The Official Mark Strong & Sinestro Thread

[kedrell]

I don't see how they can change his name and not piss off every GL fan in existence. I was just pointing out a fundamental flaw that goes all the way back to the character's origin.

 

[protocida]

He'll be called "Thaal" by everyone rather than Hal. That might be a way to sugar code it.

 

[dark_b]

I don't see how they can change his name and not piss off every GL fan in existence. I was just pointing out a fundamental flaw that goes all the way back to the character's origin.

GL fans like that their villain has a name like Sinestro?

i dont think they would be mad.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Its his name, i dont see what's the problem? He's going to act like a *****e even as a GL so the audience will think that the name is because of that.
Come on, its not a big secret that he'll turn evil in the future.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea exactly.

I think the majority will already know or figure out the end game, that he becomes a bad guy. But they'll still wanna see HOW he becomes that bad guy, as long as his story is good as well as Hal's I don't see why there should be a problem.

 

[Octoberist]

again, his name is pronounced "Si Nest Tro". Despite the spelling, non-fans wouldn't know about his 'evil name' till the end credits.

and yes, in the script (and most recently in the comics), his name's Thaal Sinestro.

 

[That-Guy]

again, his name is pronounced "Si Nest Tro". Despite the spelling, non-fans wouldn't know about his 'evil name' till the end credits.

and yes, in the script (and most recently in the comics), his name's Thaal Sinestro.

It's funny, I never knew that it was pronounced that way until I heard Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons say it that way. I think that if they pronounce it that way in the movie, it won't really tip unknowing people off.

 

[cin0]

dang i feel stupid. up until now i didnt even know his name was ment to sound like sinster.

 

[Octoberist]

no comment.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yeah I think 90% of the audience won't have any idea what Sinestro means. I didn't even know it was an evil name.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I think people suggesting Sinestro needs his name changed are being a tad melodramatic.

Does the name "Sinestro" imply the character is evil? Sure it does. But so do human surnames like Sloane, Grimes or Stansfield(movie tip, if a character has one of those names, odds are he'll turn out to be a rat), yet filmmakers keep on using them. It's not like the name is going to be a shocking spoiler anyway, since I'm sure all promotional material for the film will mention that Sinestro becomes a bad guy down the line. Him turning bad will be as much of a "shock" to the general audience as that nice old Chancellor Palpatine turning out to be less than noble in his intentions in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, but that's hardly a film-ruining problem. Quite the opposite, it allows you some juicy foreshadowing.

 

[kedrell]

The SW prequels were already ruined from the word GO. So that really doesn't wash as a comparison. And Sloane, Grimes or Stansfield are not even remotely close to Sinestro. Sinestro is essentially as silly as just calling him Mr. E. Vil. Unless you're a movie buff, Sloane, Grimes or Stansfield aren't gonna mean anything to you.

 

[dnno1]

Sloan is a Celtic name for fighter. Grimes is the plural of grime, which means dirty or embedded with dirt. Stansfield litterally means "stones field". Sinester means pertaining to the left or left hand. They are not necessarily associated with evil, it's just the connotation that certain cultures have with them.

 

[kedrell]

Sinester to the general pulic at large(at least in North America) has indeed become synonymous with evil(regardless of how it was originally meant to be taken), and that's a fact that you just can't get around.

 

[Octoberist]

again, Sinestro is such a Silver Age type villain that it gets a pass due to its charm. If they can't figure it out then whatever. If his name doesn't give it away, then his 'devilish good looks' will. Pun Pun Pun!

Besides, I've said 10 million times already. I think it would have been worse if his name was pronounced 'SIN-Es-Tro' but it's not; it's pronounced "Sah-Nest-Tro" so it's not that bad.

Anyway, that's just the charm of comic book characters. Either you go with it or you don't:

Kinda like how a part of the lexicon can accept a villain named Dr. Doom, along with his real name Victor VON DOOM. So on the nose on that one.

 

[cin0]

The SW prequels were already ruined from the word GO. So that really doesn't wash as a comparison. And Sloane, Grimes or Stansfield are not even remotely close to Sinestro. Sinestro is essentially as silly as just calling him Mr. E. Vil. Unless you're a movie buff, Sloane, Grimes or Stansfield aren't gonna mean anything to you.

r u sayin star wars wasnt good? i dont think him bein called sinestro will ruin anything. i didnt even notice it ment that up until yestrday, y would any of the non-comic reading fans notice. and anybody who's red the comicbooks or seen the cartoons already know he's evil. i think sinestro is pretty far from mr. e. vil. and not much different than the riddler's real name being another word for mystery.

 

[Octoberist]

He said that the Star Wars prequels sucked, but he never said that the wonderful originals did too.

I kinda agree that the prequels were awful movies if you had to compare them to the original. awful...disgusting...(throws up)

 

[kedrell]

Dr. Doom(or even Victor Von Doom), Mr. Sinister, Count Nefaria and Sinestro are some really over the top obvious names when this kinda stuff comes to mind. That's not to say I'm for ditching them or even changing them, but we still gotta be at least honest with ourselves here.

And cin0, yes the SW prequels are incredibly bad movies.

 

[Octoberist]

awful disgusting prequels (throws up again)

 

[Mr. Earle]

When compared to the other SW films, the 3 prequels are equal in quality. Its that everybody loves the original 3 movies because they had novelty going for them at the time, and nostalgia going for them now, so nobody realizes that all 6 movies are pretty much crap.

 

[cin0]

He said that the Star Wars prequels sucked, but he never said that the wonderful originals did too.

I kinda agree that the prequels were awful movies if you had to compare them to the original. awful...disgusting...(throws up)

I dont see how that is. the orginal was great but the prequals were just as good. they were also more exciting with a great story line. i dont get as emotional watching the orinal as i do the prequals. i can actually feel anakin's pain when his mother died and actually felt bad for him when he turned over to the darkside. i'll have to disagree the prequals were every bit as good as the original. but that has nothin to do with this, so lets get back to the topic.

 

[dnno1]

I was a kid in high school/college when I saw EP's IV, V, and VI. We were all amazed by the SFx and the cliffhanger style of writing. Many of us got into the mythology as much as we did Star Trek (even more so for some). The prequels were far better made films (as far as cinematography goes), it was just that they were not as cutting edge as the sequels were some 30 years before. The sad thing was that technology was so marginalized that even the average joe could make his own Starwars film with almost as good a quality for SFx. Even with that, the prequels are classics and have only served to further grow the Star Wars franchise

 

[Octoberist]

When compared to the other SW films, the 3 prequels are equal in quality. Its that everybody loves the original 3 movies because they had novelty going for them at the time, and nostalgia going for them now, so nobody realizes that all 6 movies are pretty much crap.

Umm equal quality... acting? Hell, Mark Hamill had to carry the weight of the Empire Strikes Back, acting along side with a puppet (Yoda). Even in A New Hope, he was whiny but he was just a kid. You can tolerate him because most teens are whiny. I can't say the same with Hayden. It might be the writing, in his defence.

I can get into it all of it but I won't here. I give the prequels a hard time, but they are entertaining. But Phantom Menace is still one of the most unwatchable movies I've seen.

The original movies were great and had a huge influence over pop culture, including directors like Christopher Nolan. To say that they were crap but people are just nostalgic is just crazy. Crazy nerd logic a-go-go, right there. I think you're alone in that one so I'm not that worried. I would rather have someone to love all the Star Wars movies than to say all of them were crap. Pttf to that one.

 

[Octoberist]

I dont see how that is. the orginal was great but the prequals were just as good. they were also more exciting with a great story line. i dont get as emotional watching the orinal as i do the prequals. i can actually feel anakin's pain when his mother died and actually felt bad for him when he turned over to the darkside. i'll have to disagree the prequals were every bit as good as the original. but that has nothin to do with this, so lets get back to the topic.

I'm gonna have the last word here due to my ego:

The originals will always be the ones with the iconic characters, score, design and most quotable lines.

Also, you got the small moments that screams movie magic in the originals, like when Yoda lifts the X-Wing from the swamp when Luke gave up in Empire Strikes Back. That scene alone destroys any CGI in the prequels.

Mind you, I'm not anti-CGI.

Back on TOPIC.

 

[Lone]

I just watched Sherlock Holmes last night. The scenes with Mark Strong in the later parts of the movie were very Sinestro-ish...especially the dialogue.