stane, as well as possessing his own armor, is also a business contemporary of Stark).

64. "I am Iron Man" was ad-libbed by Robert Downey, Jr. Producer Kevin Feige approved using it in the final cut of the film, and credits this with his decision to largely do away with secret identities in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Only Spider-Man conceals his identity, while Thor's alter ego, Donald Blake, is similarly not used.

65. (At around fifty-eight minutes) Obadiah brings Tony a pizza from New York City in a box marked "Ray's". Ray's is a famous chain of pizza places in New York City. It also marks the second Favreau-directed film to refer to Ray's Pizza. In Elf (2003), it is the pizza recommended by Santa Claus to Buddy the Elf.

66. As a tribute to Howard Hughes, who inspired Iron Man, production was mainly based in the former Hughes Company soundstages in Playa Vista. The scene where the Iron Man Mark III armor was created was filmed in the area where Hughes assembled the H-4 Hercules airplane (better known as "The Spruce Goose").

67. (At around one hour and forty minutes) When Tony Stark tells Rhodey to "keep the skies clear" before going to confront Obadiah Stane, Rhodey looks to the silver Mark II suit before saying "next time, baby". Rhodey (played by Don Cheadle) donned this suit in Iron Man 2 (2010), becoming War Machine.

68. Christine Everhart (Leslie Bibb) works for Vanity Fair in the movie, but in the comics, she works for the Daily Bugle.

69. Nicolas Cage and Tom Cruise were interested in playing Iron Man. Cruise, in particular was going to act in, and produce the film. Cage played another Marvel superhero in Ghost Rider (2007).

70. Jon Favreau was originally going to direct Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) in the manner of a superhero comedy adventure, but he instead chose to direct this film and give it a more serious tone. Ironically, Nick Cassavetes, who was chosen to direct that film, had been filled in to direct this film in December 2004.

71. The climactic showdown in the film, with Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man, facing Obadiah Stane, a.k.a. Iron Monger, is based on Iron Man #200 (November 1986). A face-off occurs between Stane's larger, more powerful Iron Monger and Stark's greater experience, and an exploding reactor appears. However, the comic concludes with Stane committing suicide with a repulsor ray blast to the head.

72. Jon Favreau advised composer Ramin Djawadi to keep the core of the music on heavy guitar, which he felt suited Iron Man best. Djiwadi composed the music on a heavy guitar before arranging it for the orchestra to perform.

73. This is the only Marvel Cinematic Universe film, and the only Iron Man film, that does not feature any martial-arts fights. It is also the first of two Marvel Cinematic Universe films in which Robert Downey, Jr. (Iron Man) appeared, but doesn't show off his skills in the Wing Chun fighting style.

74. Most of the exterior scenes set in Afghanistan were filmed at Olancha Sand Dunes. There, the crew had to endure two days of forty to sixty mile per hour winds.

75. Jon Favreau wanted Tony Stark and Pepper Potts' relationship to be like a 1940s comedy along the lines of His Girl Friday (1940).

76. Tony Stark drives an Audi R8 in the film, as part of a promotional deal Marvel Studios made with the Audi Automobile Company. Two other vehicles, the Audi S5 Coupe, and the Audi Q7 SUV, also make an appearance in the film.

77. (At around one hour and four minutes) Adi Granov designed a billboard poster of Iron Man's nemesis, the alien dragon Fin Fang Foom, for the film. This poster can be seen when Stark, while testing the Mark II armor, flies straight down a road (on Stark's left side).

78. The Industrial Light & Magic animators studied skydivers performing in a vertical wind tunnel, to create Iron Man's aerial movements. Iron Man was also animated to take off slowly and land quickly, to make those movements more realistic.

79. This is the first film set in, and the beginning of, the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

80. When Pepper Potts is downloading a set of secret files, the authorization on one document is listed as "Lebowski". Jeff Bridges, who plays Stane in this film, played "The Dude" in The Big Lebowski (1998).

81. (At around one hour and twenty-one minutes) The pilots in the F-22 jets are codenamed "Whiplash 1" and "Whiplash 2". In the Ultimate Iron Man comics, Whiplash is a super villain who possesses a pair of gloves with steel wires attached that acted as whips. Whiplash appeared in Iron Man 2 (2010).

82. According to Ramin Djawadi, Tony Stark's different moods, as performed by Robert Downey, Jr., was the inspiration for the Iron Man scores in the film.

83. The leader of the Ten Rings is named Raza, after a Marvel Comics character. However, the comic version of Raza is not an enemy of Iron Man, but an alien cyborg, who is a member of the space pirate gang known as the Starjammers. The only similarity they share, is their facial disfigurement. In the comics, Raza has implants on the left side of his face, while in the film, Raza is scarred on the right side of his face.

84. Comic book writers Mark Millar, Brian Michael Bendis, Joe Quesada, Tom Brevoort, Axel Alonzo, and Ralph Macchio were commissioned by Jon Favreau to give advice on the script.

85. An early draft of the script had Howard Stark, Iron Man's father, as a ruthless industrialist who becomes War Machine.

86. (At around one hour and twenty-four minutes) When Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) watches Rhodey (Terrence Howard) on television, an expensive chess set is visible on the table in front of him. In the comics, Obadiah Stane was fond of playing chess, and also created a group called "The Chessmen" to attack Stark Industries.

87. Clark Gregg (Agent Phil Coulson) stated in the DVD commentary of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013), Season One, Episode Eleven, "The Magical Place", that he and Gwyneth Paltrow have known each other since she was nineteen-years-old.

88. According to the January 2012 Air & Space Magazine, Tony Starks's character was also inspired by South African born SpaceX (and PayPal co-founder), Elon Musk. A statue of Iron Man, complete with company ID, "stands guard" at SpaceX, along with a current version Cylon.

89. Jon Favreau played a character similar to Tony Stark, named Pete Becker, on Friends (1994). Stark and Becker are rich playboys, who give up their current life to fight, Tony fights crime, while Pete fights in Ultimate Fighting. Favreau even sported Stark-like facial hair for the role.

90. During filming, a tank accidentally ran over an Aaton 35mm camera.

91. To prepare for his role as James Rhodes, Terrence Howard visited the Nellis Air Force Base on March 16, 2007, where he ate with the base's airmen and observed the routines of HH-60 Pave Hawk rescue helicopters and F-22 Raptor jets.

92. Director Jon Favreau described the film as "a kind of independent film-espionage thriller crossbreed; a Robert Altman-directed Superman (1978), with shades of Tom Clancy novels, James Bond films, RoboCop (1987), and Batman Begins (2005)."

93. All three sets of Iron Man's armor were designed by Adi Granov, a comic book artist from the "Iron Man" comic, and Phil Saunders. They were then constructed by Stan Winston Studios.

94. Jon Favreau chose Industrial Light & Magic to provide the film's visual effects after watching Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) and Transformers (2007).

95. (At around one hour and fifty-five minutes) Shortly into the end credits sequence, there is an animation of the Ten Rings logo. This refers to the terrorist group that captures Tony Stark early in the film, but is not actually acknowledged. It is, however, commonly acknowledged in Iron Man 3 (2013).

96. Timothy Olyphant read for the role of Tony Stark.

97. (At around one hour and two minutes) When Iron Man first takes flight, he travels at 0.29 Mach (two hundred twenty miles per hour) over California.

98. Production designer J. Michael Riva researched on objects found in prison which could be improvised and used for other purposes (for instance a sock used to make tea), to provide more verisimilitude to the film.

99. The Stark Industries logo is similar to that of Lockheed Martin, co-developer of the F-22 Raptor.

100. To create the shots of Iron Man against the F-22 Raptors, cameras were flown in the air to provide reference for the dynamics of wind and frost at that altitude.

101. Jon Favreau was inspired to cast Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man after seeing his performance in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005). Shane Black, who wrote and directed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005), co-wrote and directed Iron Man 3 (2013).

102. Harry Gregson-Williams was offered the job of scoring the film, but he had to turn it down due to scheduling conflicts with The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008).

103. The film had a torturous development process. Stuart Gordon was originally going to direct in 1990 when the rights were held by Universal Pictures, though nothing came of that. In 1996, Twentieth Century Fox acquired the rights with Nicolas Cage expressing an interest in the project. Two years later, it hadn't moved on so Tom Cruise tried to kickstart a production, to the extent of commissioning a script by Stan Lee and Jeff Vintar. Jeffrey Caine then did a polish on the screenplay. Still nothing. In 1999, Quentin Tarantino was approached to see if he could move things along but that too came to nothing. The rights moved to New Line Cinema in 2000 with Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, and Tim McCanlies writing a screenplay (this version even featured a cameo by Nick Fury). New Line Cinema started talking to Joss Whedon about directing, but this didn't pan out. By 2004, Nick Cassavetes was attached as director, but when this too failed, the rights reverted back to Marvel.

104. According to Phil Saunders, Tony Stark would develop a Mark IV armor, which would have been used in the final battle. This Mark IV armor would become the War Machine armor, and had swap-out armaments that would be worn over the Mark III armor. However, halfway through pre-production, the concept was removed from the script.

105. Property master Russell Bobbitt won Hamilton's "Behind the Camera Award 2008" for the props he created on this movie.

106. An early draft of the script (before Marvel Studios was making its own movies) would've kept Howard Stark alive, and had him adopt the War Machine identity as the film's antagonist.

107. Composer Ramin Djawadi's favorite musical score is the "Kickass" theme, because he composed it according to "a rhythm very much like a machine."

108. Louis Leterrier was interested in directing this film, but opted for The Incredible Hulk (2008) when Jon Favreau was given the job.

109. Robert Downey, Jr., Terrence Howard's father, Terrence Howard, Faran Tahir, Ramin Djawadi, and visual effects expert Stan Winston are fans of Iron Man.

110. The terrorist organization "Ten Rings" is a reference to Iron Man villain Mandarin, who wears ten rings imbued with superhuman abilities. Mandarin appeared in Iron Man 3 (2013), albeit in a radically different iteration from the comics.

111. Each Marvel superhero movie has a main theme: -This movie and sequels - Weaponry and technology. -The Incredible Hulk (2008) - Mutation and nuclear power. -Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) and sequels - Experimentation and espionage. -Thor (2011) and sequels - Mythology and religion. -Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) - Extra-terrestrial life and cosmic beings. -Ant-Man (2015) - Telepathy and control of animals. -Doctor Strange (2016) - Magic and witchcraft. -The Avengers (2012) - Alien Invasion. -Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) - Artificial Intelligence.

112. Len Wiseman was originally slated to direct.

113. According to The Cannon Group, Inc. co-owner, producer Yoram Globus, in the 1980s, along with Captain America, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987), Spider-Man, and Masters of the Universe (1987), The Cannon Group, Inc. also had an Iron Man movie in production. The Cannon Group, Inc. wanted Tom Selleck to play Tony Stark. They also wanted the costume house that made the RoboCop (1987) suit to build the Iron Man costume.

114. This was the only movie for Terrence Howard to play Lieutenant Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes. However, Howard opted to not go forward with the character (reportedly for financial reasons) so Don Cheadle was brought in to assume the role commencing with Iron Man 2 (2010).

115. CAMEO: Stan Lee: (At around one hour and eight minutes) Comic writer Stan Lee appears at Tony Stark's party playing the role of Hugh Hefner, accompanied by three blonde women. Lee later mentioned that it was his most fun cameo.

116. Brian Michael Bendis had written three pages of dialogue for the Nick Fury scene, out of which the filmmakers chose the best lines. To keep it a secret, the scene was filmed with a skeleton crew, and was omitted from all previews of the film, which thus maintained the mystery and surprise, and kept fans speculative and interested. It conclusively appeared in the final cut as a post-credits scene.

117. When presented at the movie's end with the cover story by S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson that Iron Man is employed by Tony Stark to act as his bodyguard, Stark dismisses it as "pretty flimsy". In the Iron Man comics, this was precisely the cover that Tony Stark used to protect his identity until 2002, when Stark went public with his identity as Iron Man.

118. According to Jeff Bridges, Obadiah Stane was originally supposed to survive the final battle against Tony, with Stark opening up Stane's destroyed suit to find that there was no corpse inside. Presumably this would have poised Stane to return for future movies.

119. The Iron Monger was the prototype of Tony Stark"s Mark 1 iron Man suit

imdb casino cast video

Contact. In order to keep spam to a minimum, we do not display email addresses. Use the form below to get in touch with haran. Send a Message Die spürbaren Pluspunkte von imdb Casino jack mit Telefonrechnung bezahlen: {mit wachsender, wenn wir ein Imdb Casino jack mit Telefonrechnung bezahlen beurteilen, begutachten oder. Wafer meisten Glückspilze, die hohe Gewinne erzielen, spielen mit dem höchstmöglichen Wetteinsatz, was schnell Mal in enormen Gewinnen enden kann. An under rated classic I recently found in IMDB's Top 100 movies. Close. 153. Posted by 3 years ago. Archived. An under rated classic I recently found in IMDB's Top 100 movies. In early-1970s Las Vegas, low-level mobster Sam "Ace" Rothstein gets tapped by his bosses to head the Tangiers Casino. At first, he's a great success in the job, but over the years, problems with his loose-cannon enforcer Nicky Santoro, his ex-hustler wife Ginger, her con-artist ex Lester Diamond and a handful of corrupt politicians put Sam in ever-increasing danger. Casino (1995) cast and crew credits, including actors, actresses, directors, writers and more. Casino royale, and is great spy novel, old age of the more official federico fellini movie. Faux-Felix s enough about cr67 and says that is known as le chiffre is revealed in quarantine. Join us to and the same name. Explore More Review Top Searched panasonic Lcd Tv, Cheap Disney Vacation, and Game of Thrones Episodes Ratings, Highest Rated Episodes Game Of Thrones Season 1 To 8 IMDb. Game Of Thrones Season 1 To 8 Highest Rated Episodes IMDb. Princess Cinderella Celebration Concepts For Some Magic From Walt Disney Imdb Casino → Casino→Vergleich [Top 9] Unzählige Gründe sprechen für den Gebrauch von imdb Casino: Insbesondere die unzähligen Vorzüge, welche sich beim Gebrauch von imdb Casino zeigen, lassen keinen Zweifel, dass der Erwerb eine super Enscheidung ist: Peek inside. Take a look at what makes our 1600 square feet versatile and functional. Directed by Martin Scorsese. With Robert De Niro, Sharon Stone, Joe Pesci, James Woods. A tale of greed, deception, money, power, and murder occur between two best friends: a mafia enforcer and a casino executive compete against each other over a gambling empire, and over a fast-living and fast-loving socialite.

imdb casino cast top

Casino (1995) - Blackjack Scene HD - YouTube

Martin Scorsese's penultimate collaboration with Robert De Niro Casino movie clips: http://j.mp/1JbOasmBUY THE MOVIE: http://amzn.to/u3En6FDon't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6prCLIP DESCRIPTION:It is l... IMDb offers a searchable database of more than 250 million data items including more than 5 million movies, TV and entertainment programs and more than 8 million cast and crew members. Casino movie clips: http://j.mp/1JbOasmBUY THE MOVIE: http://amzn.to/u3En6FDon't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6prCLIP DESCRIPTION:Sam Rot... Casino Blackjack scene

Open Source Web Design - Contact - haran

imdb casino cast

imdb casino cast - win

[NO SPOILER] Why is IMDB missing cast member credits for so many characters on this show? So far there’s nothing for Helen or the couple who owns the other casino (I’m on S3E4)....

I Watched "Gangster No. 1" (2000)

Director Cut S-ex Mo-vie Nw

Disney, please release the 3-hour 8 min initial The Rise of Skywalker cut as an Extended Edition! [SPOILERS]