Gaming World Forums
General Category => Entertainment and Media => Topic started by: thecatamites on February 03, 2008, 11:54:40 pm
-
Yep, production has begun on a movie version of Alan Moore/Dave Gibbon's "Watchmen". It's scheduled for release in 2009, and is directed by Zack '300' Snyder. Other interesting pieces of information include:
- The part of Doctor Manhattan was originally pencilled in for Keanu Reeves.
- The script apparantly takes some liberties with the original book: The first draft apparantly had a 'happier' ending, whereas the current draft apparantly wants to keep the 'spirit' of the original. To that end, they've replaced the genetically-engineered living bomb with a giant laser from space .
- The script also is more action oriented. One reviewer of the script, at http://latinoreview.com/scriptreview.php?id=27 said that "In [writer ][/writer]’s draft we see Rorschach, the crazy vigilante, fighting cops in almost every single scene that he’s in. Dr. Manhattan, the only character with real superpowers, teleports out of conversations to stop Islamic terrorists from nuking the Port of Long Beach. It’s like someone told Tse to include an action scene every seven or eight pages".
- Also in the works is a Watchmen videogame.
- I am not making any of this shit up. Look up the wikipedia article if you want.
Anyway, I'm off to run through the streets shrieking in pain and rage... Feel free to post your horrified/nauseated/shocked reactions.
-
So they've taken watchmen... and turned it into the same crap they turn all Moore's comics into on the big screen.
no suprise there!
-
where'd you get the script parts? like, I'm not finding THAT on the wiki article. are you sure this isn't an old script?
because that sounds REALLY incompetent.
-
Shouldn't this go to Film Media?
I went to the Watchmen panel at Comic-Con and got the first Watchmen movie poster too.
Personally, I think Zack Snyder really knows what he's doing. He made 300 into a very profitable and entertaining film, even if it's shit or not. I'm very dissapointed at the fact that DAVID HAYTER has no role in this movie. I'm a Hayter fan, and this was his dream project until Mr. Snyder came by. Alan Moore gave his script an extra seal of approval so I don't understand why he decided not to use it.
Go Watchmen go.
-
I wanted David Hayter to be involved too, but oh well. Now we can just cling to the dream that he'll be in Metal Gear Solid (please be Solid Snake oh god please)
-
man i really liked watchmen and i don't have much confidence that this won't turn out to be a piece of flashy commerical shit
-
where'd you get the script parts? like, I'm not finding THAT on the wiki article. are you sure this isn't an old script?
because that sounds REALLY incompetent.
At the bottom of the wiki article, there's some links to reviews of the script...
Seriously, am I the only one who finds this beyond depressing? I mean, Doctor Manhattan blowing up terrorists? Random fight scenes stuck into the movie to better sell it to the important 'slack-jawed moron' market? A videogame?
I mean, if they even pretended to be trying to do a good job on it, I wouldn't mind so much... I've grown to accept the fact that movie adaptions of stuff I like are almost guaranteed to suck... But it's like they're not even trying here. It's just going to be another glossy, mindless, CGI-loaded piece of action movie fluff...
-
Seriously, am I the only one who finds this beyond depressing?
So they've taken watchmen... and turned it into the same crap they turn all Moore's comics into on the big screen.
no suprise there!
man i really liked watchmen and i don't have much confidence that this won't turn out to be a piece of flashy commerical shit
Yes... Yes you are.
-
Motherfuckers.
-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zcuicYUScVw
Full trailer.
Watch it while it is still thereeee
It looks surprisingly...REALLY REALLY GOOD.
-
That trailer actually looked pretty sweet. I was really apprehensive about the movie since I dunno how they'd do it justice but I'm keen now! It'll probably be style over substance but apparently it's gonna be long so they should be able to fit a fair bit of content into it.
And Psyburn, isn't David Hayter helping write the script or something?
-
bleh. it looks like it could be all right from that trailer, i mean they have to play up the stupid parts in trailers so who knows. i am not encouraged by "From The Visionary Director Of...300", but again whatever! the choice of music was more brooding and slow than it could have been, too, so yeah i will probably see this but i'm not really anxious to do so.
-
Visionary director of 300 haha. It doesn't look as bad as I thought it would be but I'm still putting my chips on bad.
-
I don't know, I liked how the music was so brooding! It would've been bad if you had a generic action flick track.
-
what is that? smashing pumpkins? man that made the trailer like 80 times better
-
Yeah what song is that?
-
And Psyburn, isn't David Hayter helping write the script or something?
No. He's only credited because he wrote a screenplay.
I like the trailer, it's kinda cool. Mainly because it was very very well cut. I love that shot when they stretch out the flag to the music and they show the Comedian. My main complaint is that everything is in slow motion. Also Rorschauch's voice is not near as badass as the way Alan Moore does it.
The song is 'Smashing Pumpkins - The Beginning' is the End is the Beginning from the Batman & Robin soundtrack.
I remember yelling "WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN" in the theatre really loud but no one knew what I was talking about.................
-
Yeah guys, I don't think it looks very good!
Zack Snyder is kind of a hack, imo. To me he has like at the vanguard of the mass of directors that do ONE THING and are totally incapable of anything else, and the worst part is that the one thing he does is completely substanceless. When I saw the trailer, the thing that stood out to me the most is how to anyone who hasn't read Watchmen, it must look really goddamn cheesy, and Rowain, having never read it, agreed. I think it looks like another stupid hollow overly-stylized Zack Snyder movie, to be honest. What did we seee in the trailer? Nothing of note. Some dude getting kicked through a window, and a bunch of other random action scenes. The whole thing looks too BADASS and that is really kind of missing the point of why Watchmen was good and not just another silly comic book about silly superheroes.
Movies like this and Sin City all kind of annoy me with how gimmicky they are about stuff, but the difference is that even the Sin City comics are kind of pulpy and stupid, so the movie was a fairly faithful adaptation. Watchmen, not so much! I guess you can't take a two-minute trailer to mean a whole lot, because like Jamicus said, they play up the stupid parts, but at the same time it was telling enough with that FROM THE LEGENDARY DIRECTOR OF 300........ shit because 300 wasn't a particularly good movie, and this guy seems like the type of guy who thought it was, and who would want to ruin another movie by making it, so that sort of made me think we could expect the same thing out of this that we got out of 300: fucken sweet action scenes dude like that one time he took his sword and just chopped that guy's head off like SWIIISSHH and then turned around in slow motion and was like "whos next???" i give it an a++ would buy director's cut dvd
-
I remember yelling "WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN" in the theatre really loud but no one knew what I was talking about.................
real jamicus is right dude it sounds like you need to CHILL THE FUCK OUT
-
I remember yelling "WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN" in the theatre really loud but no one knew what I was talking about.................
Ahaha
-
Yeah guys, I don't think it looks very good!
Zack Snyder is kind of a hack, imo. To me he has like at the vanguard of the mass of directors that do ONE THING and are totally incapable of anything else, and the worst part is that the one thing he does is completely substanceless. When I saw the trailer, the thing that stood out to me the most is how to anyone who hasn't read Watchmen, it must look really goddamn cheesy, and Rowain, having never read it, agreed. I think it looks like another stupid hollow overly-stylized Zack Snyder movie, to be honest. What did we seee in the trailer? Nothing of note. Some dude getting kicked through a window, and a bunch of other random action scenes. The whole thing looks too BADASS and that is really kind of missing the point of why Watchmen was good and not just another silly comic book about silly superheroes.
Movies like this and Sin City all kind of annoy me with how gimmicky they are about stuff, but the difference is that even the Sin City comics are kind of pulpy and stupid, so the movie was a fairly faithful adaptation. Watchmen, not so much! I guess you can't take a two-minute trailer to mean a whole lot, because like Jamicus said, they play up the stupid parts, but at the same time it was telling enough with that FROM THE LEGENDARY DIRECTOR OF 300........ shit because 300 wasn't a particularly good movie, and this guy seems like the type of guy who thought it was, and who would want to ruin another movie by making it, so that sort of made me think we could expect the same thing out of this that we got out of 300: fucken sweet action scenes dude like that one time he took his sword and just chopped that guy's head off like SWIIISSHH and then turned around in slow motion and was like "whos next???" i give it an a++ would buy director's cut dvd
Everyone at comics and cartoons board at 4chan has been predicting that "I did it 35 minutes ago" will become the new catchphrase just like "THIS IS SPARTA." All the action scenes with Rorschach will probably be done in slow motion followed by his trademark Hayter-esque grunts and groans "HRMHRM RAAAAAARL!"
-
i did it 35 minutes ago
i don't remember this line at all!
-
I still haven't figured out why Watchmen is supposed to be so special. Everybody who likes it seems to have a very low opinion of the superheroes that have been icons for decades, but Watchmen itself doesn't seem to be much more than a grim version of some second rate superhero story like the Starjammers or something.
-
i think a lot of people like watchmen for precisely the same reason they don't like most superhero stuff.
-
i did it 35 minutes ago
i don't remember this line at all!
Ozy said it right before the awesome climax. It was spectacular because the story briefly turned into a "save the world in the nick of time before the timer runs out" cliche but Ozy just destroyed the tension by saying he already enacted his master plan 35 minutes ago.
I still haven't figured out why Watchmen is supposed to be so special. Everybody who likes it seems to have a very low opinion of the superheroes that have been icons for decades, but Watchmen itself doesn't seem to be much more than a grim version of some second rate superhero story like the Starjammers or something.
Watchmen was originally going to star DC heroes but they said "fuck no you can't screw with our universe" so Moore had to come up with a bunch of lookalikes (Rorschach is based on The Question, Nite Owl is Batman, Dr. Manhattan is Superman, etc.).
Besides being well written, it completely avoided the common tropes associated with hero comic book material. The heroes were fallible which made them seem more human, the story didn't try to shove a moral or force a particular viewpoint down your throat, and there were a lot of risks taken that no writer before then has ever done such as metafiction that connected the story together and the main character dying in the first panel yet still remaining important throughout the story.
If anything Watchmen was the bridge that allowed people who wanted to read an actual story instead of follow ridiculous continuity. Back then, only indie comics and the rare translated manga had an actual plot with beginning middle and end but they were pretty much in the realm of self depreciating autobiographies with tons of awkward sex and drug abuse that could only be purchased in a head shop but Watchmen popularized comics as an actual cinematic story telling medium instead of monthly serial arcs where everything resets in the end.
I just wish it wasn't such a huge influence on new writers that only see the comic on the surface level. I specifically blame Moore for the flood of uninspired and generic GRIMDARK material of the 90s. Nowadays EVERY comic has to have gratuitous sex, violence, and rape scenes because dumbass editors think people won't take a story seriously unless someone gets rammed up the ass forcefully.
-
Yeah it's the only superhero comic I've enjoyed since I was six years old because they're all terrible pretty much.
-
Alan Moore created Rorschach as a logical extension of Steve Ditko's characters like Mister A and The Question, both of which follow Ayn Rand's personal philosophy, Objectivism.[3]
Moore once said about Ayn Rand's Objectivism: "I have to say I found Ayn Rand's philosophy laughable. It was a 'white supremacist dreams of the master race,' burnt in an early-20th century form. Her ideas didn't really appeal to me, but they seemed to be the kind of ideas that people would espouse, people who might secretly believe themselves to be part of the elite, and not part of the excluded majority."
-
i think a lot of people like watchmen for precisely the same reason they don't like most superhero stuff.
yes. this is the whole point i think!
-
I like that it's an actual story, as opposed to events from a superhero's long line of stories, but other than purposely trying to break the mold, I am still missing it. I'm interested though, so hopefully if I pick up the book I won't be disappointed.
That's kinda gay about DC tho. Why do all these comics feel they need to copy DC characters? I thought Wanted was garbage because of this, I really don't see how it could be that hard to instill the same emotions in another character that you would get from Captain America or Batman.
-
Instill the same emotions as batman, you gotta be kidding me.
-
To me he has like at the vanguard of the mass of directors that do ONE THING and are totally incapable of anything else, and the worst part is that the one thing he does is completely substanceless. When I saw the trailer, the thing that stood out to me the most is how to anyone who hasn't read Watchmen, it must look really goddamn cheesy, and Rowain, having never read it, agreed. I think it looks like another stupid hollow overly-stylized Zack Snyder movie, to be honest. What did we seee in the trailer? Nothing of note. Some dude getting kicked through a window, and a bunch of other random action scenes. The whole thing looks too BADASS and that is really kind of missing the point of why Watchmen was good and not just another silly comic book about silly superheroes.
I've never read Watchmen before I saw the trailer, and now I know more about it in retrospect, the trailer is pretty awesome. I can recognize all of the scenes and the characters (Dr. Manhattan's 'birth', Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre on Mars, the 'intrisic field' experiment, Dr. Manhattan's role in the Vietnam War, The Comedian being a dick as usual, Nite Owl, etc). If you're a fan and you can't recognize these things or you see 'nothing of note', then well, you weren't paying attention.
As for "What if you saw the trailer and you weren't/aren't a fan", I dunno about that either! Most of the people I know who's seen the trailer are pretty interested in it and about it. I agree the trailer doesn't hit the note of exactly why the Watchmen is good from a literary note, but I'll be damned if it isn't accurate to the novels at least visually.
-
It's not that I wasn't paying attention, it's that I actually read Watchmen and appreciated it for what it was, and what this movie pretty clearly isn't. Have you read it since you saw the trailer, or did you just read up on it? I was under the impression this was a new trailer. Anyway, do you know what is conspicuously absent from this trailer, and what was the single thing that made Watchmen? Dialogue. Why do you think that is? Yes, the scenes were of some significance in the book, but taken out of context, they're meaningless excuses to show Dr Manhattan blow some guy up, or make some big spinning gear thing, or stand there and look cool. I'm not looking for scenes I recognize that I can look at and say "whoa that happened in the book!!!", I'm looking for scenes show some level of depth or significance in the movie itself.
I think people, yourself included, often forget what trailers are supposed to be. You're supposed to get what the movie will be like out of them. Why is it that the only things they showed us are stupid action scenes and overly stylized GUY STANDS THERE AND LOOKS LIKE A BADASS shots? Because that's all you can expect from the movie. The point is that a scene being of note in a book doesn't mean the same scene is automatically of note in the movie, no matter how little they bothered to do with it. When I say OF NOTE, what I mean is of note in the movie itself, not a scene that's of note in the book and just took and artlessly shoved in the movie and expected to have the same impact. None of what they showed us in the trailer mattered; it was just stupid effects and fluff. None of what they showed us resonated or seemed worthwhile, or was anything more than just superheroes looking cool. Like I said, trailers are supposed to be reflections of what they movies are going to actually be like, and all this trailer was was FROM THE VISIONARY DIRECTOR OF 300, MORE SHALLOW GARBAGE NERDS EVERYWHERE WILL LAP UP.
Look at the trailer from The Dark Knight, and all that you could get out of it in terms of what the movie was about, what types of people the characters were, and so far. None of that is present, none of the scenes they show stand up on their own AS SCENES and instead rely on the fact that people will recognize them and know their significance in the book and just carry it over to the movie by themselves, and none of the characters really do anything besides stand there for dorks to ogle. So yes, I would say I was paying attention throughout the preview, and clearly just got something else out of it. Also, again, I'm wondering if you read Wacthmen. How is it visually accurate, exactly? It looks like a Frank Miller novel, except in color. Watchmen was nowhere near as stylized as Snyder is making this movie.
-
Okay, you've made some good points even if I don't agree with all of them (or most of them). Let me ask you this, though, what could they have done to make the trailer closer to the actual feel of the graphic novels instead of what they did with it now? What would you suggest?
How is it visually accurate, exactly?
I meant visually accurate as in "The same stuff happened in the novel that happened in the trailer." Not like the art style or anything like that.
And BTW, I wouldn't be here if I didn't read the novels at least, guys.
-
Yeah I'm going to agree with MOG here. I've shown it to Bisse and a few people irl, and they all have never heard of Watchmen, seemed pretty interested, and this was basically the perfect opportunity to go YOU ARE MISSING OUT GO BUY IT / HERE IS MY COPY DO NOT RUIN IT. A lot of the people irl seemed to question what it was about and didn't really seem to care about it being stupid and hollow because they were asking questions about who these people were, etc. So I think it was a pretty good trailer in that regard!
think people, yourself included, often forget what trailers are supposed to be. You're supposed to get what the movie will be like out of them. Why is it that the only things they showed us are stupid action scenes and overly stylized GUY STANDS THERE AND LOOKS LIKE A BADASS shots? Because that's all you can expect from the movie. The point is that a scene being of note in a book doesn't mean the same scene is automatically of note in the movie, no matter how little they bothered to do with it. When I say OF NOTE, what I mean is of note in the movie itself, not a scene that's of note in the book and just took and artlessly shoved in the movie and expected to have the same impact. None of what they showed us in the trailer mattered; it was just stupid effects and fluff. None of what they showed us resonated or seemed worthwhile, or was anything more than just superheroes looking cool. Like I said, trailers are supposed to be reflections of what they movies are going to actually be like, and all this trailer was was FROM THE VISIONARY DIRECTOR OF 300, MORE SHALLOW GARBAGE NERDS EVERYWHERE WILL LAP UP.
Look at the trailer from The Dark Knight, and all that you could get out of it in terms of what the movie was about, what types of people the characters were, and so far. None of that is present, none of the scenes they show stand up on their own AS SCENES and instead rely on the fact that people will recognize them and know their significance in the book and just carry it over to the movie by themselves, and none of the characters really do anything besides stand there for dorks to ogle. So yes, I would say I was paying attention throughout the preview, and clearly just got something else out of it. Also, again, I'm wondering if you read Wacthmen. How is it visually accurate, exactly? It looks like a Frank Miller novel, except in color. Watchmen was nowhere near as stylized as Snyder is making this movie.
Actually since this is coming out in like a whole nother year, I thought this was just like EARLY TRAILER #1, and they will make a second trailer more expanded later like they usually do. I was under the impression this was just a trailer to get the hype ball going and get people asking questions and give an excuse to make the Watchmen novel cost 25$.
-
Actually since this is coming out in like a whole nother year, I thought this was just like EARLY TRAILER #1, and they will make a second trailer more expanded later like they usually do. I was under the impression this was just a trailer to get the hype ball going and get people asking questions and give an excuse to make the Watchmen novel cost 25$.
Yeah this too. Keep in mind they want to attract new blood to watch it, and they're not going to do that by making their first trailer all "Deep and about themes such as consequentialism" and all that shit.
-
Oh, I see. Yeah, I guess the same stuff superficially appears to happen!
Anyway, I would suggest dialogue. More character interaction. More scenes that are just good CINEMATICALLY and not good because you recognize it from the novel. More scenes where not only are people talking, but perhaps a bit of what the movie is, you know, ABOUT is conveyed to the viewer, because Watchmen is definitely ABOUT something, but you'd never know from the trailer. There was this tone that the world was building up to something throughout the novel and they didn't even bother to go after it in the trailer.
Say instead of having a random montage of superheroes looking cool shots, they started with panning over the city or something, and having a bit of dialogue that is maybe a bit telling of the situation or the tone of the setting, because god knows there's enough of it throughout the novel that they could've found a clip. Maybe show the Comedian getting tossed out the window, and cut to bits of Rorschach doing his thing, trying to investigate and find out who did it, maybe have a voiceover from him playing in the background, letting the viewer know how bitter and jaded he is about things. How much contempt he feels for the CITY OF SIN (heh,,.heh...) around him. Then they should show some of the friction and tension that's going on between the heroes and the general public/government, because that's definitely something that they could've touched on in a better fashion. Show Dr Manhattan, maybe how he was created, and more importantly than HIM KISSING SOMEONE or blowing some Charlie up, I would say show the bit where it is like "God exists, and he's an American" since I felt that was sort of exemplary of the ways in which the government used him. I would also say show other characters and maybe a bit of action, but it was a long trailer (longer than most, and more than long enough to do something good with), and I don't think I need to go over it POINT BY POINT, but yeah do that and fill the rest of the time with Nite Owl and Silk Spectre and their dynamic, and maybe instead of beginning with panning over the city, they could show a little background on how the current SUPERHERO CLIMATE came to be, with how the first people started wearing costumes and fighting crime and such a generation earlier.
I don't know man, I'm not a FILMMAKER, but they chose all the wrong shit to show basically.
Actually since this is coming out in like a whole nother year, I thought this was just like EARLY TRAILER #1, and they will make a second trailer more expanded later like they usually do. I was under the impression this was just a trailer to get the hype ball going and get people asking questions and give an excuse to make the Watchmen novel cost 25$.
so they just happen to have a bunch of fly action scenes made and none of substance whatsoever? I don't think they just happened to shoot it in a way that all the silly stuff was done when it came time for the trailer, but none of the scenes where people talk, interact, mood is set, and so on. Also note who is directing it, and remember that even from the earliest trailer, 300 looked exactly like what it ended up being. I don't think movies like this, from people like this, just come out radically different from the trailers. Like I said, he's a bit of a hack.
Also I kind of think if you are the type to see such a ridiculous trailer and be like gmmmm im intrigued....tell me more about this "watchmen" when it is honestly just EYE CANDY then you are not really a good judge of whether it was a worthwhile trailer to begin with.
-
so they just happen to have a bunch of fly action scenes made and none of substance whatsoever? I don't think they just happened to shoot it in a way that all the silly stuff was done when it came time for the trailer, but none of the scenes where people talk, interact, mood is set, and so on. Also note who is directing it, and remember that even from the earliest trailer, 300 looked exactly like what it ended up being. I don't think movies like this, from people like this, just come out radically different from the trailers. Like I said, he's a bit of a hack.
I agree, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here because I don't want to be wrong.
Also the 300 trailers were actually better than the movie. ;(
-
Anyway, I would suggest dialogue. More character interaction. More scenes that are just good CINEMATICALLY and not good because you recognize it from the novel. More scenes where not only are people talking, but perhaps a bit of what the movie is, you know, ABOUT is conveyed to the viewer, because Watchmen is definitely ABOUT something, but you'd never know from the trailer. There was this tone that the world was building up to something throughout the novel and they didn't even bother to go after it in the trailer.
Say instead of having a random montage of superheroes looking cool shots, they started with panning over the city or something, and having a bit of dialogue that is maybe a bit telling of the situation or the tone of the setting, because god knows there's enough of it throughout the novel that they could've found a clip. Maybe show the Comedian getting tossed out the window, and cut to bits of Rorschach doing his thing, trying to investigate and find out who did it, maybe have a voiceover from him playing in the background, letting the viewer know how bitter and jaded he is about things. How much contempt he feels for the CITY OF SIN (heh,,.heh...) around him. Then they should show some of the friction and tension that's going on between the heroes and the general public/government, because that's definitely something that they could've touched on in a better fashion. Show Dr Manhattan, maybe how he was created, and more importantly than HIM KISSING SOMEONE or blowing some Charlie up, I would say show the bit where it is like "God exists, and he's an American" since I felt that was sort of exemplary of the ways in which the government used him. I would also say show other characters and maybe a bit of action, but it was a long trailer, and I don't think I need to go over it POINT BY POINT, but yeah do that and fill the rest of the time with Nite Owl and Silk Spectre and their dynamic, and maybe instead of beginning with panning over the city, they could show a little background on how the current SUPERHERO CLIMATE came to be, with how the first people started wearing costumes and fighting crime and such a generation earlier.
I don't know man, I'm not a FILMMAKER, but they chose all the wrong shit to show basically.
That is actually pretty awesome and a much better answer than I was expecting. While yeah, they SHOULD have explored more into the actual themes of the novel in the trailer, the way we saw it is the way they've shown it, so I guess that's that until next time. I mean, I think it's partially about perspective. I've seen some hardcore Watchmen fans say the trailer was great, and I'd say their opinion has as much weight as yours, ya know. That's why I'm not going to agree with anyone who says the trailer was bad or anything, it DID show one of the many sides of Watchmen, just not the one you hoped they did, or even the one they SHOULD have did. I think, and a lot of other people think, that the trailer portrayed Watchmen well.
Hell, my TWELVE YEAR OLD SISTER was intrigued by the trailer, and when I actually told her about the graphic novel and what it's about, and it's theme, now she REALLY wants to go see it. I mean, different strokes, man.
BTW
Show Dr Manhattan, maybe how he was created
Well, they did that already.
-
yeah, i know they did it, but i thought i'd mention it since i am trashing the trailer and in actuality i did think that was a part that should've been shown. i think it would've been cool if they prefaced it with that bit from his childhood where his dad throws his gears off the balcony. also i would've liked to see a bit of ozy, but not enough to reveal him as being the villain. and actually the conversation on mars, too, but the ACTUAL conversation, not just him building that palace.
and i mean, it's not just like i'm being HEH WELL IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG BUDDY, because my opinion holds no more weight than any other fans' who, for some reason, probably just because they want to see their favorite comics come to life in any form possible, liked it. but, you know whose opinion does hold more weight? moore's! there's a reason he distanced himself from this shit. i would say when the original author is being like "fuuuuuuck that", his side is probably the right one.
-
but, you know whose opinion does hold more weight? moore's! there's a reason he distanced himself from this shit. i would say when the original author is being like "fuuuuuuck that", his side is probably the right one.
Oooh, didn't know that. That sucks, did he state why? By the way, I think Ozy was actually in the trailer; I didn't spot him at first, but he's the guy in the body suit with the abs with all the screens behind him.
-
Oooh, didn't know that. That sucks, did he state why? By the way, I think Ozy was actually in the trailer; I didn't spot him at first, but he's the guy in the body suit with the abs with all the screens behind him.
Ever since From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentleman he refuses to be associated with, credited, or paid by any adaptions of his work.
And yes, Ozy is in the trailer but they make him look obviously like a villian. Also the screens feature a historical figure from the 1970's.
-
yeah it was him, but all it showed was a kind of gay looking bodysuit on a dude who was too skinny for the role (you can tell by his neck and face!) and i think him hitting someone with a pole or something.
also:
In an interview with Variety's Danny Graydon during Warner Bros.'s first possession of feature film rights for Watchmen, the comic book's writer Alan Moore adamantly opposed a film adaptation of his comic book, arguing, "You get people saying, 'Oh, yes, Watchmen is very cinematic,' when actually it's not. It's almost the exact opposite of cinematic." Moore said that Terry Gilliam, preparing to direct Watchmen for Warner Bros. at the time, had asked Moore how the writer would film it. Moore told Graydon about his response, "I had to tell him that, frankly, I didn't think it was filmable. I didn't design it to show off the similarities between cinema and comics, which are there, but in my opinion are fairly unremarkable. It was designed to show off the things that comics could do that cinema and literature couldn't."[22]
Moore also told Entertainment Weekly in December 2001, "With a comic, you can take as much time as you want in absorbing that background detail, noticing little things that we might have planted there. You can also flip back a few pages relatively easily to see where a certain image connects with a line of dialogue from a few pages ago. But in a film, by the nature of the medium, you're being dragged through it at 24 frames per second."[67] Moore had opposed the adaptation of Watchmen from the beginning, intending to give any resulting film royalties to Watchmen artist Dave Gibbons.[24] According to Moore, David Hayter's script "was as close as [he] could imagine anyone getting to Watchmen." However, Moore added, "I shan't be going to see it. My book is a comic book. Not a movie, not a novel. A comic book. It's been made in a certain way, and designed to be read a certain way: in an armchair, nice and cozy next to a fire, with a steaming cup of coffee."[24]
In an early interview with Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker, Watchmen artist Dave Gibbons said that he thought the time had passed to make a Watchmen movie. At the time, Darren Aronofsky was expressing interest in directing the film under Paramount Pictures. Nevertheless, Gibbons said, "It was most likely to happen when Batman was a big success, but then that window was lost." Gibbons also told Neon, "In a way, I'm glad because it wouldn't have been up to the book."[22]
there's also the part where pretty much everything of moore's hollywood has gotten its hands on, it's ruined, and so i can't really blame him for being skeptical from past dealings, because i suspect the way he views them is more or less spot on. man this movie would be ten times better if gilliam directed it, though.
-
I swear I made a topic about this already...
-
I'm reading up on this a bit lately, and I have to say, my favorite thing about the Watchmen book/movie is the Comedian. He just looks so badass.
-
I know absolutely nothing about The Watchmen, but the only character that seems interesting from my brief research (wikipedia) and the trailer is Dr. Manhattan.
-
I know absolutely nothing about The Watchmen, but the only character that seems interesting from my brief research (wikipedia) and the trailer is Dr. Manhattan.
Go read it.
-
I know absolutely nothing about The Watchmen, but the only character that seems interesting from my brief research (wikipedia) and the trailer is Dr. Manhattan.
you're premium (http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=73664.0)
-
Urgh it's WATCHMEN no "the".
Anyways, Moore is a pretty big jerk but the guy has a long history of being screwed out of his work. There's the whole bit with Miracleman (which is still being fought over by Gaiman and McFarlane). He got screwed out of America's Best Comics which was a part of Wildstorm that got sold to DC without his input (and he had previously sworn never to work with DC again). Speaking of DC, they originally claimed they would revert rights to Watchmen and V for Vendetta when they stopped printing the books... which they have continued to do so the past 20 years but the original deal made it sound like it would only be printed a short while. His work usually ends up edited (like the Marvel Douche which got recalled) and against his wishes there's always a "recommended for mature audiences" label slapped on his books.
But at the same time, everyone who works with him has testified that he's really unpleasant to work with, highly demanding, and a self centered jerk. He's very vocal in his opinion and openly attacks people in public.
-
Urgh it's WATCHMEN no "the".
Anyways, Moore is a pretty big jerk but the guy has a long history of being screwed out of his work. There's the whole bit with Miracleman (which is still being fought over by Gaiman and McFarlane). He got screwed out of America's Best Comics which was a part of Wildstorm that got sold to DC without his input (and he had previously sworn never to work with DC again). Speaking of DC, they originally claimed they would revert rights to Watchmen and V for Vendetta when they stopped printing the books... which they have continued to do so the past 20 years but the original deal made it sound like it would only be printed a short while. His work usually ends up edited (like the Marvel Douche which got recalled) and against his wishes there's always a "recommended for mature audiences" label slapped on his books.
But at the same time, everyone who works with him has testified that he's really unpleasant to work with, highly demanding, and a self centered jerk. He's very vocal in his opinion and openly attacks people in public.
Most artists who are passionate about their work are usually unpleasant to work with. I've seen videos of him just getting interviewed or just hanging out and he seems like a pretty nice guy, really. And after watching the film versions of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and V for Vendetta I don't blame him one bit for holding a gruge on Hollywood.
Also, from the footage I've seen of this movie it seems like they're doing the same approach on this that they did with 300, which is just going to kill it in my opinion.
-
I've herd about the comic "Watchmen" but nothing more so when i found out about this film i decided to get the novel and read it and read it i have.
I think it was great and i liked the idea of heroes only being as powerfull as they themselves made themselves to be (if that made sense). I liked how they were human in both personality and ability.
My favorite character was Rorschach because his costume was simple but cool and he was infallible in what he did, even if his methods were most definitely questionable.
He's like the the most heroic of them all but at the same time the most dark. Since even at the end tried to do what he thought was the right thing and never stopped doing it but to get to what he though of what justice was he was willing to hurt and kill so long as justice was served, for him the end justified he means, the crime justified his reason.
The artwork was decently detailed and suited the atmosphere perfectly. Ultimately one of the better comics I've read in a long time. I just hope they don't screw up the film, i don't mind if they change the story for the screen since some stories just don't suit it so long as its a good one.
-
i think it's pretty ironic that rorschach justifies the means with the ends, and then at the climax dies trying to prove the exact opposite
-
Also, from the footage I've seen of this movie it seems like they're doing the same approach on this that they did with 300, which is just going to kill it in my opinion.
When I first saw the previews, the visuals had me in awe and I was pretty psyched for the movie for a bit.
Once they mentioned "The director of 300", that all got shot to hell real quick. Oh well, at least it will be marginally entertaining.
I for one, can't wait for "Meet the Watchmens" to come out!
-
I for one, can't wait for "Meet the Watchmens" to come out!
Why would you even joke about this
-
When I first saw the previews, the visuals had me in awe and I was pretty psyched for the movie for a bit.
Once they mentioned "The director of 300", that all got shot to hell real quick. Oh well, at least it will be marginally entertaining.
I for one, can't wait for "Meet the Watchmens" to come out!
Upon re-reading the book, I have serious doubts of the movie comes to even a fraction of what the novel tried to express. It's just too much for the 300 guy to handle.
300 was an awesome movie though, I don't know what the hell some of you guys are talking about.
-
how was it awesome, exactly? it was the epitome of a one trick action movie that substituted a lifeless visual style for any real substance. so was it awesome because WHOAAA that guy totally just sliced that dude's head off, or was it awesome because of the total lack of characterization or development? or maybe because of the mediocre plot and overblown, melodramatic dialogue? it was just some trite, one-dimensional action movie that ripped off greek mythology with a photoshop filter applied to it. it was fluff, and had about as much cinematic merit as xXx: state of the union.
-
how was it awesome, exactly? it was the epitome of a one trick action movie that substituted a lifeless visual style for any real substance. so was it awesome because WHOAAA that guy totally just sliced that dude's head off, or was it awesome because of the total lack of characterization or development? or maybe because of the mediocre plot and overblown, melodramatic dialogue? it was just some trite, one-dimensional action movie that ripped off greek mythology with a photoshop filter applied to it. it was fluff, and had about as much cinematic merit as xXx: state of the union.
I am blown away by this. Obviously this type of post is meant to start arguments but damn you got me.
I mean, obviously the filters and visual style of the movie are pretty new to modern cinema, which I suppose you can view as a bad thing if you really try hard enough, but it's hardly a ripoff of greek mythology since it's a retelling of the story lol. Pretty much everything you said sarcastically was a good thing, was actually pretty good.
I'm trying really hard to argue with you less, you're making it very hard!
-
well eric you have laughably terrible/low-brow taste in everything so i was actually hoping that someone halfway intelligent would give me a legit answer. i wouldn't call it a retelling so much as a ripoff because it took ridiculous liberties and generally took a piece of mythology and turned it into a shitty hollywood blockbuster. also the visual style isn't bad because it's new; i don't even think it's inherently bad at all, but directors use that exact kind of flimsy shit as a substitute for cinematic worth. it's just a sheen they put over it instead of actually bothering to make a good movie. it's a gimmick. and none of my post was sarcastic.
-
Alright, so maybe it wasn't awesome from an objective, literary standpoint.
But I sure as hell liked it. To me, movies aren't books. If nothing else, I'm a pretty damn well read person, so when I read a book, I demand character development, plot, and dialogue, and it better be damn good. But if a movie has pretty explosions, cool effects, and I can enjoy it with friends, then hell, it's a good movie to me.
-
why would you have vastly lower expectations of a movie than a book? that's totally unreasonable. they're different mediums, but there's no linear difference in quality. you always play up this BOOKS: TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, GAMES/MOVIES: JUST FOR FUN point and i don't really understand where you would get such an arbitrary misconception. what is there about movies that would give you ANY idea that it's somehow more acceptable for it to just be mindless fluff than it is for a book to be the same?
also i've never judged 300 or any other movie based on some literary standpoint, so books are wholly irrelevant, here. i'm judging it based on a cinematic standpoint. as in, it's not being measured against FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS, it's being measured against other works within its own medium. but there's a difference between a good movie and a FUN movie, in the same way there's a difference between junk food that tastes good and... actual well prepared cuisine. would you eat doritos and then a really well cooked dish and then be like "whelp they're both tasty so there's no difference in quality/substance at all"?
-
i am going to derail the topic for a moment and ask whether anyone knows how 300's visual style is done. is it just like a universal COLOR FILTER or something?
-
i mean i thought that's what it was, just some filter, but honestly it's probably more complicated than that. this is what wiki says:
Post-production was handled by Montreal's Meteor Studios and Hybride Technologies filled in the bluescreen footage with more than 1500 visual effects shots. Visual effects supervisor Chris Watts and production designer Jim Bissell created a process dubbed "The Crush,"[12] which allowed the Meteor artists to manipulate the colors by increasing the contrast of light and dark. Certain sequences were desaturated and tinted to establish different moods. Ghislain St-Pierre, who led the team of artists, described the effect: "Everything looks realistic, but it has a kind of a gritty illustrative feel."[12][19] Various computer programs, including Maya, RenderMan and RealFlow, were used to create the "spraying blood."[20] The post-production lasted for a year and was handled by a total of ten special effects companies.[21]
-
:words:
ballandpaddle
Alright, so maybe I put my foot in my mouth when I said that movies shouldn't be judged in the same standard as books. And for the record, I did say I retracted my statement that 300 was an objectively good movie.
But damn, does something have to be a top notch, gold quality masterpiece for me to enjoy it? Can't something be objectively shit, but still enjoyable from a personal standpoint? So 300 may be a crappy movie objectively and cinematic fluff, but I still enjoy watching it. Where is the fault in that?
-
there's no fault in it at all. i don't care that you enjoyed it, enjoy whatever you want! but you EXPLICITLY SAID that 300 was an awesome movie and you had no idea what we were talking about like it was some flawless movie and we had no reason not to like it. this entire thing has just been an explanation, not me telling you what you should and shouldn't like. everyone likes stupid shit.
-
You're right, and my apologies.
-
I dunno how you figure it's such a bad movie. It straight up ISNT a ripoff, that's the same fanboy bullshit that comes up with all movie adaptations. You are asking a little much if you expect a movie to come direct from the print, (ironic, in this case some of it did). ALSO, the diversions from the Greek mythology came from the book, and have nothing to do with the movie, which should be judged seperately, right? ps I did a search for Little Red Riding Hood, classic story right, DOZENS of movies come up, clearly all ripoffs, as they are not the events from the grimm brothers' version.
I can understand why you wouldn't LIKE the over-dramatizations with the dialogue and plot, but these things are also strengths, and whether they are good or bad is in direct relation to your opinion. The movie did very well in theatres and dvd sales, and has a very good rating pretty much everywhere you look.
but cool anyway dude, im glad thinking a movie was good makes me unintelligent. I'd like to hear what makes my opinions so terrible, and what makes yours so great. Seriously dude, you pick fights for fucking nothing.
-
If you think 300 is anything but entertaining garbage then something's up. It wouldn't even be entertaining if you couldn't just switch your brain off for the SWEET VISUALS and shout the totally tubular catch-phrases with your amigos.
-
If you think 300 is anything but entertaining garbage then something's up. It wouldn't even be entertaining if you couldn't just switch your brain off for the SWEET VISUALS and shout the totally tubular catch-phrases with your amigos.
Pretty much this, I don't know anyone that went into 300 expecting anything else but to be able to turn their brain off and indulge in visuals and swords and yelling.
-
I don't think 'entertaining' and garbage should be used so freely in the same sentence, but they certainly aren't mutually exclusive.
-
I dunno how you figure it's such a bad movie. It straight up ISNT a ripoff, that's the same fanboy bullshit that comes up with all movie adaptations. You are asking a little much if you expect a movie to come direct from the print, (ironic, in this case some of it did). ALSO, the diversions from the Greek mythology came from the book, and have nothing to do with the movie, which should be judged seperately, right? ps I did a search for Little Red Riding Hood, classic story right, DOZENS of movies come up, clearly all ripoffs, as they are not the events from the grimm brothers' version.
I can understand why you wouldn't LIKE the over-dramatizations with the dialogue and plot, but these things are also strengths, and whether they are good or bad is in direct relation to your opinion. The movie did very well in theatres and dvd sales, and has a very good rating pretty much everywhere you look.
but cool anyway dude, im glad thinking a movie was good makes me unintelligent. I'd like to hear what makes my opinions so terrible, and what makes yours so great. Seriously dude, you pick fights for fucking nothing.
so i shouldn't criticize the subject matter of a movie because it is based on a book? how about i just criticize both? 300 the novel was kinda gay, too, but it was better than the film adaptation. and dawg if you cannot recognize a middle of the road between COMPLETELY ACCURATE and PERSIANS WITH SWORD-ARMS then i don't know what to tell you. also the difference between this and little red riding hood is that where it is MORE OR LESS fairly accurate and just omits a lot of shit for the sake of making it acceptable for seven year olds, this is a grossly inaccurate and overstylized bastardization that can't even hide behind the fact that it was only changed to be more fitting for children. don't get me wrong, i think those disney adaptations are pretty lame, and i think kids can handle more than people give them credit for, but this is substantially worse than that. it took way way way more liberties than those movies pretty much ever do. compared to this, they seem pretty faithful to the original stories! the problem with 300 isn't ONLY that it's inaccurate and just a really stupid adaptation; that's not even its MAIN problem. it's just some cheesy action movie that nerds with no taste for whatever reason decided to espouse constantly.
also no sorry bud BAD MELODRAMA is not a strength; that's an objectively bad quality. it's a negative unless USED SATIRICALLY i guess, and that clearly isn't the case here! also i think you're unintelligent because you constantly post stuff that makes you come across like a pretty unsophisticated guy, for example using DVD SALES to judge a movie's quality. get the hell out of here with that! this is a pretty universal opinion on this board i have noticed, so!
-
ps i didn't pick this fight, i just asked a question! i would say if anyone picked it, it was mog. but that's not to say i wouldn't have if he didn't, because i do enjoy being kind of a dick over stupid unimportant shit on the internet!
-
but cool anyway dude, im glad thinking a movie was good makes me unintelligent. I'd like to hear what makes my opinions so terrible, and what makes yours so great. Seriously dude, you pick fights for fucking nothing.
1. Michael Bay
2. George Lucas
3. Jon Favreau
4. Zach Braff
5. Rob Reiner
-
i would say if anyone picked it, it was mog.
FUCK YEAH BABY this is some schoolyard shit right here, who else is up for an ass whuppin. gonna steal your lunch money
In other news...
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/36282/Watchmenbabies.png)
-
ahahaha i forgot about that. that was a pretty good ep considering the simpsons kind of sucks a lot now.
-
I dunno, I was doing some browsing, and the Watchmen movie might, might actually be pretty good. I'm still not sure, but it might be alright.
-
uh i forgot i'd already had an argument in this thread until i looked on the last page and remembered. weren't you saying that you'd read the book and that the trailer looked awesome???
-
I've also just said that I've looked around the internet for more information regarding the movie, and I've also just finished the book again.
-
hahahahaa that episode of the Simpsons was so good.
-
I've also just said that I've looked around the internet for more information regarding the movie, and I've also just finished the book again.
it just seems kind of odd! what did the internet tell you that you didn't get out of the trailer? also idk i wouldn't have expected a second read through to be so illuminating if you got it the first time, especially since there's not even that much to get.
-
it just seems kind of odd! what did the internet tell you that you didn't get out of the trailer? also idk i wouldn't have expected a second read through to be so illuminating if you got it the first time, especially since there's not even that much to get.
I looked more on the production, the cast, the crew, shit like that. I did research. And yeah, I read Watchmen for the first time a really long time ago. It's pretty illuminating when the last time you read a book you were barely in high school, compared to a junior in college.
-
Why would you even joke about this
Would it have been better if I was speaking honestly?
But yeah, Matt Groening is a lot better at making jokes than I am.
-
Hey guys, the posters are out.
http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/08/01/wb-releases-those-watchmen-posters/
and
The 1986 house ads they redid: http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/03/13/fearful-scenery-vintage-watchmen-ads/
-
i still have a lot of reservations about this movie but damn those posters look good.
-
I dont know if this counts for anything but: http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/08/15/kevin-smith-has-seen-watchmen-its-fking-astounding/
also i want to see this movie, the comic was sick.
-
wait, if the movie is FINISHED, why wont it be released for like eight months?
-
Someone find it and steal it or something D:
-
Well if KEVIN SMITH says its-fcking-astounding.......
-
Except he also thinks Sin City was amazing.
Yeah we're fucked.
-
i mean
i thought sin city was a pretty alright adaptation of the books, even though i didn't read all of them. like i don't know what you were expecting but the books were basically GRITTY, STYLIZED FILM NOIRISH SHIT//VERYSEXIST and that's more or less what you got with the movie.
-
and he did say ten times better
-
i mean
i thought sin city was a pretty alright adaptation of the books, even though i didn't read all of them. like i don't know what you were expecting but the books were basically GRITTY, STYLIZED FILM NOIRISH SHIT//VERYSEXIST and that's more or less what you got with the movie.
yeah i guess corny noirish grit is good when its on paper but when it's in a movie HWO NO
-
wait, if the movie is FINISHED, why wont it be released for like eight months?
They probably still have to finalize certain effects, change parts, etc. I forget what the usual term for this is. Postproduction or something maybe. Idk.
-
I hated the Sin City movie but yeah part of the reason was because it was such a literal translation from the comic book (WASTE OF FILM HEH).
of course I see this as a problem for the Watchmen movie considering the original work is really dependent on the fact that it is a comic book (the whole thing is a deconstruction of superheros or whatever) but these considerations are not really things I'd expect KEVIN SMITH to figure out so it's probably really accurate yeah.
-
basically yes I'd rather they not follow the original work literally and change it for the movie, commence nerdrage.
A History of Violence was much better because the director did this.
-
David C didn't even know that History of Violence was based on a graphic novel until well into the movie's production.
-
No. He's only credited because he wrote a screenplay.
I like the trailer, it's kinda cool. Mainly because it was very very well cut. I love that shot when they stretch out the flag to the music and they show the Comedian. My main complaint is that everything is in slow motion. Also Rorschauch's voice is not near as badass as the way Alan Moore does it.
The song is 'Smashing Pumpkins - The Beginning' is the End is the Beginning from the Batman & Robin soundtrack.
I remember yelling "WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN" in the theatre really loud but no one knew what I was talking about.................
I'm going to be a fag smart ass and correct you. The song from Batman & Robin is actually "The End Is The Beginning Is The End".
This version is a remake and thus called "The Beginning Is The End Is The Beginning."
-
I'm going to be a fag smart ass and correct you. The song from Batman & Robin is actually "The End Is The Beginning Is The End".
This version is a remake and thus called "The Beginning Is The End Is The Beginning."
I'm going to be a smart ass and correct you and tell you Psyburn is right!
They were both on the OST for B&R.
This version isn't a remake lol. One is slow, one is fast. They were both from Batman & Robin and made for it. You should probably learn your facts, buddy!
-
I really want to see a live action version of Rorschach unmasked; I want to see what actor successfully pulls of his disheveled absolutist lunatic look.
NO! MY FACE! GIVE IT BACK
-
basically yes I'd rather they not follow the original work literally and change it for the movie, commence nerdrage.
A History of Violence was much better because the director did this.
Yeah, comics and movies are two really different media so I'm not sure that a straight port would work that well, and honestly I'd be kind of interested in seeing how a good director could maybe use the source material as a guideline and actually make the whole thing his own... It's just that nothing I've seen from Zack Snyder makes me think he'd be a good choice for something like this. I might be judging too harshly based on only two films (and one of them was a Frank Miller adaptation so it's probably not fair to exclusively blame Snyder for it being brainless and shallow), but yeah, they were both just really overstylised stupid action movies and I don't think he would be able to add much to the comic apart from explosions/nu-metal soundtrack.
-
I really want to see a live action version of Rorschach unmasked; I want to see what actor successfully pulls of his disheveled absolutist lunatic look.
NO! MY FACE! GIVE IT BACK
this guys plays rorschach (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0355097/)
-
wow, he's pretty unattractive! i think if he grew some hair he'd make an alright rorschach, at least in terms of appearance.
-
Well, Rorschach himself is an ugly motherfucker, so if he's that unattractive than he's halfway there. He does need to grow some hair, though.
-
ginger fuckin hair and freckles
-
I just finished the graphic novel, and it was fucking astounding. The ending blew my fucking mind. I doubt they will truly capture the genius that is the comic book, but I hope they portray the same ending, because damn...
-
Do we know if the movie will be set in 1985?
-
Do we know if the movie will be set in 1985?
Yeah it is.
-
It pretty much HAS to be, no?
-
Yeah dude reading anything about the movie should make it really evident that it's set in 1985. Even in the trailer you see in the background RICHARD NIXON on the televisions right.
-
Well, I didn't analyze the trailer frame by frame looking for every possible hint or content, so I must have missed seeing Nixon.
Hollywood has a habit of "modernizing" movies because they assume that the average movie-goer cannot fathom something being set in the recent past (unless it is obviously in the past, like 300 B.C.)
EDIT:
especially since the trailer starts with "IN 2009, EVERYTHING WE KNOW WILL CHANGE"
-
Well, I didn't analyze the trailer frame by frame looking for every possible hint or content, so I must have missed seeing Nixon.
Hollywood has a habit of "modernizing" movies because they assume that the average movie-goer cannot fathom something being set in the recent past (unless it is obviously in the past, like 300 B.C.)
Nah, I saw a press conference and Snyder seems to be a fan himself and he is going to be as faithful to the book as he can. I was nervous at first about the movie but it's shaping up to be quite good and close to the source material.
-
Dunno if you guys have been keeping up, but Warner Bros and Fox are going to court on Jan 6th over the rights to this film. I guess back in 1991 Fox bought some of the rights to the movie, and now Fox is trying to block the release. The court date is 2 months before the movie release date, so it's probably not going to hit theatres then, if at all.
Also, Alan Moore is a total psychopath and was quoted saying he'll be "spitting venom" all over the watchmen movie. Meaning he is unsupportive. He apparently has never seen any of the adaptations of his work anyway, so I'm sure this is completely money related.
-
Dunno if you guys have been keeping up, but Warner Bros and Fox are going to court on Jan 6th over the rights to this film. I guess back in 1991 Fox bought some of the rights to the movie, and now Fox is trying to block the release. The court date is 2 months before the movie release date, so it's probably not going to hit theatres then, if at all.
Also, Alan Moore is a total psychopath and was quoted saying he'll be "spitting venom" all over the watchmen movie. Meaning he is unsupportive. He apparently has never seen any of the adaptations of his work anyway, so I'm sure this is completely money related.
No he hates every adaptation to his shit because they are all terrible pretty much. He doesn't want any money from it.
-
if I was Moore I'd do the same thing. someone buying out movie rights to shit I never wanted to make into a movie because every single aspect I crafted in the story was directly related to the medium it was in? yeah I'd be pissed.
-
Not me.
I'd sell out in a heartbeat.
-
Not me.
I'd sell out in a heartbeat.
I dunno, I'd have to go the George Lucas route and see how many people I can get to love me regardless of whatever the fuck I do, then sell out like a motherfucker.
Best of both worlds, baby.
-
THEATRICAL TRAILER
Btw, dunno if this is good or bad news, but the ending has been changed! I guess Zack Snyder can translate pictures to film pixel for pixel, but when it comes to actual plot he's not up to the task. I'm still optimistic though, I think there had to be a good reason for it.
What was changed: SPOILER
The squid/teleportation thing was removed, and in it's place is a machine that can duplicate parts of Dr. Manhattan's powers. You can see a bit of the explosion it causes in NYC in the trailer when Dr. Manhattan is talking about saving the world.
-
If that ending change is the truth, if I ever see Zack Snyder I would punch him in the face. I mean, what the fuck? Watchmen is great, and he had the proper ending, why the fuck would he change it?
-
to make it a bit more realistic?
Maybe also for a different effect. What with it being parts of Manhattan's powers being used against everyone, it seems like its supposed to send some sort of cruel fate message or something.
-
That's what I was thinking.
It is just too damned ridiculous to keep everything word for word from the book, and then completely change the end. There has got to be a reason, NO ONE DOES THAT.
-
So either he fucked up the entire story, or he fucked up the ending which in turn would fuck up the story. I'll be going to see this anyway, but I hope to god it's true enough to the graphic novel. Nothing about movies sucks more than watching a movie that butchers one of your favourite books/comics/games etc.
Movies don't need to be realistic to be good movies.
-
i like how you guys are complaining about a COMPLETELY TRIVIAL aspect of the ending which doesn't actually change it at all or the way things happen.
-
I think changing the ending is in good taste, outside of the whole "plausable vs inplausible" thing too.
I mean think about it. If he tried to take exactly what the comic was and make it into a movie, then it would obviously fall short and people would complain. But now he's taking this movie as something that obviously has to be a different entity from the original Watchmen series, and thusly in can be judged on it's own merit instead of in relation to what the original offers.
But more than that, people will get to watch this movie and not be spoiled on the ending of the comic. So they can enjoy both to their entirety despite how the rest of the plot seems to fall in line with the original (for one thing, I'm sure there are a lot of omissions that wouldn't make sense in movie format, which probably plays into why the movie's plot reaches a different ending point than in the comic).
-
man that trailer was awful
-
oh my god the ACTING in that trailer.
-
i like how you guys are complaining about a COMPLETELY TRIVIAL aspect of the ending which doesn't actually change it at all or the way things happen.
it doesn't unless you were really gung-ho about that island of intellectuals and person with the weird brain part of the story staying exactly the same as it was. i guess some people could be?
-why would i want to save a world that i no longer care about.
-do it for me.
-oh that's really compelling i will get right on it.
flattest thing in the world, this whole movie looks like its gonna suck and i hate hate hate rorschach's angry growling whispers
-
man that trailer was awful
serious? after all the slow-motion/hype trailers they've been spewing out this was a nice change. you know, with actual content.
-
flattest thing in the world, this whole movie looks like its gonna suck and i hate hate hate rorschach's angry growling whispers
yes the acting in the trailer is terrible and this movie is most likely going to suck but uhhh that's how rorschach is supposed to sound! at least, that's how alan moore reads the character http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FS60iN0g2I
-
Are you guys serious? I pretty much dislike Snyder but I legitimately think this movie looks good.
esainn: if that was the case the graphic novel would have been shunned a long time ago!
-
Are you guys serious? I pretty much dislike Snyder but I legitimately think this movie looks good.
esainn: if that was the case the graphic novel would have been shunned a long time ago!
if what was the case? people disliking flat characters? there's a difference between flat acting and flat characters. they both just sounded really bored.
also moore's voice is a lot less guttural and phlegmy sounding, it was just gravelly. this sounds kind of like the batman voice from the new movies which is hard to take seriously.
-
serious? after all the slow-motion/hype trailers they've been spewing out this was a nice change. you know, with actual content.
it doesn't count if the actual content is bad
-
as horrible elitist as this sounds I dont understand how anyone who enjoyed the comic book could look forward to this. ah yes this book that was about 99% defined by its medium and the only reason it's significant...it needs to be in fucking motion for some reason because I have all the imagination of an inanimate object and cannot fill in the gaps between panels.
it sounds bad but I can't imagine you really got what made watchmen good if the thought of a zack snyder movie and videogame gets you excited.
-
lol I was waiting for that one.
Fuck Alan Moore dude, this movie is going to kick ass.
Just because it won't be AS AWESOME as you think the book was, doesn't mean it's complete garbage.
But if you look around the different forums, Watchmen is a lot more coveted than the other comic books, so of course there are going to be people upset. I'm not surprised to hear the whole "you guys don't understand watchmen" thing again, but this movie will likely generate interest in the book, so at least you'll get to be one of the OG's right?
-
it's "complete garbage" for entirely different reasons but yes FUCK ALAN MOORE for not wanting his comic needlessly turned into shit to turn a buck off of vapid nerds like you who think this is good or even watchable. but yes thank you for presuming that the reason we think it will be bad is because we like the comic books and are just OVERLY SENSITIVE NERDS and that we're saying "you just don't understand" because we are elitists and heh.... you just dont get it pal. or it could be that, you know, we think it'll be bad because it looks like a poorly acted piece of shit action movie which isn't anything like the comic book at all; it could also be that we are saying you don't understand the book because if you did you wouldn't think that some cheeseball superhero movie is a good idea when even alan moore himself says that it shouldn't be adapted because it doesn't make sense out of the context of a comic. as in, that is kind of the fucking point and it being a movie to begin with is a terrible idea because the concept itself is based around the medium being a comic.
man it is funny eric, you are such a one-note guy about this stuff. no matter what worthless piece of trash comes along, the second someone like steel or i criticizes it for being bad in ways that anyone who is even remotely intelligent could see, you come along and reduce the entire critique to "heh im elitist" or "heh i dont like anything mainstream *listens to underground music to appear unique and interesting*" despite the fact that it is rarely even close to what anyone in the topic has said. you are one of the worst goddamn judges of character i have ever seen and i am completely serious when i say that your reading comprehension skills are fucking shameful. i have never encountered someone who could so consistently COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT of everything. if there was some kind of process someone with an extremely shallow capacity for thought and observation could go through to get better, right now i would be the time that i would suggest you do that.
-
What the fuck dude, I didn't say anything about you being elitist!!! Did you guys like peg me an outsider or something because every time I post it's one of you guys after me!
I seriously don't know why you hate my guts so much, you really don't know anything about me other than 2-3 sentence comments, you DEFINITELY don't know my reading comprehension lol. I'm seriously trying really hard to get on your good side and you are coming at me for what seems like nothing.
To defend myself, obviously it's not like I hate Alan Moore, but the guy is pretty out there, and to say "when he wrote it, he wasn't thinking about a movie, SO NO MOVIE," is too strong! Give it a chance! I don't know about you, but I've been trying to keep up with this movie, the video blogs, set visits, all that nonsense, and IMO, it looks great. The director has SAID there will be more action, just because it is a movie. I agree that the acting in that trailer is bad, the voices for Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach not so great, but I appreciate that it isn't the book, and did like the book, so I welcome the movie! Watchmen is probably lucky to have Zack Snyder in some ways, because there probably aren't many other directors out there that would respect the source material so much! (Not counting the ending change...)
But yea dude, I don't recall ever even using the word elitist, and other than you trying to insult me all of the time I have no problem with you!
-
They're saying it won't fit as a comic book movie because the actual comic book "watchmen" is a sort of spoof on comic books so its like making a comic book movie based on a comic book that is sort of about comic books which is really stupid.
I've never read the watchmen but it seems pretty interesting so someday I'll probably pick it up. I can understand why it is repulsive to some people but it just isn't so with me because I haven't read it yet. So I will probably end up watching this movie first and going, "that was a pretty good movie" when yes it will probably be a horrid remake of a comic which shouldn't be remade in the first place.
No one hates you, if you say something and don't want to back it up or defend your statement with an argument then don't say anything in the first place because thats what happens on a FORUM where you DISCUSS SHIT.
-
I have no problem explaining myself; if you disagree I'd be glad to give my full opinions, but I tend to write huge paragraphs and think they are too long and delete them and sum things up. I'd definitely rather argue real opinions than sling personal attacks at someone...
About Watchmen being a parody: this is true in the book.
Obviously parallels with Superman, Batman, and the thing about the replaced superheroes (Nite Owl II). Actually my favorite is the "35 minutes ago" comment about villains.
Watching the trailer for this movie, it's not so obvious. It may not even be such a theme in the movie, rather the movie rely on the actual plot. I guess if you instantly dislike of the movie for that reason I understand, but I'm sure no one here has seen it yet!
Consistently though, there is NO way to transmit everything from a book into a movie, and aside from just being a money maker, the movie will also generate book sales! I can't imagine anyone who likes the book wouldn't want other people to like it too?
As for Watchmen not being adaptable to film, I disagree. Obviously parts of it will not translate: sections of Rorschach's monologue, Mason's book, etc... But optimistically, none of the comic movies were meant to be films. Spiderman, for instance, had to be updated for movies by having webbing come from his body. Back whenever Spidey was made, web canisters were beyond impossible. Now that we are further in science, it wouldn't even be believable.
Things like this can be updated, for instance our better knowledge of nuclear weapons, in relation to the cold war aspect of watchmen. I don't believe it could be completely bad, even if it were an unfaithful adaptation!
-
What the fuck dude, I didn't say anything about you being elitist!!! Did you guys like peg me an outsider or something because every time I post it's one of you guys after me!
I seriously don't know why you hate my guts so much, you really don't know anything about me other than 2-3 sentence comments, you DEFINITELY don't know my reading comprehension lol. I'm seriously trying really hard to get on your good side and you are coming at me for what seems like nothing.
it is because you and a few others do this thing where you frequently come into topics of various sorts involving things like this or matters of TASTE in general and oversimplify people's views to squeeze them into some one-dimensional archetype like KID WHO DOESNT LIKE POPULAR SHIT and it is incredibly insulting because that's not what gw is at all, ever, and while you are right about my not knowing you, if you do think this is what it is (again you are part of a pack of 3-4 people who do this shit) then your reading comprehension skills are very clearly low, because no one would ever come to this type of conclusion if they had understood the posts. if you want to get on my "good side" or whatever then you can maybe stop acting like all of our negative opinions of garbage like transformers are a direct result of us going against the grain.
also respecting the source material does not matter if you do not respect the context or the tone. it is the LEAST important thing. the fact of the matter is, as harry kind of said, watchmen is a commentary on superhero comics in the form of a superhero comic. outside of the medium, it literally makes no sense. that is why this movie is just A SUPERHERO MOVIE now. the entire point has been lost so i couldn't give any less of a shit if it is factually faithful or whatever. that doesn't mean it'll be intellectually faithful and that is far more significant imo. watchmen as a concept is defined by the medium it was created in and loses all meaning outside of it; even moore himself says this, and it is clearly not something these people respect. so it is an oversimplification to say that because alan moore wrote it as a comic it means no movie ever. that's not why there shouldn't be a movie. also zack snyder is a hack who makes nothing but drivel and there's no indication from either of the trailers i've seen that this will be any different. it's just another crowd pleaser to appeal to the same apes who thought 300 was good.
-
Man Spider-Man really isn't a good example either! Spider-Man was really popular and it's makers decided to maje it into a FRANCHISE basically, with TV Shows, toys, TV movies, movies, games out the ass, etc. Yes they change it every now and then (they gave him organic webbing in the comics for an arc too, so he didn't need the canisters), but it's a franchise that has a tone that stays the same no matter the medium it's in. The idea behind Spider-Man has always been COMMON NERD BECOMES SUPER HERO AND SAVES THE DAY. That is really it in a nut shell, but guess what? You can do that in any medium really. Film, television, book, game, etc, it all works. Moore intended Watchmen to just be this 12 issue series, a beginning and an end, an intent. Not a franchise. It's a graphic novel, it's not your normal comic book series that goes on forever and ever. It has a purpose, and the purpose relies on it being a comic book. I think the movie looks cool too (I thought it was gonna be A LOT worse...), but mostly because I guess I'm interested in seeing how good/bad it will really be in its entirety. I already expect that the entire SMART point of the thing will be lost in this transition, so I'm not really going in there with HIGH HOPES, but I think at the least it looks OKAY for what it will be (superhero movie).
-
watchmen is a work almost WHOLELY dependent on the fact it's a comic book. do you know what a movie version of watchmen should be? a bunch of old movie characters like bogart, cary grant, gregory peck, all who have retired in the face of new action heroes like harrison ford, except for one or two who discover a sinister plot to destroy the world via some movie macguffin.
but this will not happen because it can't be watchmen and also because that's actually an interesting idea. you could do neat visual effects like have the film slowly progress from black and white to color, all sorts of stuff. but it won't happen.
this movie is a fundamentally bad idea. it has nothing to do with being one of the "OG"s or whatever but more that no one who read Watchmen should have thought YEAH A MOVIE AND A GAME BASED ON THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. Moore is crazy, I never said he wasn't, and his other works like League and V could have been translated to film (and were, though rather poorly) without a loss of message. but Watchmen is about comic books and is a comic book and this is such an intellectually deprived idea that it doesn't surprise me an idiot like Kevin Smith would gush about it.
I'm flummoxed that you think fucking SPIDERMAN is comparable to Watchmen. not that Spiderman hasn't been at times brilliantly written, but Watchmen is a critique of the medium of comic books at its heart, not an everyman superhero struggling to do the right thing. jesus christ, have you read Watchmen? something tells me you haven't if you think comparing it to Spiderman makes sense.
-
I think you guys are giving the Watchmen a little too much credit. Or maybe I just DIDN'T GET IT but I think I can live without some kind of comic book commentary.
edit: I really don't read comic books at all so maybe the comic book commentary was lost on me throughout the book, but I don't see why the movie couldn't still be a COMMENTARY or whatever the fuck on superheroes in general? I guess? I don't know, I'm just saying it doesn't look great or anything but it also might not really be HORRID SHIT (also guys stop saying horrid that word is the gayest) just because it's not making fun of other comic books or something.
Also I never really got the sense that it was MAKING FUN of other comic books but then again I guess I didn't really have much of a sense of context.
-
you're kidding right.
well uh first of all the original group of superheroes is based on the JSA, there are obvious analogs between superman, batman, and manhattan, rorschach, the entire book is based on a realistic take on if the comic book superheroes grew up (not just normal people acquiring superpowers, which something like Demo or Secret Identity or a bunch of other comic books have already covered, as the entire thing is based on the optimism of the early comic books leading into the darker later years), there are constant, like, HUNDREDS of panel quips where someone says "out of the blue" and the next panel has doc manhattan appearing with his blue dingleberries, and then you've got all sorts of brilliant little jokes that make it a good work like the infamous political cartoon, all sorts of visual shit that just wouldn't convey in a film medium (where you have your leisure to notice details like, say, the fact that Pyramid Deliveries is outside the place the Comedian died), and all of this is ignoring the fact that superheroes barely exist outside the comic industry and saying something is critical of superheroes and not comics is like saying something is critical of the character of Hamlet and not within the context of the play.
and this is all based on at least a year old reading.
-
dude whatever! I guess all the subtle things went over my head (as they usually do when I read/watch something for the first time, SORRY BUT I CAN'T CATCH EVERYTHING THAT'S THROWN AT ME) so I guess some of the MOCKERY was lost on me. I went into Watchmen thinking that it I guess PRETTY CLEARLY MOCKS SUPERHEROS because that is the impression that I got from this topic, but as I read it I felt like it wasn't so much making fun of superheroes as it was... I don't know, looking at them from another perspective, like in a more realistic way (in terms of HUMAN REASONING and things like that).
And besides I don't read comic books anyway so I guess I don't notice all these comic book tricks or whatever. You can't expect someone who has never watched a movie before to catch all the subtleties of Mulholland Drive, right?
Actually I forgot what I was arguing, or if I even was arguing for anything in the first place. I think some people are getting too up in arms about the movie? I don't know. Like there is nothing wrong with being offended by the idea of a Watchmen movie, but it's something you just have to be like "well looks like someone missed the point" and shrug it off. Or something. Don't listen to me because I am not really putting too much thought into this post.
-
Maybe if you guys could make a solid argument about how bad the movie is without comparing it to the comic, then it'd be more receptive to the people who you are looking down on for trying to come up with a reason to (Heaven forbid!) actually look forward to the movie coming out. (You can bitch about the movie falling short five-ways from sunday and not be called elitist until the instant you start holding yourself above people that choose not to do this)
When I heard about the film, I expected it to fall short of the comic. If everything that made the comic great was stuff you could capture in a movie, I would simply call the comic an overhyped piece of garbage. It's also why I try to look forward to what this film will offer in the respect that it is a film. A good film is a good film, a bad film is a bad film. If it's a bad film of a great comic, then I would be just as pissed off and bitch with the rest of you. I don't know for certain it's a bad film though, because I WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY WATCH IT FIRST. (Hey, has anyone picked up on the irony of people judging a movie called "The Watchmen" when nobody has yet been able to "watch" it? Who watches the Watchmen? Nobody yet, but that won't stop them from telling us all about it!)
Well, at least we get a trailer now, so we can watch the whole thing condensed into 2 1/2 minutes and pretend that that shows everything significant about how the movie will express the plot. (Although it can't be far from the truth. Since the trailer can only be so long, we know it'd have to take the portion of most significant clips out of the entire movie in order to maximize that limited amount of trailer time.)
The point is that it really is a great comic, but you have to be pretty fucking pretentious to assume that the method in which the comic chose to potray the story is so intertwined with the things that it potrayed, that it is literally impossible to tell that story using any other medium.
Why can't you pretend that the comic doesn't exist and view this movie as what it was made to be (Hint: It wasn't made to be a comic book. At least I hope to God it isn't, or we'll have another "300" on our hands), then if you want to experience everything that the comic offers, you can read the damned comic instead of trying to get it from the movie! I would think you guys clinging to what makes the comic so great could appreciate that! But instead you want the movie to be everything the comic is, so you can get it all by watching a glowing screen and never have to worry about reading ever again!
If it makes you feel any better, I do have unreasonably high expectations for this film (Even though when I do watch it, I will be judging it as a film, and not a comic book). Like, if it isn't as good as The Dark Knight was, then I'm not giving it any regard at all, since I feel like judging it any less in regard to cinema quality would be doing the comic injustice in relation to what the comic did in terms of comic quality. Hopefully it's better than The Dark Night though, because that's what I'm going to walk in there expecting. (coincidentally, Roscharch sounds exactly like Bruce Wayne when he's in his "Batman mode". I'm probably going to count that aganst the movie.)
-
what the hell are you talking about.
I'm saying its a comic book because thats the only thing the creator and pretty much the plot let it be. it would make a shitty fucking novel or play, and it'll be a forgettable movie, one of those things like cloverfield where gw says I FORGAVE ALL ITS FLAWS ITS A GREAT MOVIE ANYWAYS and never mentions it again.
IF YUO DONT LIKE MOVIE GO READ THE BOOK jesus christ listen to yourself.
-
And I'm disagreeing with you.
I'm saying that nobody here has presented a ground basis for making the claim that "It is a comic book because that's the only thing that it could possibly be. Trying to present it as anything else cannot possibly work because it can only work as a comic book" All you guys are doing is making that claim, assuming that it is valid by necessity, and that WE are the ones being illogical by saying "Well, maybe it could turn out differently... We haven't seen the movie yet, so in our eyes the possibility of it being actually good still exists". If you want us to beleive what you are saying even half as hard as you do, then you are simply going to have to prove it.
Even if the movie is terrible, that does not prove that the only way to express the ideas that the comic book expressed was with the comic book. All it proves was that whoever made the movie can't do it by making a movie. Even if the movie is great, it's not going to give you everything (or possibly even anything) that the comic book gives you. And even if the movie gives you little to nothing the comic gives you, that in no way tells us that the movie will be terrible. The movie and comic book are two different things, and no matter how related to each other they are, the quality present in one does not have any bearing on the quality present in the other. The book will always be a good book. And the movie, will be whatever the movie is. Sure it's more likely than not that the movie won't be good (I'll give you that much, it makes perfect sense to expect that), but there is no proof present that eliminates the possibility of the movie being good.
Hell, let me just take a break here so I can make this perfectly clear (and you no longer have to put words in my mouth...):
IF YUO DONT LIKE MOVIE GO READ THE BOOK.
IF YUO ABSOLUTLEY LIKE MOVIE GO READ THE BOOK.
If I can't get any other point out, then I want to make sure this point is perfectly clear:
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THIS MOVIE TURNS OUT. IT HAS ABSOLUTLEY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON HOW GOOD THE BOOK IS. THIS MOVIE BEING RELEASED WILL NOT CHANGE HOW GOOD THE COMIC IS EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY IMAGINABLE.
(If you have a good reason for disagreeing with this, then I would love to hear it.)
What I'm trying to find out is what you guys are arguing about? Are you saying that because this movie isn't going to be the greatest comic book ever, than it shouldn't be made? I doubt that is the case, because it's impossible (by definition) for a movie to be a comic book. Are you saying that because this movie is under the same name as a comic book known for being a really great comic book, that it has to be terrible movie in order to even try to fit in with what the comic book was about? What if they made the movie that didn't fit with the comic book, or what if it used a different plot entirely? (since you did claim that the comic book is the only thing the plot let it be... without giving any proof, or reasons for that matter) In that case would you argue that it'd have to be a terrible movie if it didn't follow the comic book?
Every argument you guys made works under some assumption that the movie tries to copy something from the book. I'm saying that any such argument is moot because the possiblity exists that they made the movie and didn't copy anything from the book. That is, for any one thing that the movie does to copy the book, it can be the case that instead they did something different from the book. If they did do something different from the book, then you have no basis on which to claim whether or not what they did will make the movie good (because they could have done anything).
I'm not saying whether or not the movie is going to be any good or not. There is absolutley no way to tell. I'm trying to show you that there is no way to tell whether or not the movie is going to be any good, until you actually fucking watch it. But because you really like this comic book, you are absolutley convinced some movie coming out that we hardly know about will be terrible! I try to ask you how you can so assuredly know something about the future that is impossible to tell, and you look at me like I'm crazy!
-
fffffff how do you not get this.
the original point was that I'm confused how anyone can read Watchmen and think YES THIS NEEDS A GODDAM MOVIE. it could be completely accurate to the comic book and it would still be at its fundamental level completely unnecessary. this isn't the case with all works; something like V For Vendetta (and I know not everyone is a comic dork but please choose something that is not a franchise to compare to Watchmen, BATMAN doesn't really work) can be translated without much loss to the original message. but Watchmen is devoted to medium critique at its core. at best you're going to end up with a work wholely missing that core message while focusing on the political and character development shit and at that point the question is why even bother watching it?
this movie is completely unnecessary, which is why I said the original point, anyone who enjoyed the comic book really shouldn't be excited about a movie. it's not needed. it won't offer a fresh perspective (and I'm not arguing a media point there, Zach Snyder is devoted to making shit the exact same as it is in the books so) or do anything other than 20th century up it a bit (leather costumes!!!) and put panels that were quite striking already in motion. at best, it'll be mediocre.
-
Ok, now that's a pretty good argument.
I can imagine maybe one way a film like that could be relevant (maybe devote it to critique of film adaptations of that medium... Really such an idea isn't so bad since all theese film adapations of comics are making me sick, and a critique of the idea might put some quantum of insight into the hollywood cash blusterfuck), but I highly doubt someone like Zach Snyder is nearly as clever enough to pull it off.
But you have a really good reason for beleiving what you beleive, so I'll get off your back about it.
-
watchmen is a work almost WHOLELY dependent on the fact it's a comic book. do you know what a movie version of watchmen should be? a bunch of old movie characters like bogart, cary grant, gregory peck, all who have retired in the face of new action heroes like harrison ford, except for one or two who discover a sinister plot to destroy the world via some movie macguffin.
but this will not happen because it can't be watchmen and also because that's actually an interesting idea. you could do neat visual effects like have the film slowly progress from black and white to color, all sorts of stuff. but it won't happen.
This here is a pretty stupid idea.
The movie also looks terrible.
-
that trailer makes this look just as bad if not worse than any other comic book movie and based on it alone i wouldn't give this a second look and probably not even a first!
see i keep forgetting this is being directed by the guy who done 300.
-
watchmen is a work almost WHOLELY dependent on the fact it's a comic book. do you know what a movie version of watchmen should be? a bunch of old movie characters like bogart, cary grant, gregory peck, all who have retired in the face of new action heroes like harrison ford, except for one or two who discover a sinister plot to destroy the world via some movie macguffin.
but this will not happen because it can't be watchmen and also because that's actually an interesting idea. you could do neat visual effects like have the film slowly progress from black and white to color, all sorts of stuff. but it won't happen.
The way you guys see it is under the assumption that the genre of "superheroic justice" is limited to and wholly dependent on the comic book medium. It very well can be, but If that's your basis against this film adaptation of a comic book based on superheroes, then you'd have to feel the exact same way about every film adaptation of a superhero comic book series.
And yet most people are acting as if this particular film adaptation of a comic book series about superheroes is somehow "more significant" or "more offensive" than all of the others based on the unique fact that this particular comic book series is "all about superheroes".
I finally get it.
-
This here is a pretty stupid idea.
no it would piss off everyone at once, everyone would scream THIS IS RUINING LEGACIES and the macguffin would be that orson welles has created an audiotape that will destroy whoever listens to it. it would be so fucking grand. via la vie boheme, jorge. down with hollywood's aristocracy.
-
CHARGIN MY MANHATTAN LASER.
-
Alan Moore lives near me. My friend claims he saw him at Pizza Hut with Warwick Davis. Y'know. From Return of the Jedi.
-
Bad news for bonzo, Zack Snyder is doing Illustrated Man, which is like one of my favourite stories of all time. I think it has potential to be great and I don't really have a problem with Snyder, but I'm sure if anyone else here likes the story there will be a fuss?
Also there's a bunch of footage of watchmen for download off itunes. Pretty much another trailer.
I still think it looks good at least, but I'm pretty disappointed about the ending.
Also the Black Freighter has been cut from the movie, but apparently an animated version is being made that will be inserted into a longer directors cut on the dvd.
-
Im looking forward to this movie, even if it is just filled with special effects and poor acting.. Ive not read the comic and doubt I will ever bother so I wont be dissapointed if it doesnt stay true to the original story or ending...
-
Oh yeah, the Black Freighter. Those parts of the book were great.
-
I skipped over the Black Freighter the first time I read it, cause I just couldn't get myself interested in it. Of course when I got to the artist painting, I was pretty confused. If they end up doing the Black Freighter cartoon, I'm curious what significance it'll have, since the ending has effectively been changed.
Anyway, the Watchmen court date has been pushed back to Jan. 20th. The judge apparently has a criminal matter to deal with, and refused to give a ruling. This movie might not even come out!
-
Maybe so. The Black Freighter was an essential part of the book, though. Plus, it was a good read even as a stand-alone.
-
Well the stills from the video game (turns out it's a prequel) are up, and surprise surprise its a generic beat-em-up. It's based on Rorshach & NiteOwl's time as a duo, but it seems to be far enough from the film that fanboys can ignore it in peace.
-
Despite the fact that it has been more than ten years since Fox decided to abandon production based on the superheroes graphic novel Watchmen, a federal judge on Wednesday ruled that it continued to own a copyright interest in the project. He advised Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures, which took over production of the film and plans to release its own Watchmen movie on March 6, to negotiate a settlement with Fox or appeal his decision. It was unclear how the dispute might be settled, although the judge appeared to suggest a way in his opinion. "Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture," he said.
:o
-
alan moore is laughing from his cave.
-
Alan Moore is a druid.
-
Yea what this really means is Warner Brothers is run by a pack of wild idiots. The more they try, the more apparent it is that The Dark Knight was a fluke.
Obviously they won't let Fox just block this movie's release, and Fox probably doesn't want that either. Fox will just demand some ridiculous percentage and Warner Bros won't learn anything.
-
Yea what this really means is Warner Brothers is run by a pack of wild idiots. The more they try, the more apparent it is that The Dark Knight was a fluke.
The Dark Knight had nothing to do Warner Brothers, just take a look at Batman & Robin. They threw in big names (not necessarily good actors), shitty script, and hoped the general public would eat it up. The Dark Knight was all the production team, primarily Christopher Nolan. The guy writes and directs great movies, Memento and The Prestige being prime examples. He finally is being recognized in Hollywood for his talent and I'm all for it.
-
The Dark Knight had nothing to do Warner Brothers, just take a look at Batman & Robin. They threw in big names (not necessarily good actors), shitty script, and hoped the general public would eat it up. The Dark Knight was all the production team, primarily Christopher Nolan. The guy writes and directs great movies, Memento and The Prestige being prime examples. He finally is being recognized in Hollywood for his talent and I'm all for it.
I agree with this post to such an incredible degree.
Although, I do believe Christian Bale and Michael Caine were choices made by Chris Nolan himself (as he likes using the two of them... look at The Prestige!)
-
I'm currently reading the Watchmen graphic novel for the first time; everyone says it's the best thing ever.
...It's alright. Would have enjoyed it without the pirate comic a bit more. Understand why the comic is there, but eh... Whenever I see a page full of that, it ticks into a boredom section. But whatever, it's overall a good read, and it's given me some insight as to the difference between graphic novel and comic book.
-
Nah, Watchmen is a comic book. The whole GRAPHIC NOVEL vs COMIC BOOK thing is p ridiculous anyway.
-
Then what's the difference? I thought it was a comic book while reading, but a guy today told me it's a graphic novel. (I have the whole collection of chapters in one volume, if that helps explain it.)
-
Graphic Novel can refer to comic books published in collected volumes or comic books originally published in book-form.
Graphic Novel is also a term used by elitists to help themselves believe their comics are better than Marvel Super Hero Team-Up #34 or whatever.
-
:3
Sounds good! Thanks for clearing that up.
I hope in the videogame I can change Nite Owl costumes.
-
The Dark Knight had nothing to do Warner Brothers, just take a look at Batman & Robin. They threw in big names (not necessarily good actors), shitty script, and hoped the general public would eat it up. The Dark Knight was all the production team, primarily Christopher Nolan. The guy writes and directs great movies, Memento and The Prestige being prime examples. He finally is being recognized in Hollywood for his talent and I'm all for it.
Warner Bros produced and distributed TDK. What I meant was Warner Bros/DC is lucky as all hell that The Dark Knight was so successful. Not that Nolan isn't a great director, he's solely responsible for Warner/DC still being a part of the hero-flicks phase going on, but obviously Batman Begins wasn't a hit like that.
Anywho, the trial is I think Jan 20th, and last I read Fox's attorney reported that they were going to attempt to block the release, so I think we can expect this to either move to pay up to Fox, or not come out at all. IIRC there was something like this that happened to a Fantastic Four movie back in the 80s-90s.
-
I skipped over the Black Freighter the first time I read it, cause I just couldn't get myself interested in it. Of course when I got to the artist painting, I was pretty confused. If they end up doing the Black Freighter cartoon, I'm curious what significance it'll have, since the ending has effectively been changed.
Anyway, the Watchmen court date has been pushed back to Jan. 20th. The judge apparently has a criminal matter to deal with, and refused to give a ruling. This movie might not even come out!
Hey, that's my birthday! What a sweet birthday present it would be if we were rewarded with a release date.
-
Nono, the release date is March 6th. January 20th is when we find out whether Fox stops the movie from being released (on march 6th) or not.
-
Watchmen is the best graphic novel I've ever read, and I'm saddened by the fact they made a movie out of it. All films based on Alan Moore's work have been total crap, but they still keep doing this. I wish they'd have some respect for the author and not put these out, but I guess this is how things roll these days. Zack Snyder being the director makes me even less confident about this not being just another terrible comic-to-film adaptation. He may have done well with 300, but Watchmen represents a totally different style. I'm still going to see it, though, but I'm not expecting much.
-
I'm jazzed for this movie personally, but I don't understand where these negative opinions about Moore's comic to movies come from, and about Snyder.
Out of Moore's books, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was the only movie that I didn't like, and subsequentially bombed. V for Vendetta I thought was great, and I've looked all over the internet and general consensus is that is was at least alright. I think the whole "comic parody" thing is kinda dumb, and the themes would make perfect sense in that hollywood is flooded with Iron Man, Batman, and Spiderman right now.
As for Snyder, I've only seen 300 and the Dawn of the Dead remake. DotD was awesome I think, and I really can't see what people hate about 300, though it's not a favorite of mine or anything. Both of them have good ratings on internet too!
-
I think the film version of V for Vendetta is a dumbed down version of the source material, turning Moore's story into popcorn entertainment. I've seen Snyder's DotD and 300, and they were entertaining in their own right. However, from what I've gathered out of what I've seen, he doesn't seem like a versatile director. I just can't imagine him directing a film like Watchmen, which focuses heavily on story rather than action.
As for general consensus, I couldn't care less.
-
I don't think the movie will be like, as indepth as the graphic novel; since half the information was gathered in the literature after each chapter, or in the flashback sequences... If it's merely about the Here and Now of the 'current' gen of heroes, then the movie will be a little hard to swallow. We'll see just how much info they can squeeze into a few hours of film without losing the audience.
-
The only difference I think of between a comic book and a graphic novel is that a comic usually has no definite ending, just new villains and dilemmas, whereas a graphic novel has a a more planned out beginning, middle, and end, even if it is released in separate volumes. I don't think of it as reflecting on the depth or maturity of the book.
I don't see the original plot of the Watchmen translating well into a movie at all, being a meta-comic or what-have-you, on top of the volume of information required to even halfway appreciate the plot. Instead, we'll most definitely see a watered-down action-and-suspense-oriented movie. I have realistic expectations for it as far as the faithfulness to the book. I'm just really interested in the portrayal of the characters. I've got two free movie passes devoted to this film (if it ever gets released).
Speaking of which, the trial began today, right? Have any conclusions been reached yet?
-
Yea actually the trial didn't happen.
I wasn't going to bump this topic cause afaik I'm the only one here really following it, but they reached a settlement last week. Fox is taking a shitload of money, and a fat percentage of the box office, and Warner Bros gets to release the movie.
Yay!
-
The only difference I think of between a comic book and a graphic novel is that a comic usually has no definite ending, just new villains and dilemmas, whereas a graphic novel has a a more planned out beginning, middle, and end, even if it is released in separate volumes. I don't think of it as reflecting on the depth or maturity of the book.
There is no difference!
-
There is no difference!
YOU DON' KNOW!!
-
currently reading the novel. it's cool, i like the noir elements it's lifted (without the........ noir part) and it's told really well. anyway that will probably make me want to see the movie, we will see
-
please people can we stop talking about the watchmen movie because it will be shit.
Instead can we talk about a possibly fantastic comic movie comming out in the next few years called "we3"
-
yeah, I just started reading watchmen a few days ago and I'm really getting into it, so I'm really hoping that this movie won't suck
re-watched the trailers a few nights ago (tuesday) and I'm getting pumped up for this
-
I like how the watchmen trailers capture the feeling of the x-men movies. I think this will be a great x-men movie.
-
so not quite done with this but just got to the big twist and fuck that.
seriously, fuck that. it makes sense and everything but still.
fuck. that.
-
fukl tht\
-
I like how the watchmen trailers capture the feeling of the x-men movies. I think this will be a great x-men movie.
It really does. I saw one on tv like 15 minutes ago and I was like "They did not get it, did they". But shit I hope I am wrong as always.
-
so not quite done with this but just got to the big twist and fuck that.
seriously, fuck that. it makes sense and everything but still.
fuck. that.
there was a twist? also I know its a NEW MOVIE etc but comic book is old as shit you can post it in spoiler tags at least to clarify.
also
WE3 MOVIE WHAT
im not sure thats necessary either but more we3 attention is good.
-
the thing at the end i guess
-
that's changed in the movie.
-
oh i thought he just meant the i did it 35 minutes ago... :smirk: thing. i know that it's a laser now
-
anyone else get a "bonar" from the chick in latex...............
-
well that was a pretty initial reaction which i have moved away from a bit now but it was just... i dunno ALIENS? just not a big fan of where he took that i guess
also im probably seeing this
-
WE3 MOVIE WHAT
im not sure thats necessary either but more we3 attention is good.
it's been in development/pre-development for a couple of years, but they've signed on a director now. The latest news I heard of it was in december, when they announced the kung-fu panda guy doing it. I think Morrison wrote the movie script as well, so that kinda has my hopes for it.
-
we3 looks pretty awesome
I didn't even know comics existed like that I usually think like SPIDERMANS and anime
-
BANDIT!
1!
U
R
BANDIT!
-
http://www.avclub.com/articles/producer-don-murphy-calls-alan-moore-a-hypocrite-a,23880/
also
http://www.minutemenarcade.com/uk/
-
http://www.mtv.com/videos/movie-trailers/341388/watchmen-tales-of-the-black-freighter.jhtml#id=1605027
Don't know if this is news or not but it looks like they're releasing the comic from Watchmen as a separate animated feature, which is probably the best choice for them because I think it would be hard to integrate it into the movie.
-
Yea, there's going to be a trailer for the black freighter out soon, supposedly.
Steel that first link is pretty sweet!
-
Standard Toaster: Don't mean to be rude, but that was confirmed like a year ago or so.
Mongoloid: He just linked to it!
-
yea i haven't been keeping up with it that closely so when the trailer came out i was just like "oh thats pretty neat"
-
http://www.avclub.com/articles/producer-don-murphy-calls-alan-moore-a-hypocrite-a,23880/
I didn't think anyone took what Moore said that seriously (read:loony). To be so adamant about about this says more about Don Murphy than it does about Moore.
-
I haven't read the comic but unfortunately am seeing this opening night in Texas :|. That's gonna be fun.
But yeah from the looks of the trailers it looks like a basic superhero movie, and since I have no prior connection to the characters maybe I'll enjoy it as such?? Idk.
-
So read the comic last night, and I must say I was pleasantly surprised by it.
I really enjoyed it, and I am still looking forward to the movie to see how well it's done.
-
http://www.mtv.com/videos/movie-trailers/341388/watchmen-tales-of-the-black-freighter.jhtml#id=1605027
Don't know if this is news or not but it looks like they're releasing the comic from Watchmen as a separate animated feature, which is probably the best choice for them because I think it would be hard to integrate it into the movie.
man BANDAI or whoever it is sure knows how to get anime movie deals on like every comic book
is there an Incredible Hulk one and like when you combine HULK SMASH with Dragon Ball Z sort of feel it's just so hardcore the screen explodes
also wtf not that I know Watchmen or anything but I didn't know there was some sort of pirate ship story in there (was it in there because it was like another comic book cliche)
-
the comic book kind of plays along with whats happening in the story if I remember correctly but I'm probably wrong but if I'm right then thats why it will be dumb not being in the movie and separate
Moore has said that the story of The Black Freighter ends up specifically describing "the story of Adrian Veidt".[30] Richard Reynolds states that just like Veidt, the protagonist of "Marooned" "hopes to stave off disaster by using the dead bodies of his former comrades as a means of reach his goal".[33] Moore has said that "Marooned" can also be used as a counterpoint to other parts of the story, such as Rorschach's capture and Dr. Manhattan's self-exile on Mars
nah I'm right. I also remembered the guy that owned the paper stand was rambling about the watchmen and stuff. It went back and forth between the kid reading the story and the stand guy talking and the two narratives kind of went together in a way.
-
So read the comic last night, and I must say I was pleasantly surprised by it.
I really enjoyed it, and I am still looking forward to the movie to see how well it's done.
you read this in one sitting? it's not remarkably long or anything and im not a terribly fast reader but that is pretty heafty for one sitting
-
Ever since you guys mentioned We3, I've been looking all over for a copy of it. Looks like something I'd love to read. The local comic shop doesn't have it, but said they might place an order. I NEED to read this.
-
A bunch of clips went up
I just watched this one
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=52225217
Ugh, I really hope this isn't the movie. The Comedian had to JUMP OFF AT SLOW MOTION WHAT THE FLYING FUCK
Jesus these clips are awful.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=8102
-
you read this in one sitting? it's not remarkably long or anything and im not a terribly fast reader but that is pretty heafty for one sitting
i read...lemme check
9 trade paper backs and I'm thinking of finishing the Long Halloween and I just got these books at about 4 pm today. comic books read way faster and then you get to look at pretty fucken pictures.
-
zack snyder protip: no matter the situation, its always better with GRATUITOUS SLOW MOTION
i'm pretty disappointed after seeing those clips..
-
i read...lemme check
9 trade paper backs and I'm thinking of finishing the Long Halloween and I just got these books at about 4 pm today. comic books read way faster and then you get to look at pretty fucken pictures.
wow. i must be a much slower reader (given. i have only recently picked this back up.) and i also take my time i guess. eading the watchmen, which is the first graphic novel i've basically ever touched, i felt uh COMPELLED i guess to kind of appreciate each panel, not just sorta take in the info ya know? TAKE IT ALL IN.
and i am full retard who reads like t---h---i---s WHAT DOES THIS WORD MEAN.
POLL; does anyone else look up words they don't know instantly when reading. i will not move forward without dictionary or someone around who can give a reasonable explanation.
-
hey whilst sort of on subject is PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT the best means of reading faster? cuz i want to read a lot now and any tips to improve my speed would be much appreciated. i guess this may be the wrong topic to ask this but it's at least kind of relevant. if no one answers me........ back to lit forum........ i go.
-
I still can't get over THE COMEDIAN JUMPING OFF IN SLOW MOTION FOR 20 SECONDS. Like, I get kicking the Persian dude into a giant pit, I understand that....
The clips look nothing like I expected the film to look like.
-
its probably to emphasize his action and make it really dramatic. I really don't get why you try to tear at this movie so much but have such high expectations for that terrible ass new Tarantino movie.
-
It's exactly how I expected it to look.
-
I'm awful.
-
it's exactly as I expected it to look also.
Watchmen took me a while to read, but I like to take my time with good comics and I just adore Dave gibbons.
-
It looks a bit better than I expected, actually. Granted, I have pretty low expectations for anything in theaters, as I've been pretty disappointed by most everything the past couple years. I would expect they'd give it some extra flair for the big screen, but if the Comedian ended up kicking everyone's ass in a bigass Matrix-style fight two seconds after that clip, then yeah, I'd be like WTF... I'm really concerned about the ending and how they handle scenes with Dr. Manhattan, though.
-
Oh yeah, Dr. M has no penis, WTF THIS MOVIE IS SHIT
-
It looks a bit better than I expected, actually. Granted, I have pretty low expectations for anything in theaters, as I've been pretty disappointed by most everything the past couple years. I would expect they'd give it some extra flair for the big screen, but if the Comedian ended up kicking everyone's ass in a bigass Matrix-style fight two seconds after that clip, then yeah, I'd be like WTF... I'm really concerned about the ending and how they handle scenes with Dr. Manhattan, though.
I'm really worried about the ending too. From what I've read, they changed it in order to cut out the scenes with the artist, because it would seemingly add another 20 minutes to the movie. I wish they could've at least made scenes to cut for the dvd or something though.
-
Jesus christ, what did they do to Veidt.
-
they gave him the full post-burton job
-
zack snyder protip: no matter the situation, its always better with GRATUITOUS SLOW MOTION
i'm pretty disappointed after seeing those clips..
Yeah, it looks pretty tacky. Worse yet is how they are milking every opportunity they get to use special effects. I don't think this is going to translate well at all.
Or maybe I just hate how they are portraying Jon.
-
NEXT YEAR SHOCKING EPIC MOVIE
DOOM PATROL THE MOVIE
Fuck Dada it's too complicated a concept, let's just have them fight a bunch of communists in lsow motion ~ The Wachowski brothers
-
actually doom patrol has been utter shit ever since grant left, fuck. ignore that.
-
Insert a joke about them making a movie of swamp thing and basically making it similar to the hulk movies but he's slightly damp and covered in weeds.
-
oh hey guess what else they did to fuck over this movie?
removed the death of the first night owl and the subsequent scene where dan smashes a knot-top's head in as a result
the latter scene was added to the script for drama (in the book, he doesn't discover his death and assumes he dies in the SQUID EXPLOSION) but if they're going to remove his death then they should remove the character completely because his death was basically the lead up to the epic scene where all of the reoccurring side characters gather in a cluster fuck of violence and drama before the end.
it's basically the spark that ignites everything.
-
I am so happy this isn't british based. because I still have nightmares about the portrayle of english people in v-for-vendetta.
-
is that really how america sees us???
-
is that really how america sees us???
as tea drinking haughty assholes with funny accents and jokes about men in dresses?
yes
-
(in the book, he doesn't discover his death and assumes he dies in the SQUID EXPLOSION)
what? you even mentioned he beats up a knothead.
also you're full of shit DOOM PATROL.
you're full of shit.
fuck you.
fuck you.
man there are things that just do not need to be remade into movies.
-
what? you even mentioned he beats up a knothead.
Did he beat up a knot head in the comic I don't remember it's been like 5 years.
Either way, in the movie there's the scene where the old man is beat to death by the knot tops (like in the comic) and a scene where Dan finds out and he and Rorschach kick the shit out of a wandering knot-top.
For whatever reason, that scene was entirely cut from the movie. Rumor is, the uncut DVD will be like 3 hours long.
-
yeah its in the comic. also you dont have to spoil giant squid! that part isn't in the movie anyways.
-
I still can't get over THE COMEDIAN JUMPING OFF IN SLOW MOTION FOR 20 SECONDS. Like, I get kicking the Persian dude into a giant pit, I understand that....
It appears as if the slow-motion is intended to replicate the paradoxical sense of "motion within stasis" from the original comic panels. For example, Osterman's re-birth:
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/benamormoviehouse.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/drmanhattan.jpeg)
Whilst the image is static, it is presented (or drawn) as though it were kinetic. It allows the reader to fully savour the spectacle of an event, in the same sense that slow-motion prolongs an action.
Oh yeah, Dr. M has no penis, WTF THIS MOVIE IS SHIT
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll193/idannyr/scan0005.jpg
Don't worry; there's supposedly "blue wang" aplenty :naughty:.
For whatever reason, that scene was entirely cut from the movie. Rumor is, the uncut DVD will be like 3 hours long.
I was about to say: hold your horses! The theatrical release is just a 2 hour and 47 minute-long trailer for the 3+ hour Director's Cut. The Black Freighter, Mason's Death; everything but the "Squid" is going to be in there, including The Black Freighter.
And as for the alternate ending: I find it much more appropriate. Dave Gibbon's explanation is sound, and personally I find the original ending absolutely ridiculous.
-
Don't worry; there's supposedly "blue wang" aplenty Naughty.
There's a review from the screening or something where somebody notes "there's also blue penis; never erect."
it's now a 4chan meme.
And as for the alternate ending: I find it much more appropriate. Dave Gibbon's explanation is sound, and personally I find the original ending absolutely ridiculous.
ARGH but it defeats the point! the point of the ridiculous squid was to trick the world leader's into thinking they were being attacked by outside forces so they could unite as one whole nation (and then rorschach posthumously fucked it up).
apparently it's just going to be a generic blue explosion. there has to be a legitimate reason to make Nixon believe the explosion wasn't caused by Russia or an ally of Russia. Perhaps they'll say it was caused by "terrorism" but as ridiculous as the squid is, it worked completely in the context of the story.
-
from what i heard its a laser so maybe space alien laser?
-
Yes I think GIANT LASER is enough to warrant a fear of aliens but the fact that Dr. Manhattan is supposedly on Mars might make things a little confusing. I'm curious whos idea it really was to change it, hopefully they talk about it on the dvd.
-
Yes I think GIANT LASER is enough to warrant a fear of aliens but the fact that Dr. Manhattan is supposedly on Mars might make things a little confusing. I'm curious whos idea it really was to change it, hopefully they talk about it on the dvd.
Exactly and Manhattan destroys his space castle before he attack is initiated PLUS it's blue and there's only one blue naked glowing guy walking around.
Pretty much everyone knows the ending but the alluring thing is how the ending will actually work given the complications. Anyways, the squid was in the original draft (according to some interview with Solid Snake and Snyder) but was removed in filming. The only person who can make drastic changes mid-filming is the producer so blame it on one of these guys:
Wesley Coller .... co-producer
Herb Gains .... executive producer
Lawrence Gordon .... producer
Lloyd Levin .... producer
Deborah Snyder .... producer
Thomas Tull .... executive producer
I don't know much about the biz and I know the studio has a major say in things but I'm sure it ultimately relies on the exec.
-
Where does that leave the island then? Didn't it only exist to create the squid and the teleportation device used to transport it? Knowledge of the island was used to facilitate the disappearances and deaths of several characters (which also leads to Rorschach's investigation and how he was framed) so it seems like a pretty important plot piece to simply write off without consequence.
-
ARGH but it defeats the point! the point of the ridiculous squid was to trick the world leader's into thinking they were being attacked by outside forces so they could unite as one whole nation (and then rorschach posthumously fucked it up).
I've heard this a million and one times. Yes, it does alter the context, but the new ending in no way dilutes the "point". Allow me to explain why (WARNING: Spoilers for those who haven't read the comic and/or haven't seen the film and wish to go in relatively unenlightened):
Doctor Manhattan's public defection to neutrality prompts the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan; the world's leaders are fully aware that Manhattan no longer serves America's interests.
Now, in the events prior to the film, Veidt and Osterman have been collaborating on a project intended to generate infinite, renewable and safe energy (the designation of which is 'S.Q.U.I.D'). They had been engaged in a similar collaboration in the comic: the spark hydrants that you see lining the pavements of New York. Veidt mentions this almost in passing towards the end of the novel. His early patent on the design was his first business investment as an entrepeneur, and the initial reason why he came to accumulate so much power, both financial and political.
Moving-on from this, keep in mind that Albert Einstein was the blueprint for Jon Osterman, as suggested by the quotation at the end of the 'Watchmaker' chapter: something along the lines of if Einstein had known as a youth what his research would lead to, he would have become a watchmaker.
While Einstein's contributions aided research into nuclear energy, as a power source, they also aided in the creation of the atomic bomb; two of which laid waste to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as I'm sure you all know. It was the aforementioned bombings that prompted the full surrender of the Axis Powers, and thus brought about "world peace".
In the comic, Veidt uses a device that is yet to be perfected (Rorschach mentions that artificial teleportation is not yet possible) to teleport the Squid to New York. He's fully aware that it will explode on arrival, as every other test subject has. Also bear in mind that the puppet contains the cloned brain of a psychic medium (What on earth was Alan Moore thinking?!) that reacts in some way to the teleportation process, causing the explosion.
Although teleportation could have been used to facilitate long-distance transit ('nuclear energy as a power source'), it also bore the potential to destroy (the 'atomic bomb'). This dichotomy of utility mirrors the parallels between Osterman's life story and Einstein's. Scientific research is a double-edged sword, and we'll never know how far is too far until said research is abused to the most negative degree. Janey Slater, earlier on in the comic, tells Jon that she's concerned that his presence is causing human technology to advance too quickly. It is not until the holocaust in New York that the full extent of Jon's negative influence is apparent.
But, like the atomic bomb, it facilitates the forging of world peace.
And now, we get to the point...
'S.Q.U.I.D' essentially serves the same function as the puppet: the unperfected machines explode on arrival, levelling a number of the world's major cities (including New York and St. Petersburg). The blame is pinned on Doctor Mahattan, as said machines artifically replicate his abilities, making it appear as if it is he who has done the deed. Many have argued that because Manhattan represents the nuclear capabilities of the US, this undermines the whole "point" of an external threat...
Firstly, Doctor Manhattan represents the policy of 'Deterrence' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory) in effect during the Cold War, not America's nuclear capability. He is all that stands between East and West, and when he absconds to Mars the Russians make their move into Afghanistan, as mentioned before. Deterrence has broken-down, as represented by Osterman's defection.
He eventually returns, on what looks to be the eve of Nuclear War, and appears to destroy a number of Earth's major cities. And not just those belonging to the Communist states, but also a couple of American soil, including New York. Consider the comparisons that have been drawn between Doctor Manhattan and God, then consider that this multi-genocidal action could be seen as the enforcement of God's will. A kick in the balls from a higher authority: an authority that both good and evil fear in equal measure.
In the movie's ending, it could be argued that Manhattan comes to represent the duality - and the respective, inherent absurdity - of political and social ideology, and acts as the mediator and enforcer of deterrence; encouraging pragmatism and cooperation by first demonstrating the consequences of conflict and segregation.
Either way, the world is forced to unite to combat a greater threat, even if that just means behaving well to prevent a potential spanking from the Lord himself. The context is different, but the "point" remains intact.
And now my fingers hurt.
-
And now my fingers hurt.
Wow. Never really thought that much into it.
-
Yea no shit. I mean the book was good and all but it never crossed my mind to do cold war research.
-
research wtf are you twelve all that shit is obvious. I mean even when Manhattan is last seen, Ozymandias asks DID I STOP IT FROM HAPPENING and he's all NOTHING EVER STOPS... or something and then teleports and you see a nuclear explosion overlayed in this globe.
however I think this:
'S.Q.U.I.D' essentially serves the same function as the puppet: the unperfected machines explode on arrival, levelling a number of the world's major cities (including New York and St. Petersburg). The blame is pinned on Doctor Mahattan, as said machines artifically replicate his abilities, making it appear as if it is he who has done the deed. Many have argued that because Manhattan represents the nuclear capabilities of the US, this undermines the whole "point" of an external threat...
is dumb because if a bunch of explosions happened all over the world why would this represent nuclear DETERRENCE when you're sitting on a powder keg? wouldn't this cause the next nuclear war, considering that Manhattan is thought to have defected to either side?
like I get it, although I was under the impression it was A BIG LASER and not several lasers, but I don't see how this causes people NOT to overreact. oh no we've been attacked by what appears to be Doctor Manhattan! lets wait for reports from Russia, where we think he defected, before acting.
like it's a neat enough twist honestly, PUT THE BLAME ON SUPERMAN INSTEAD OF FAKE ALIENS but it also doesn't make sense when you realize the world is on a hair trigger imho. like how is blowing up several cities going to do anything but cause someone with a nervous twitch to fire the nukes, especially when both sides are afraid of Manhattan as a weapon? maybe the movie will tackle this, maybe not, PROBABLY not, but I actually liked the Macguffin of the space alien better as it indicated the peace was incredibly fragile and basically going to be a balancing act, and blaming it on Manhattan I think would require more than just FUCK! SHIT BLEW UP! LETS WONDER ABOUT WHO DID IT.
basically if this happened irl during the Cuban Missile Crisis or something we'd retaliate first and ask questions later.
idk now I think I'm analyzing it too far. it's a better twist than I expected though and a good way to cut out the entire alien plotline to save time.
-
I'm probably being mean and unfair to you guys actually; there's an annotated Watchmen for free somewhere so maybe take a look at that but yeah all the stuff he described is pretty essential to really enjoying the book imho.
-
The shit about deterrence is clearly not obvious, least of all to someone who knows next to nothing about the cold war. I have never been interested in history, so reading watchmen I went ahead with COLD WAR-RUSSIA-RED-SCARE, YEP MOVING ON.
That's what Marcus was saying too though, the culprit appearing to be Manhattan is a much different situation than not knowing where the explosion came from, and unless I missed something it's gonna take some pretending to assume Russia still wouldn't attack.
Wait didn't know about there being more than one laser either. If that's true I suppose that works but that's still quite a different story than from Watchmen.
-
PFFT then play snake eater and get you some cold war learnin' boy
-
...and blaming it on Manhattan I think would require more than just FUCK! SHIT BLEW UP! LETS WONDER ABOUT WHO DID IT.
As I stated before, S.Q.U.I.D supposedly replicates Manhattan's powers. I think it's pretty clear who did it. If it explodes in flashes of blue, Manhattan did it. Rather like colour-coding in the natural world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhHema5PNg
is dumb because if a bunch of explosions happened all over the world why would this represent nuclear DETERRENCE when you're sitting on a powder keg? wouldn't this cause the next nuclear war, considering that Manhattan is thought to have defected to either side?
You may recall a scene around the middle of the comic, where Nixon is being briefed on how a nuclear attack would go down if the Russians decided to take advantage of Manhattan's absence. The entire Eastern Seaboard is blown-away in minutes. The force that stands in the way of such a crossfire (Manhattan = Deterrence) is gone, and the Doomsday Clock is sure as hell set at five minutes to midnight come this point. I don't think I need to go into the semiotics regarding the comic's iconic logo.
That's what Marcus was saying too though, the culprit appearing to be Manhattan is a much different situation than not knowing where the explosion came from, and unless I missed something it's gonna take some pretending to assume Russia still wouldn't attack.
It is presented as though Manhattan whacks all sides with equal force, as far as I'm aware. Again, this comes back to the comparisons made between Doctor Manhattan and God. Following the scenario presented to Nixon (when the former Thirteen Colonies do a "Pop, goes the weasel!"), the spontaneous eradication of a number of the world's major cities serves as a clear demonstration of the horror that will befall humanity if the Cold War is allowed to escalate to breaking-point. As any writer should know, "showing" is often far more effective than merely "telling". The world needed to see just how bad things were going to get if they didn't pack the squabbling in.
EDIT: Also, remember the scene where Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre II are keeping a protest outside the White House at bay? Manhattan tells the crowd that they're going to return to their homes in a peaceful fashion, to which the crowd respond in a less than complying manner. He then informs them that his statement was not a request, and everyone is instantly teleported back to their homes, with a number "suffering heart attacks upon suddenly finding themselves indoors." He has used his powers to lay down the law before, so it makes sense to do the same on a more devastating scale later on.
This brings me back to a conversation I was having with one of my tutors at University. I think we were on the topic of the sorry state of the world or something, and we came to the conclusion that if we are to right all the wrongs, it will require the power and wisdom of an objective authority; be that "God" itself (Doctor Manhattan), or an alien threat (The Squid) of some form or other.
To conclude: when you look at it that way, the new ending is actually a lot more consistent with the themes of the comic. I think the original ending's a lot easier to swallow if you're generally used to the high fantasy elements of superhero comics.
-
I still prefer the original ending for the same reasons it's easy to deem ridiculous. The whole absurdity of the situation is so fascinating it's almost genius. Even though I'm not going ape shit over the the new ending, I still think it takes away some charm off the plot.
-
no I get that they'd think OH!
IT WAS HIM!
but why wouldn't they think THE RUSSIANS HAVE MANHATTAN?
like in the comic book, and in real life, the cold war was a powder keg. people were afraid to sneeze one way or the other. a series of explosions would seem to trigger this. like, the alien being, okay mass death but its also not explosions. explosions are much more vague and indefinable; remember on 9/11 when there were reports of cars blowing up outside the Pentagon? and that's in a non-Cold War society. in one where America percieves MAJOR CITIES being destroyed, I would think they'd react violently BEFORE finding out it was a Manhattan attack.
regardless though I'm really impressed someone on Zack Snyder's crew of all crews figured an ending like this out.it's rather clever for them. so I'm aware I'm nitpicking, it's just I'm sure Moore didn't rely on an explosion or whatever for the reason that the US or Russia would counterattack first.
on another note am I right in assuming these Squids are the firehydrants, or what? also did you read the script or have you just been following plot leaks a lot?
The shit about deterrence is clearly not obvious, least of all to someone who knows next to nothing about the cold war. I have never been interested in history, so reading watchmen I went ahead with COLD WAR-RUSSIA-RED-SCARE, YEP MOVING ON.
dude it's kind of one of the major themes. even Doc Manhattan's limp blue cock is a theme; so many characters have to deal with impotence and sexuality (Nite Owl duh, Comedian only being human when he RAPES someone, Hooded Justice being gay, Rorschach's demons looking like sexual intercourse). this did not become one of the most famous comic books in the world because it had a plot twist at the end, there's an impressive amount of symbolism and motiffs in it. but yeah they even explicitly say "Manhattan is our insurance possibility BUT even he can't stop all the missiles, so what then?"
Wait didn't know about there being more than one laser either. If that's true I suppose that works but that's still quite a different story than from Watchmen.
that's my misunderstanding, this guy says it's some SQUID system that blows up ala Manhattan. these could still be lasers tho!
this plot twist is way more clever than I expected. it's too bad the trailers look so bad!
-
i don't want to read everything in the spoiler because from the sound of it they have a lengthy alternative to the synthetic squid.
this did not become one of the most famous comic books in the world because it had a plot twist at the end, there's an impressive amount of symbolism and motiffs in it.[/color]
i seriously hope the "fearful symmetry" scene has a static camera and a red light that flashes to a specific pattern.
i also JUST noticed that at the end of hte story when veidt is talking to manhattan, manhattan's penis is at the center of veidt's solar system globe where the sun is supposed to be
-
I just saw a photo of Picolo from the DBZ movie sitting in some kind of throne and it just looked like the same style as this movie.
-
Hopefully going to see this in IMAX on the 14th! :D
-
1. on another note am I right in assuming these Squids are the firehydrants, or what? 2. also did you read the script or have you just been following plot leaks a lot?
1. The spark hydrants were merely Veidt and Osterman's first collaboration. Veidt's ownership of the patent was what led to him making "bare $$$s". I don't know if this is mentioned in the film, but in the comic it's revealed while Adrian is unveiling his master plan to Dreiberg and Kovacs.
S.Q.U.I.D is a separate project devoted to discovering the means to artificially mimic Doctor Manhattan's abilities for the purposes of producing safe, renewable energy (a 'theme' greatly relevant to contemporary concerns about the environment). The machines themselves are just spherical power generators, from what I've seen so far.
2. I've pieced all this together from having read reviews, press releases and spoiler leaks. I read a few pages of the Alex Tse draft a couple of years back, but given that I can't stand the barebones format of film scripts (they're blueprints, nothing more) I gave-up early on.
i don't want to read everything in the spoiler because from the sound of it they have a lengthy alternative to the synthetic squid.
Don't worry. A lot of the hidden text is just me going-off on an analytical tangeant.
-
Don't worry. A lot of the hidden text is just me going-off on an analytical tangeant.
yeah but if your assumptions are correct then it might be the first time that a dumb hollywood movie actually changed the original source material for the better and i have to piece this thing together in person!
-
you read this in one sitting? it's not remarkably long or anything and im not a terribly fast reader but that is pretty heafty for one sitting
Yeah I read them in one sitting, when I read comics/manga, I can read upwards of 18 or so volumes in the span of an hour and a half or so, remember most of the details. :/
I was really surprised, I honestly went into reading this with low expectations. So, It was pretty good all in all though.
-
Dudes, it could al be worse for you. Guess what title they gave it in french...... The Guardians. Good job for fucking up the sense of it all stupid translator.
-
Dudes, it could al be worse for you. Guess what title they gave it in french...... The Guardians. Good job for fucking up the sense of it all stupid translator.
What are you talking about?
"Who guards The Guardians?"
It sounds just the same to me.
-
thats basically what a watchman is well I guess the watch part kind of ruins it but its just a title so
-
yeah the original latin is socrates saying COME ON MEMORY: quis custodiet ipsos custodet? aw, it's custodes. but yeah it was Socrates talking about how we must tell the guardian class they are a better sort even though that's a lie.
-
Yeah but it kinda fucks the whole watches thing.
-
what watches?
there's the watchmaker father of Dr. Manhattan but other than that the main motiff is clocks, not watches.
-
TIme piece m@f^ker
the timepiece-men
-
dunno if this has already been linked to:
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa?currentPage=all
it's a good recent interview with mr moore, it has some really good bits
-
God that guy... He wants to sit and talk about the deeper meanings and everything in watchmen and how people are seeing things in it today that weren't originally intended, ugh. You'd think these types of things would have been considered while the guy stuffed the thing full of loaded imagery.
I haven't read the "League" yet, does anyone know if it's good? It seems like a Smash Brothers-esque comic or something. The thought of Captain Nemo and Dr. Jeckyl working together seems pretty ridiculous.
-
league is good but it's very wordy and this is from me so you know it's actually pretty wordy, especially black dossier. he also does dig a bit into mythos, more than I knew, once again especially in black dossier. idk maybe avoid it until you are really acquainted with his other work to get into why he wrote it.
also what are you talking about? he's annoyed that people aren't going to pick up subtext, not that they're picking up different things.
But it seems to be that things that were meant satirically or critically in Watchmen now seem to be simply accepted as kind of what they appear to be on the surface. So yeah, I'm pretty jaundiced about the entire "caped crusader" concept at the moment.
-
dunno if this has already been linked to:
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa?currentPage=all
it's a good recent interview with mr moore, it has some really good bits
Holy shit the next League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen will apparantly be based on the Threepenny Opera! To be honest I was kinda underwhelmed by the first two books but this sounds really cool.
-
I didn't give a shit for league of extraordinary gentlemen when I read it
-
man i just got back from finishing the book because i'd heard about how good it was. and then i come here and all of a sudden there's a movie coming out what???
i really don't like how the movie looks based on the trailer(s). the color tone, style, music, special effects, and the overabundant action/slow motion is leaving a rather funky aftertaste in my mouth. the whole thing just feels wrong.
but who knows it might be entertaining and the trailers could just be shitty. the lack of black freighter and giant psychic alien is kind of throwing me off, but movies do need to be significantly different than their source materials to be good so i dunno.
-
what is this i don't even (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article2278955.ece)
so, rorschach's comment about ozy being gay has been removed
and i liked lxg and didn't find it too wordy at all! i thought the ending (2nd volume) was pretty abrupt and like all of moore's work RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE but the fact that all of the characters pretty much HATED each other really added to the characterization. mr. hyde was a ticking time bomb, quaterman a old fart, nemo is bitter at everyone who's british, the invisible guy was a massive dick, campion bond was a weasel, and the chick with the scarf was more bitter than nemo.
haven't gotten around to reading black dossier but i heard gollywog is in it!
-
what is this i don't even (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article2278955.ece)
so, rorschach's comment about ozy being gay has been removed
Maybe the live-action character will portray come off pretty gay as it is. Maybe he's a pretty shitty actor, though, who the fuck is this guy?
He said: “The negative feedback is relayed by my friends. I think the fanboys aren’t particularly happy – there are a load of people they’d have rather had in before me.
“It’s already being slated before they’ve seeing anything.
“But if fanboys still hate the film after going and seeing it, they can all line up and s*** my d***.
“I don’t give a f***.”
Matthew added: “I’m having a child and that’s more important to me – so I don’t give a f***.
“Grow a d***.”
Sounds like a grade-A idiot, with self-esteem issues.
-
but who knows it might be entertaining and the trailers could just be shitty. the lack of black freighter and giant psychic alien is kind of throwing me off, but movies do need to be significantly different than their source materials to be good so i dunno.
Not entirely correct. Although it has been omitted from the Theatrical Cut, it's being released as a DVD tie-in, along with a faux television interview with Hollis Mason discussing his autobiography, Under The Hood.
http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/8922060/Watchmen-Tales-Of-The-Black-Freighter/Product.html
so, rorschach's comment about ozy being gay has been removed
Zack Snyder has stated that this line will be included in the Extended Cut. I'm unsure as to why they axed such a brief, but insightful comment from the Theatrical Cut, though.
Maybe the live-action character will portray come off pretty gay as it is. Maybe he's a pretty shitty actor, though, who the fuck is this guy?
Sounds like a grade-A idiot, with self-esteem issues.
On the contrary, I actually rather admire him after reading those comments. Alan Moore said it himself: the responsibility of the artist (I hate the use of this title outside of the visual arts, but as I'm paraphrasing I'll let it slide) is not to give the people what they want, but what they need.
Now, to paraphrase Goode: FUCK the fans! So long as Watchmen makes enough profit to justify the investment, Warner Brothers, Legendary Pictures and Paramount are sure to be pleased. I'm in love with the comic, but if the film is good in its own right then I'm going to be more than pleased. Sod the fucking squid, sod Goode's "mis-casting" and sod the fucking fans! They're taking this way too seriously.
Oh, and do bear in mind that these are probably the same fanboys that slag-off Batman & Robin, but are intellectually incapable of backing their bullshit up. I could write countless essays on that film's overlooked credibility, but to the average fanboy it boils down to a couple of latex butt-shots, an excess of neon and a few throw-away (but admittedly cringeworthy) ice-related puns.
And don't even get me started on how fucking difficult screen acting is. Judging by the clips I've seen so far, Matthew Goode's done a fantastic job of portraying Adrian. From the line delivery itself (I'm quite fond of the snippet I heard of the speech he gives to his Vietnamese aides), to the duality of his private and public persona. He's taken the two-dimensional source material and really crafted a character of his own, whilst ensuring that it remains true to the spirit of its comic book counterpart. Unless you've done screen acting yourself (and I have), you'd probably have no idea just how tough it is.
Once the fanboys have finished swallowing Goode's load, they can start on mine next! I'm going to judge the film on its own merits, even though I'm very familiar with the work upon which it is based. These half-baked critics that are slamming the flick before they've seen it don't deserve to have access to such a masterful tome as the Watchmen comic, let alone what looks to be a faithful and equally masterful cinematic interpretation of it.
Fucking "Generation X" taking everything for sodding granted...
By the way:
dunno if this has already been linked to:
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/17-03/ff_moore_qa?currentPage=all
it's a good recent interview with mr moore, it has some really good bits
I read most of this the other day. As much as I disagree with him on a number of things, I do love the fella! I got a chuckle out of his observations regarding the post-Watchmen trend of "pretentious and unecessarily sadistic" comic books. That said, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen wasn't too pleasant; but at least its horrors were consistent, as opposed to contrived.
-
no he's an idiot because instead of levelheadedly saying "I'm a bit disappointed by fan reaction but you know, I'm going to do the best possible job I can, and hopefully we'll both be satisfied with the end product" he said FUCK YOU GROW A DICK.
-
wait isnt the sun like british tabloids though? i doubt that story is even real
also lollin at:
Oh, and do bear in mind that these are probably the same fanboys that slag-off Batman & Robin, but are intellectually incapable of backing their bullshit up. I could write countless essays on that film's overlooked credibility, but to the average fanboy it boils down to a couple of latex butt-shots, an excess of neon and a few throw-away (but admittedly cringeworthy) ice-related puns.
-
the sun is notorious for making stuff up.
-
Also Batman and Robin had a great effect. It made it uncool to make comicbook movies for a few years, meaning less people were forced to wear generic/cheesy rubber outfits that look like bondage gear.
Also also Leage is fantastic I love it. I guess IDK you kind of need to have some knowledge of literature/the period to get what's going on/referenced half the time(sorry mongoloid but if you thought the cold war stuff wasn't obvious in Watchmen then this is likely to go right over your head!) otherwise it'll probobly end up like some silly mess.
Also also also that interview just reminded me of that time George Lucas shat on the star wars fans a few years ago.
-
Watchmen the Motion Comic: for those of you who are too cool to buy comic books or don't want to be seen browsing too close to the manga section that every book store lumps "graphic novels" with. (http://www.watchmendvds.com/)
-
no he's an idiot because instead of levelheadedly saying "I'm a bit disappointed by fan reaction but you know, I'm going to do the best possible job I can, and hopefully we'll both be satisfied with the end product" he said FUCK YOU GROW A DICK.
To be fair, the guy's been taking a lot of flack; he was bound to break eventually. Note that he's hitting-out at those who haven't seen the film yet. They're not criticising the performance, but the presentation. The quality of Goode's contribution to the film should be judged by the product of the marriage between the former and the latter.
But I reserve and maintain the opinion that fanboys are thick as pigshit. They claim to possess a deep and thorough understanding of the material that they so revere, but would probably be stumped when asked to articulate said comprehension.
Also Batman and Robin had a great effect. It made it uncool to make comicbook movies for a few years, meaning less people were forced to wear generic/cheesy rubber outfits that look like bondage gear.
I would argue that Batman & Robin is a far more accomplished film than The Dark Knight. If you find that hard to swallow, I suggest reading the previous sentence again and thinking about it for a minute or so.
Also also also that interview just reminded me of that time George Lucas shat on the star wars fans a few years ago.
As a cinephile who happens to prefer the Star Wars prequels to the originals, I invite you to elaborate upon this. How exactly did George Lucas "shit" on fans of Star Wars? What promises were made to the fans, and where exactly did the films fall short of the bar set by these promises?
Watchmen the Motion Comic: for those of you who are too cool to buy comic books or don't want to be seen browsing too close to the manga section that every book store lumps "graphic novels" with. (http://www.watchmendvds.com/)
I'm intending to buy this as soon as it's released. Having seen a couple of clips on Youtube, I've come to realise just how much potential this medium holds for the future of comics. That said, I agree with Alan Moore in that it denies you the option of pausing on a single image to fully appreciate its majesty. Even the film cannot possibly replicate the impact of...
(http://www.popamericana.com/!/the%20light%20is%20taking%20me%20to%20pieces.jpg)
This gives me goosebumps every time I see it. The juxtaposition of Moore's punchy prose with Gibbons' bold and raw illustration...
-
I would argue that Batman & Robin is a far more accomplished film than The Dark Knight. If you find that hard to swallow, I suggest reading the previous sentence again and thinking about it for a minute or so.
lol if you mean Kaworu's sentence what it wasn't actually a troll and if you mean FANBOYS uh everyone hated Batman and Robin not just fanboys.
-
As a cinephile who happens to prefer the Star Wars prequels to the originals
jesus fucking christ.
-
I find these posts odd, but...interesting.
- Humour Supervisor
-
I would argue that Batman & Robin is a far more accomplished film than The Dark Knight. If you find that hard to swallow, I suggest reading the previous sentence again and thinking about it for a minute or so.
As a cinephile who happens to prefer the Star Wars prequels to the originals, I invite you to elaborate upon this. How exactly did George Lucas "shit" on fans of Star Wars? What promises were made to the fans, and where exactly did the films fall short of the bar set by these promises?
this topic is now about justifying these statements. go!
-
lol if you mean Kaworu's sentence what it wasn't actually a troll and if you mean FANBOYS uh everyone hated Batman and Robin not just fanboys.
I thoroughly enjoyed Batman & Robin. Always have.
Three reasons why B&R trumps TDK:
- Imagination and spectacle - A car chase down the arm of a giant statue; a freefall aerial duel from the lower atmosphere, down into the depths of Gotham; an entire city being systematically "chilled, to perfection" by a state-of-the-art telescope converted into a giant freezing gun. The Dark Knight had its action set-pieces, but nothing as breathtaking and disciplined (technically) as what I've listed above.
- Self-awareness - When Joel Schumacher's walking around the set with a megaphone shouting "Remember: we're making a comic book movie!", the creative philosophy of the production should be clear. The same can't be said of Nolanverse, with its self-proclaimed and unsubstantiated "realism".
- All of the depth, none of the pretension. Yes, The Dark Knight explored some rather interesting themes, but also insisted on bashing its audiences around the head with them at every possible opportunity. The key to conveying subtext effectively is subtlety.
When it comes down to it, Batman & Robin was a much richer cinematic experience, overall, than The Dark Knight. The latter merely feels like a straightforward film, whereas the former is a genuine work of visual art. It's one of the reasons why I'm so excited about Watchmen: the synthesis of both style and substance. Snyder's production really has taken Gibbons' artwork into the third dimension, whilst also preserving the depth and the subtext of the original work.
jesus fucking christ.
Indeed...
What exactly shocks you about my preference for the prequels?
I find these posts odd, but...interesting.
- Humour Supervisor
You're the first person not to write "It's odd, but it's not interesting". For that, I commend you.
this topic is now about justifying these statements. go!
It's currently 2:11am over here. I've already justified the first statement above, but it'll be time for breakfast by the time I've finished justifying my preference for the Star Wars prequels. I'll try and put it as simply as I can for now:
The prequels:
Episode I - A simple, light-hearted tale, interwoven with a political backstory that is to become the backbone of the trilogy.
Episode II - The political backstory from the previous episode is brought into the foreground and expanded upon, laying the groundwork for the impending Clone Wars.
Episode III - A synthesis of Episode I's visual spectacle and charm, and the complex (but disciplined) narrative and thematic depth of Episode II.
The originals:
Episode IV - A simple, light-hearted tale (as with Episode I). Objective storytelling.
Episode V - A character study, focusing closely upon each of the individual players within the larger narrative. Subjective Storytelling.
Episode VI - Attempts to fuse both the Objective and Subjective modes of storytelling evident in the previous two episodes, but the overall execution and presentation falls flat somewhere inbetween. Essentially, there's no real sense of climax. Yes, the story of the Skywalker dynasty comes to a greatly satisfying conclusion, but the larger narrative feels somewhat static as many elements appear to be recycled from Episode IV.
Compare the closing battles of Episode I, to the closing battle of Episode II, to the numerous battles of Episode III. The scale gradually expands, whereas with the originals it appears to remain a constant. There's no payoff.
-
do you mind if i now IM everyone this topic and say "lol look at this guy who thinks this".
seriously there's comic book awareness and then there's nipples and arnold schwarznegger puns.
and episode iii and ii are somehow complex jesus christ.
-
I want to argue this but it's like when you see some dude listening to Avril Lavigne, and you ask what? and they say "it's incredibly complex compared to the jejune antics of, say, Shellac" and even when you parse what they said you realize it makes absolutely no sense so it's not like you have a common ground.
-
When it comes down to it, Batman & Robin was a much richer cinematic experience, overall, than The Dark Knight. The latter merely feels like a straightforward film, whereas the former is a genuine work of visual art. It's one of the reasons why I'm so excited about Watchmen: the synthesis of both style and substance. Snyder's production really has taken Gibbons' artwork into the third dimension, whilst also preserving the depth and the subtext of the original work.
You're the only person in the world who honestly thinks this.
B&R vs. TDK all boils down to your preference; campy silver age stuff or contemporary fiction. You felt that everything about B&R was imaginative but I thought it was messy. Every scene happened without any reason to it and it felt less like a narrative and more like a poorly written fan fiction where the author decided to toss everything he could possibly think of just because he could.
IDK, I look at the trailers for Watchmen and it just doesn't strike me as interesting. Like, Dan see's Dr. Manhattan splatter Rorschach across the snow and flies into a mad rage and Ozymandias looks like Batman without the mask and the Crimebusters have now been renamed to Watchmen because apparently nobody in the world can make the connection between literature and film when it's not directly referenced in the film itself I JUST DON'T KNOW MAN I JUST DON'T KNOW
-
IDK, I look at the trailers for Watchmen and it just doesn't strike me as interesting. Like, Dan see's Dr. Manhattan splatter Rorschach across the snow and flies into a mad rage and Ozymandias looks like Batman without the mask and the Crimebusters have now been renamed to Watchmen because apparently nobody in the world can make the connection between literature and film when it's not directly referenced in the film itself I JUST DON'T KNOW MAN I JUST DON'T KNOW
Well I have to say, I do blue-collar work for a living, and you would not imagine the difficult time I have explaining why Watchmen is going to be better than Spiderman 3. Some people have no desire to read books, let alone comic books, and this movie can give at least the elements the book had that can be appreciated by those people. I know a lot of people think "well if they can't read allusions and political commentary and understand watchmen at deeper level, they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy my watchmen," but I for one get really excited about getting other people to like what I think is pretty good. Regardless, my coworkers, whom I have convinced to go see Watchmen on thursday night, could not possibly comprehend the difference between Watchmen and Crimebusters.
Btw, is anyone
-
no man it looks like you're taking something that is ridiculously apparent to be shittily directed and shittily filmed and trying to find the few creative and subtle things about the films and obsessing over them.
batman and robin was shit. The acting was corny as hell which made all the lines spoken corny as hell along with the corny as hell costumes, props, imagery.
ODD BUT INTERESTING let me find odd shit and try my damndest to make it interesting...
is not to give the people what they want, but what they need
and this is why the entertainment industry in its totality is alienating and failing alot of people, this stupid bullshit. Lets not do what we should do, to do it right; lets do what the corporation wants us to do and maybe half-assedly add our own little bit in there at a few places to appease our "creative" boners.
also sod sodding sodder why don't you go sod
-
do you mind if i now IM everyone this topic and say "lol look at this guy who thinks this".
Not at all. If they come at me with a good counter-arguement, I'd be happy to receive them.
seriously there's comic book awareness and then there's nipples and arnold schwarznegger puns.
Yes, and Batman still wears spandex in the comic books.
A quick defence of the nipples: the production's justification for this was that they wanted a much more "anatomically-correct" (Poison Ivy actually notes this in the film) design for the suits. To take this further, I've interpreted this as a nod to the classical representation of the 'hero':
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/www.livius.org/a/heracles/perge_hercules01_lion.jpeg)
and episode iii and ii are somehow complex jesus christ.
They're not? Care to explain why you think so? Unlike the originals, there's a lot more going-on than just the central narrative. But despite this, it all ties together fairly well and as far as I'm aware there are no major plotholes or loose ends. Feel free to list any if you think I'm mistaken.
I want to argue this but it's like when you see some dude listening to Avril Lavigne, and you ask what? and they say "it's incredibly complex compared to the jejune antics of, say, Shellac" and even when you parse what they said you realize it makes absolutely no sense so it's not like you have a common ground.
I would say that the Star Wars prequels are complex in the same way that The Dark Knight is. Several micro-narratives interwoven into a larger, all-emcompassing narrative. With the originals the focus predominantely remained on two parties: Luke's (the Jedi/Sith) and Leia's (the Rebellion). In the prequels you've got the Separatists and the Republicans, then within those you've got several other micro-narratives. Anakin's, like Luke's, is the central line through this narrative tapestry, as it were. It essentially mediates the interplay of the numerous contributory micro-narratives.
There's a lot going on, but it's all tied-together by the time the story reaches its conclusion. The opposite to "complex" would be "convoluted", where the writers get so lost in their story's complexity that they come to forget where they even started.
I have no problem with the micro-narratives in Return of The Jedi. The inter-character relationships are handled really well, on the whole, and all given satisfying conclusions consistent with all that has come before. My problem is with the anti-climactic nature of the larger narrative. It just felt like A New Hope all over again. I never got the feeling that it was the Rebellion's final battle with the Galactic Empire; the culmination of the conflicts we'd witnessed in the previous installments.
B&R vs. TDK all boils down to your preference; campy silver age stuff or contemporary fiction. You felt that everything about B&R was imaginative but I thought it was messy. Every scene happened without any reason to it and it felt less like a narrative and more like a poorly written fan fiction where the author decided to toss everything he could possibly think of just because he could.
Half of me agrees with what you're saying here. The action scenes did feel rather 'off-the-cuff': Did there need to be a car chase down the arm of a giant statue? Did there need to be a freefall aerial duel? What is the justification for this excess?
However, the other half of me recognises that the actions of the characters within these set-pieces contributed greatly to the overall narrative. For example Robin's impulsiveness, and Batman's attempts to protect Grayson from his own ambition. I could write more on this, but I really can't spare the energy. My point is that despite the seemingly unecessary excess of Batman & Robin's major action setpieces, the actions of the characters within them contribute to the drive and development of the central story.
And as for the action scenes being "messy", I feel they were far better directed than those in The Dark Knight. Compare the aforementioned freefall aerial duel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijcSm-7MLTo&feature=related) with Batman's final confrontation with The Joker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGCHCR3p3fg). Nolan's production rapidly cuts together a series of static shots, whereas Schumacher's is generally a lot more controlled and disciplined, allowing you to fully soak-in the spectacle of each image before it cuts into the next.
Going back to Star Wars: compare the opening battle of Revenge of The Sith (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cU0BYXlTuI) to the closing battle of A New Hope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtnu4kcKbik&feature=related). The latter often recycles clips, depriving the scene of its intended sense of continuous motion. This is understandable given the limited budget at the time, but even so. With the former we remain focused solely on the Jedi Starfighters as they navigate the intimate cross-fire of the capital ships.
...and the Crimebusters have now been renamed to Watchmen because apparently nobody in the world can make the connection between literature and film...
How is this at all important? In the comic Veidt quotes a line from JFK's intended speech: "we are the watchmen upon the walls of world freedom." As it is Ozymandias that calls the meeting in the film, not Captain Metropolis, it makes sense that he would name the crimefighting confederacy according to his own philosophy.
If anything it helps tighten things up, very much like the new ending. Without going into details, the new ending is far more consistent with the themes of the comic than the "Squid" scenario.
Well I have to say, I do blue-collar work for a living, and you would not imagine the difficult time I have explaining why Watchmen is going to be better than Spiderman 3.
Blue collar, white collar; what does it matter? I met some of the most idiotic and intellectually short-sighted people I've ever known at University. Note that I went to one of the top universities in the UK.
Posessing a formal education or a white collar job is not indicative of an "intellectual".
no man it looks like you're taking something that is ridiculously apparent to be shittily directed and shittily filmed and trying to find the few creative and subtle things about the films and obsessing over them.
Define "good film direction". Please, wow me with your expertise and insight. Furthermore, point-out exactly how Batman & Robin is "shittily directed and shittily filmed". Let's hear you actually back these claims up.
batman and robin was shit. The acting was corny as hell which made all the lines spoken corny as hell along with the corny as hell costumes, props, imagery.
Again, this comes back to its self-awareness. Despite the corniness, there are many scenes in the film that are actually performed rather well. Take any of the quieter scenes with Bruce and Alfred, or the scenes of Mr Freeze dealing with the possibility of losing his wife, as well as his reaction when he receives the news that Batman may have killed her. Oh, and also that final scene where Batman explains to Freeze that his wife is alive and well, and Freeze agrees to help cure Alfred's condition.
Yes, it is often rather cheesy, but there are also these incredibly warm moments with a great deal of emotional resonance and depth that are the result of both the context of the scene, and the performance of the actors themselves. To claim that "all the lines" are "corny as hell" is rather asinine.
And again, what exactly makes the costumes, props and imagery "corny as hell"? What is it about them that is inherently "corny has hell"? C'mon, Ebert, let's here some credible criticism.
ODD BUT INTERESTING let me find odd shit and try my damndest to make it interesting...
I give up...
and this is why the entertainment industry in its totality is alienating and failing alot of people, this stupid bullshit. Lets not do what we should do, to do it right; lets do what the corporation wants us to do and maybe half-assedly add our own little bit in there at a few places to appease our "creative" boners.
Yes. Listening to the fans who demand the return of Two Face in Nolan's next Batfilm, despite the fact that he's dead and this would completely undo the point of The Dark Knight's conclusion. Listen to the fans who threw their toys out of the pram at the possibility of Venom not being included in Spider-Man 3; then once it was released they completely changed their minds and came to the conclusion that Venom should've been left for a fourth film.
My question hasn't been answered: what does the industry owe the fans? How is it "failing alot of people"? Spider-Man 3 still made in excess of 800 million dollars internationally. If it aint broke, don't fix it!
Don't even get started on "artistic integrity"...
Why is it even important?
-
2:15 and 3:50 thats some fucking glorious acting right there. Just look at arnold say something slowly and stare at a chick in a glass jar. Also watch him shut the fuck up and stare at a mini ice sculptor.
so much emotion and passion
you're full of shit, there wasn't one line in that entire clip that wasn't ridiculous
The new batman movies are good, they are stylistically and artistically relevant to our times; very well acted and very well filmed. They appease fans (or most of them) while still bringing in new ideas and concepts to the industry and I don't get how anyone except for a complete moron could say that they pale in comparison to fucking arnold Schwarzenegger batman and robin holy shit .
Arnold's character in love with a frozen chick isn't new, the only thing they even really did that was new in that movie, is to make it come off like a completely ridiculous Broadway musical. I didn't like it when I was a 9 year old for these reasons and now I have to explain it to a goddamn adult.
Clooney couldn't act for shit in that movie and he did the best job out of all of them, please don't get me started on fucking "Poison Ivy".
-
Again, this comes back to its self-awareness. Despite the corniness, there are many scenes in the film that are actually performed rather well. Take any of the quieter scenes with Bruce and Alfred, or the scenes of Mr Freeze dealing with the possibility of losing his wife, as well as his reaction when he receives the news that Batman may have killed her. Oh, and also that final scene where Batman explains to Freeze that his wife is alive and well, and Freeze agrees to help cure Alfred's condition.
Yes, it is often rather cheesy, but there are also these incredibly warm moments with a great deal of emotional resonance and depth that are the result of both the context of the scene, and the performance of the actors themselves. To claim that "all the lines" are "corny as hell" is rather asinine.
Did you not read this? I fully acknowledged that it's often rather cheesy.
2:15 and 3:50 thats some fucking glorious acting right there. Just look at arnold say something slowly and stare at a chick in a glass jar. Also watch him shut the fuck up and stare at a mini ice sculptor.
so much emotion and passion
you're full of shit, there wasn't one line in that entire clip that wasn't ridiculous
So you choose a clip that includes a few of the film's "cornier as hell" lines. This is not an intelligent response, at all. It's an opinion.
Now, had you said "I didn't think Batman & Robin was that great. I just didn't enjoy it", then I would've called fair play. However, you started piping-up with bland claims of "it's shit" and "you're full of shit and a moron for reading too much into it". What makes you think that your viewpoint is more credible than mine?
The new batman movies are good, they are stylistically and artistically relevant to our times; very well acted and very well filmed. They appease fans (or most of them) while still bringing in new ideas and concepts to the industry and I don't get how anyone except for a complete moron could say that they pale in comparison to fucking arnold Schwarzenegger batman and robin holy shit .
I never bashed on Nolan's Batman movies; I happen to quite enjoy them. I just believe there's a lot more to Schumacher's efforts than meets the passive eye. All of the Batman films are excellent in their own right, I feel.
Clooney couldn't act for shit in that movie and he did the best job out of all of them, please don't get me started on fucking "Poison Ivy".
And you'd know a lot about screen-acting, would you?
Uma Thurman, generally, is a pretty good actress. But I agree, Poison Ivy was the only character without any emotional depth. It was a rather melodramatic and excessive performance, but I loved it nonetheless. The Joke's on you for taking it too seriously.
-
This fails as a goddamn kiddie movie. Who the hell were they trying to bait in with this shit? Adults? Fans? Nope, not in my opinion it was an attempt to make a shitload of money out of making a fucking horrible half-assed batman movie OH THEY GOT COOL CAMERA SHOTS IN DARK GOTHAM BUT NOT ONE MOTHERFUCKER ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT CAN WRITE WORTH A SHIT!?!?!
No if YOU read I gave you two timing measures of those scenes that you mentioned with Mr.Freeze "sopping" over his girlfriend to show you were full of crap.
The last time I watched this movie was when it first came out and I was a child A-NINE-YEAR-OLD
yes I took it way too seriously...
And you'd know a lot about screen-acting, would you?
This is the dumbest-ass statement out of any and everything that you've said in your last few posts.
heh...don't act???? Don't crit the actors if you don't act. Don't crit the cooks if you don't cook. Don't crit the musicians if you don't play music. Don't crit the roofers if you can't lay roof. And especially, most of all. Don't crit the janitors if you don't know how to mop up shit.
I hope you're seeing where I'm going with this.
-
This fails as a goddamn kiddie movie. Who the hell were they trying to bait in with this shit? Adults? Fans? Nope, not in my opinion it was an attempt to make a shitload of money out of making a fucking horrible half-assed batman movie OH THEY GOT COOL CAMERA SHOTS IN DARK GOTHAM BUT NOT ONE MOTHERFUCKER ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT CAN WRITE WORTH A SHIT!?!?!
It was just a good two hours plus of fun, with a well-plotted and rather warm story at its centre.
And again, what's bad about the writing? I don't recall a single instance in that film where the dialogue didn't make any sense. Unlike the closing speech of The Dark Knight where it's just a string of cliches unrelated in their meaning.
No if YOU read I gave you two timing measures of those scenes that you mentioned with Mr.Freeze "sopping" over his girlfriend to show you were full of crap.
Sorry, I sped into my response without watching (I suppose "reading" isn't too far off, though) the video. In all honesty, having now seen it, I don't see the problem at all. There appear to be no major faults in his performance. I reiterate that screen-acting isn't as easy at it may seem to the narrow-minded fanboy.
And you still haven't "shown" or "explained" why I'm full of crap. There's no critical depth to your responses at all.
-
what? It makes sense? Because they're terrible one liners and concepts that a child could come up with. FREEZE RAY? PLANT PHEROMONES? FROZEN GIRLFRIEND AND STUPID ASS JOKES?
thats the whole movie the whole movie. Yeah they stuck a scene or two with batman talking to alfred or batgirl or robin so what? They aren't good, they're average at best AVERAGE!
"Well, I got "Batman and Robin" but not "The Dark Knight""
Thats because batman and robin was a dumb fucking movie. The Ending speech of "The Dark Knight"?
It was a reference to batman and Bruce Wayne being duh "A-DARK-KNIGHT" holy shit, the title of the movie.
Also I don't know why you keep calling me a fanboy for pointing out the dumb claims you keep making because I've never read a batman comic in my life and even though I like one movie more then the other I'm not a "Fan" of either of them.
Don't read comics?? Then don't crit the comic book movies!!
Edit:
I would argue that Batman & Robin is a far more accomplished film than The Dark Knight. If you find that hard to swallow, I suggest reading the previous sentence again and thinking about it for a minute or so.
just saving this, your dumb (and fairly condescending) claim.
-
oh boy the last few pages here have been odd...but interesting to say the least!
-
Right... back to the debate!
heh...don't act???? Don't crit the actors if you don't act. Don't crit the cooks if you don't cook. Don't crit the musicians if you don't play music. Don't crit the roofers if you can't lay roof. And especially, most of all. Don't crit the janitors if you don't know how to mop up shit.
I agree that such statements as "let's see you do better" are fairly dumb. A finished film is never the product of a single person, or even a group of people. I recommend a featurette on the Revenge of The Sith DVD that explores the synergetic efforts of numerous departments to realise 60 seconds of completed film footage.
However, the actors are one part of the larger machine. The effectiveness of the performance lies in their abilities. Although a cook, or a musician, or a roofer, or a janitor may not be any good at their job, they are still sure to possess an understanding of the profession as they have, to some degree, experienced it from within. Understanding is not synonymous with aptitude.
Sure, you're entitled to your opinion that the acting in Batman & Robin was sub-par, at best. However, you outright attacked my own observations, telling me that I'm "full of shit"; thereby implying that you think my opinion is "wrong" or "incorrect". Without possessing an understanding of screen-acting, what right have you to state such an absolute?
"It is shit."
"You are full of shit."
"The acting is corny as hell."
"They're average at best."
See where I'm going with this? Dogmatism has no place in intelligent discourse.
"Well, I got "Batman and Robin" but not "The Dark Knight""
Thats because batman and robin was a dumb fucking movie. The Ending speech of "The Dark Knight"?
It was a reference to batman and Bruce Wayne being duh "A-DARK-KNIGHT" holy shit, the title of the movie.
Oh, I got it. I accused it of being pretentious, but I can't really blame the production for that. I also think Suikoden is pretentious, but it's the fans that have hyped it up into something far grander than it really is, not Konami's marketing department.
The quote itself is: "He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight."
It just sounds a little too... flowery. Considering everything that's come before, poetry starts streaming from Gordon's mouth. It almost breaks the "realistic" context that Nolan and Co have been trying so hard to forge and sustain, despite missing numerous holes along the way.
Also I don't know why you keep calling me a fanboy for pointing out the dumb claims you keep making because I've never read a batman comic in my life and even though I like one movie more then the other I'm not a "Fan" of either of them.
But your demeanour is akin to that of a fanboy's. Like earlier when you said that Hollywood's refusal to listen to the opinion of the fans during pre-production is the chief reason for the lack of quality in big budget fare such as 'Watchmen'. Fanboy interference has proven itself detrimental to the fruition of good cinema time and time again. You can only give the people what you think they need... or what sells.
just saving this, your dumb (and fairly condescending) claim.
I wasn't talking-down to anyone. I just wanted people to give it some thought, as I clearly have, before the shitstorm; to consider the "Why", and not just the "What."
oh boy the last few pages here have been odd...but interesting to say the least!
You're the third person on the last two pages of this topic to attempt a bland play on my username. It wasn't funny the first time. :cool:
-
You're the third person on the last two pages of this topic to attempt a bland play on my username. It wasn't funny the first time. :cool:
This kind of dogmatism really doesnt have any place in intelligent discourse. You don't possess a full understanding of mocking stupid forum posting gimmicks so how can you say this in such absolute terms
-
damn mark how odd but interesting of you to say that.
-
Ok I'm pretty much done arguing with you because I made my point even if you didn't get it or refuse to see the point I was trying to make.
But your demeanour is akin to that of a fanboy's. Like earlier when you said that Hollywood's refusal to listen to the opinion of the fans during pre-production is the chief reason for the lack of quality in big budget fare such as 'Watchmen'. Fanboy interference has proven itself detrimental to the fruition of good cinema time and time again. You can only give the people what you think they need... or what sells.
Don't act like I came out of the blue and started attacking you. You said something I consider to be complete bullshit logic so I decided to tell you it was bullshit.
No I do not have to be an actor, take acting classes, or hang out with actors to know shitty acting when I see it, that is the point of acting. Re-read that if you didn't fully absorb it.
I DONT HAVE TO ACT OR KNOW HOW TO ACT TO APPRECIATE/DISLIKE AN ACTOR'S ACTING. No one does, that is pretentious bullshit. Now to be an actor, yes, I would have to learn how to act. But to be able to interpret on my own I do not need to do any of that shit, that is bullshit.
If you're going to take a comic book concept and story and turn it into a movie you need to take source material and do it right. Not take the story and turn it into compete garbage like BATMAN AND ROBIN WAS.
oh wait I need concrete evidence for why its complete garbage now don't I? http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1077027-batman_and_robin/
well I guess since ROTTEN-FUCKING-TOMATOES aren't ACTORS then they can't tell when a movie is shit can they?
oh wait: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118688/
well I guess we're all a bunch of dumb NON-ACTORS then huh?
-
Based on 58 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, 12% of the critics enjoyed Batman & Robin.[24] The film was more balanced with 15 reviews from Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics" poll, receiving a 20% approval rating.[25] By comparison Metacritic collected an average score of 28/100, based on 21 reviews.[26]
Many observers accused Schumacher of adding possible homosexual innuendos in the storyline.[5] Schumacher has been openly gay through most of his career.[27] James Berardinelli questioned the "random amount of rubber nipples and camera angle close-ups of the Dynamic Duo's butts and Bat-crotches."[28] Similar to Batman Forever, this primarily included the decision to add nipples and enlarged codpieces to Batman and Robin suits. Schumacher stated, "I had no idea that putting nipples on the Batsuit and Robin suit were going to spark international headlines. The bodies of the suits come from ancient Greek statues, which display perfect bodies. They are anatomically erotic."[5] Chris O'Donnell, who portrayed Robin, felt "it wasn't so much the nipples that bothered me. It was the codpiece. The press obviously played it up and made it a big deal, especially with Joel directing. I didn't think twice about the controversy, but going back and looking and seeing some of the pictures, it was very unusual."[5] George Clooney joked, "Joel Schumacher told me we never made another Batman film because Batman was gay".[29]
Schumacher and producer Peter MacGregor-Scott blamed the negative reception of Batman & Robin on Warner Bros.' decision to fast track production. "There was a lot of pressure from Warner Bros. to make Batman & Robin more family-friendly," Schumacher explained. "We decided to do a less depressing Batman movie and less torture and more heroic. I know I have been criticized a lot for this, but I didn't see the harm in that approach at all."[5] Roger Ebert criticized the toyetic approach and Mr. Freeze's one-liner jokes.[30] Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times believed the film "killed" the Batman film series, and felt Batman & Robin depended too much on visual effects.[31] Desson Thomson of The Washington Post largely disapproved over Schumacher's direction and Akiva Goldsman's script.[32] Mick LaSalle, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, said, "George Clooney is the big zero of the film, and should go down in history as the George Lazenby of the series."[33] However, Janet Maslin of The New York Times gave a positive review. She praised Uma Thurman's acting, as well as the production and costume design.[34]
Batman & Robin was nominated the Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film, as well as categories for Best Make-up and Best Costume.[35] Alicia Silverstone won the Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actress. Schumacher (Worst Director), George Clooney and Chris O'Donnell (Worst Screen Couple), Akiva Goldsman (Worst Screenplay), both Chris O'Donnell and Arnold Schwarzenegger (Worst Supporting Actor), Uma Thurman (Worst Supporting Actress) and Billy Corgan (Worst Song for "The End Is the Beginning Is the End") were also nominated for categories at the Razzie Awards. Batman & Robin received nominations for Worst Picture, Worst Remake or Sequel and Worst Reckless Disregard for Human Life and Public Property
that gay innuendo stuff is pretty funny
-
george clooney will give you your money back if you approach him and tell him you saw batman and robin.
seriously though when a dude is clearly ignoring the objective qualities of a film and ranting about shit absolutely no one has ever seen in it, you should have dropped it man. it's like you're arguing 2+2 is an equation and he's saying 2+2=monkey cheese.
-
I'm not really sure where to begin so I'll give it some time to think about it and come back later.
Actually I'll probably just forget.
-
Going back to Star Wars: compare the opening battle of Revenge of The Sith (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cU0BYXlTuI) to the closing battle of A New Hope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtnu4kcKbik&feature=related). The latter often recycles clips, depriving the scene of its intended sense of continuous motion. This is understandable given the limited budget at the time, but even so. With the former we remain focused solely on the Jedi Starfighters as they navigate the intimate cross-fire of the capital ships.
I never noticed, but look at Luke Skywalker after 3:20, it's about the most visually literal sense of "climax" in a plot that I can imagine haha. Looks like he finally lost his load. That being said, I never thought the prequels stacked up to the original. I even like the graphical style of the originals. I-III looks like some kind of computer game half the time. I know it allows for more dynamic scenes, but the over-glossed look of it doesn't appeal to me.
-
I DONT HAVE TO ACT OR KNOW HOW TO ACT TO APPRECIATE/DISLIKE AN ACTOR'S ACTING. No one does, that is pretentious bullshit. Now to be an actor, yes, I would have to learn how to act. But to be able to interpret on my own I do not need to do any of that shit, that is bullshit.
As I said before, you're entitled to your opinion; but that doesn't mean it's more credible than anyone else's, regardless of whether it conforms to collective public opinion or not. I was just offering-up a supposedly unorthodox critical viewpoint.
If you're going to take a comic book concept and story and turn it into a movie you need to take source material and do it right. Not take the story and turn it into compete garbage like BATMAN AND ROBIN WAS.
Who seriously gives a flying fuck if it's "done right" or not? The Dark Knight certainly isn't a Batman film. It works excellently as an action thriller, but as an interpretation of the source material it's pretty far off the mark, stylistically. Yes, Frank Miller's 'Year One' is grounded in a fairly believable reality, but in general there's a high fantasy element to the comics that the Schumacher Batflicks really nailed.
To call it "complete garbage" is to disregard all of its merits, of which I have listed a handful.
oh wait I need concrete evidence for why its complete garbage now don't I? http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1077027-batman_and_robin/
well I guess since ROTTEN-FUCKING-TOMATOES aren't ACTORS then they can't tell when a movie is shit can they?
oh wait: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118688/
"If 51% or more of respondents think it's shit then it must be intrinsically shit, right?" And this is why democracy is impractical in a progressive, civilised world...
And IMDB is a festering shathole of juvenility and idiocy. I'm not too familiar with Rotten Tomatoes, although I'm aware of it.
seriously though when a dude is clearly ignoring the objective qualities of a film and ranting about shit absolutely no one has ever seen in it, you should have dropped it man. it's like you're arguing 2+2 is an equation and he's saying 2+2=monkey cheese.
I tend to avoid engaging in debate because of this. It often ends-up leading nowhere, but once you're in it's difficult to just walk away.
I'm not really sure where to begin so I'll give it some time to think about it and come back later.
Actually I'll probably just forget.
Have a shot. I'm interested to hear what you have to say. Providing you don't give me the Coxswain treatment, I'm not going to rip your head off.
I-III looks like some kind of computer game half the time. I know it allows for more dynamic scenes, but the over-glossed look of it doesn't appeal to me.
I understand what you mean. It's similar to the way I feel about the current generation of videogames. Despite aiming to paint a more realistic aesthetic, developers often overlook major graphical inconsistencies that almost break the verisimilitude of the experience. For example, in Grand Theft Auto IV, all of the buildings are reflected in the water but none of the vehicles or character models. Had they omitted the buildings too, it would've looked a lot more consistent. It's a nitpick, but when you're sat less than a meter from a HD TV screen, it's quite noticeable.
-
The quote itself is: "He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight."
It just sounds a little too... flowery. Considering everything that's come before, poetry starts streaming from Gordon's mouth. It almost breaks the "realistic" context that Nolan and Co have been trying so hard to forge and sustain, despite missing numerous holes along the way.
you cant pick out this one line to crit when youve completely ignored that the cornball dialogue in batman and robin is a fuckin motif
-
The quote itself is: "He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight."
It just sounds a little too... flowery. Considering everything that's come before, poetry starts streaming from Gordon's mouth. It almost breaks the "realistic" context that Nolan and Co have been trying so hard to forge and sustain, despite missing numerous holes along the way.
you cant pick out this one line to crit when youve completely ignored that the cornball dialogue in batman and robin is a fuckin motif
There are numerous lines in The Dark Knight that come-off as sounding rather contrived.
In Batman & Robin the line-delivery is often accompanied with a knowing wink from the actors. In general the dialogue flows a lot more naturally, despite how cringeworthy it is at times.
-
In Batman & Robin the line-delivery is often accompanied with a knowing wink from the actors. In general the dialogue flows a lot more naturally, despite how cringeworthy it is at times.
dude you keep saying SELF AWARENESS but i'm kind of wondering how many batman comics you have read?
-
why are you guys even arguing with him. it's pretty ridiculous and you aren't going to change his opinion. it's like talking to a wall
though i guess it is odd... but interesting!
-
what I find kind of interesting is his insistence that the source material is like this when, by the time the Batman and Robin movie was made, it was way more like Batman Begins. he seems to think that because there is an element of absurdity to the comic book, making a terrible movie is an excuse. it's almost as if we don't live in 1920 anymore...
if anything he sounds like the fanboy!
-
no dude EVERYONEs got it all wrong
when they whip out the bat credit cards its a knowing wink
having no feet is really good because you wont ever stub your toes again
those 'movies' were made to sell toys. they have no cinematic value. not even the creators will argue against this.
-
having no feet is really good because you wont ever stub your toes again
damn if there really was a gw.txt this would go in it.
-
Batman and robin is like making a movie based on the 60's Batman movie rather than actually making a Batman movie. As in it has no connection to anything Batman related other than a few dumb people's idea that it's camp... Which Batman hasn't been since the 70's.
Still, At least it doesn't have Burtonvision.
-
I'm not going to argue one side or the other, but this is obviously a matter of taste. I loved B&R when I was a kid, but I feel that I've outgrown it. Crazy special effects and silly one-liners are too much for me to stomach nowadays. I won't disagree when anyone says otherwise. I WOULD like to see anybody justify the added scenes to the original SW trilogy, like the poorly-rendered singing/dancing alien and the Jabba/Solo scene.
I would like to note that my friends and I used to visit this senile and decrepit old man who was this real-life equivalent of the Family Gay homosexual old man. He used to LOVE watching Batman and Robin for some reason.
-
Batman and Robin is the worst thing I have ever seen. If you like Batman canon, you're fucked. Alfred's niece is Batgirl? Bane is just a thug for Poison Ivy? It was so bad in every way... Right down to the Batskates.
I don't agree with the older Robin casting either; basically they could have done Nightwing in Batman and Robin and it would have made just as much sense.
However, I adamantly agree with Arnold as Freeze. The problem? The fucking writers and Shoemaker that whorechild director. If he had been given a good script; I think Arnold could have pulled off Freeze really well. He had a few moments during the sombre bit with his frozen wife, but they ruined it continuously with all the zany zingers and shit. He has the voice, he has the look, and by god he fits!
Arnold haters unite against me, I don't care. I've always liked Arnie and this role could have been really sweet for him if they avoided his oneliners.
Poison Ivy was an okay casting. I don't really care either way, though personally I don't find Uma Therman attractive what-so-ever.
Don't get me started on Alicia Silverstone. At..at least she wore leather to make up for the... a..acting.
-
I actually trying to think of a description for Batman and Robin. It's M.T.V
That film is pure mtv.
-
dude you keep saying SELF AWARENESS but i'm kind of wondering how many batman comics you have read?
I was referring to film's self-awareness of its cheesiness, not its recognition of the source material. Do you seriously think that the cast and crew were working under the delusion that it was going to be anything more than a bit of "good, wholesome, clean American fun"? My issue is with audiences these days picking things to hate for the sake of it, rather than being grateful for every plateful of food that lands on the table, however foul it may taste. Just sit-back and enjoy yourself, for fuck's sake...
To be completely honest, I've only read 'Batman: Year One', 'The Dark Knight Returns', 'Hush', 'Arkham Asylum: A Serious House On Serious Earth' and '10 Nights of The Beast'. I don't claim to be an expert, or even a major enthusiast. I came to appreciate the superhero genre through my interest in film, beginning with Tim Burton's 'Batman'. I must've watched that film in excess of 50 times as a child.
why are you guys even arguing with him. it's pretty ridiculous and you aren't going to change his opinion. it's like talking to a wall
On the contrary, I've been trying to acknowledge and respond to everyone's contributions to this little 'debate'. Were people responding in a more intelligent and constructive fashion, they'd find me more compromising.
This is why I generally try to avoid debating, as it always comes down to who's the "winner", or who utters the wittiest retorts (and any attempts at wit in this topic have been fairly poor so far). I'm not trying to "change anyone's opinions"; I'm just arguing my case in the hope that it may generate fruitful discussion.
what I find kind of interesting is his insistence that the source material is like this when, by the time the Batman and Robin movie was made, it was way more like Batman Begins. he seems to think that because there is an element of absurdity to the comic book, making a terrible movie is an excuse. it's almost as if we don't live in 1920 anymore...
I think nowadays, post-Dark Knight, people should be able to appreciate Schumacher's films a lot more. The fans got what they want, now they are able look back and celebrate the diversity and stylistic range of the cinematic Bat-canon without pondering "What it could have been..."
And you say I sound like a fanboy, but I don't actually hold Batman & Robin in that high esteem. I just think it's a hugely entertaining film, and also happen to believe that it's a greater technical accomplishment than The Dark Knight. I appreciate style, as well as substance in a film, of which the latter contained very little of. Wally Pfister's cinematography is fantastic, but on the whole it's not that imaginative, visually. It's presented very matter-of-factly. Again, I don't regard that as a flaw; it just doesn't match-up to the visual depth and masterful production design of Batman & Robin.
It's not as if when I saw Batman Begins I instantly screamed "What?! No nipples on the Batsuit?!" I judged it on its individual merits. You couldn't say the same of a "Flames on Optimus?!"-screeching Transformers fanboy, eh?
That's another one. I only came to appreciate the concept of Transformers through Bay's interpretation, and thoroughly enjoyed his production's take on the original material.
As in it has no connection to anything Batman related...
Neither does The Dark Knight, really; as I said before. Rename all the characters, replace Batman's cowl for a helmet and take away his cape, and you've pretty much got a film in its own right, independent of the comics. Heck, even Batman's symbol has been revised.
Arnold haters unite against me, I don't care. I've always liked Arnie and this role could have been really sweet for him if they avoided his oneliners.
I fully agree. The one-liners really didn't help at all. Then again, if you've seen the Mr Freeze episodes in The Animated Series, they're chocka full of such one-liners. I would even say it's more excessive than it is in the film.
-
Yeah, but a GOOD director would say, "Alright Arnold, that was great how you said "Freeze", but could you say it with no emotion?"
Mr. Freeze in the cartoon always said zingers, but never with a smile lurking in his words. It was cold and robotic.
-
Yeah, but a GOOD director would say, "Alright Arnold, that was great how you said "Freeze", but could you say it with no emotion?"
Mr. Freeze in the cartoon always said zingers, but never with a smile lurking in his words. It was cold and robotic.
Schumacher has proven himself to be an excellent director on numerous projects since the Batman films. It's like blaming a government figurehead solely for the collective failings of their administration. The director on a movie set acts as the mediator between all the different production departments. Unless you're George Lucas, creative control is largely out of your hands. And even in Lucas' case, a lot of the "direction" was conducted by the SFX departments.
I don't know, though... I still think the one-liners are unecessary.
-
what? schumacher never had a good movie after batman, and certainly not one that established him as a consistent director.
-
seriously man its not like you're thinking above or beneath is, it's like you're existing on some bizarre plane where most of us see the Gordian Knot and try to unravel it, some cut through it, and the most zen ask "what knot?" you're facing away from it wondering why people can't see the knot before you despite the fact it's clearly illusory to everyone else.
-
seriously you keep asking for intellectual debate, sometimes to a fault, but then you say something like the guy who made Batman and Robin went on to be an excellent director when his pedigree looks like this:
Creek (2009)
Choose or Lose (2008) (TV)
The Number 23 (2007)
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
... aka Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera (USA: promotional title)
I'm Only Looking: The Best of INXS (2004) (V) (video "Devil Inside")
Veronica Guerin (2003)
Phone Booth (2002)
Bad Company (2002)
... aka Ceská spojka (Czech Republic)
Tigerland (2000)
... aka Tigerland (Germany)
Flawless (1999)
8MM (1999)
... aka 8mm - Acht Millimeter (Germany)
The Number 23? fucking PHONE BOOTH? The Phantom of the Opera? BAD COMPANY? of the movies I've seen there, which is sadly most of them, I wouldn't label any of them as good, let alone excellent. you're coming from some deeply unfathomable level and unfortunately my only guess is you haven't seen a good movie in some time and have convinced yourself Star Wars has ever been deep and that the prequels are better than the originals or whatever absurd shit.
-
You're so pretentious[/greek] magical negro. You're like thos e people who didn't like gigli starring ben affleck and jenifer lopez
-
what? schumacher never had a good movie after batman, and certainly not one that established him as a consistent director.
Many would disagree with you in regard to 'Phone Booth' and 'Phantom of The Opera'. I personally enjoyed 'A Time To Kill' also, but I wasn't too keen on the ending. Opinion, as far as I'm aware, was mixed on 'The Number 23', which I am yet to see.
seriously man its not like you're thinking above or beneath is, it's like you're existing on some bizarre plane where most of us see the Gordian Knot and try to unravel it, some cut through it, and the most zen ask "what knot?" you're facing away from it wondering why people can't see the knot before you despite the fact it's clearly illusory to everyone else.
I appreciate the reference :)
I've been told many times that I read too much into films, but to me that's part of the enjoyment I derive from watching them. I love intellectually co-creating with the material to develop my own interpretation, as it were. I was able to do so with The Dark Knight, but it was a lot more up-front with its messages.
That said, I do believe that my reading of Batman & Robin doesn't go much deeper than what is presented on the surface. It's all there, in plain view. I will not say that it's without its flaws, though (I've already mentioned the ice-themed one-liners).
The same goes for 'Watchmen'. The subtext is there, but it requires an inquisitive mind to unearth it all. Didn't you say that you came to realise a lot of this after having read 'Watching The Watchmen'? I personally came to all of these conclusions from simply having read the book.
-
The same goes for 'Watchmen'. The subtext is there, but it requires an inquisitive mind to unearth it all. Didn't you say that you came to realise a lot of this after having read 'Watching The Watchmen'? I personally came to all of these conclusions from simply having read the book.
haha fuck you champ. I said for people who didn't get it to check out the annotated version. I won't say I picked up everything on the first read but I don't think everyone notices everything in the comic the first time around (like the spark firehydrants or the fact that there's a pyramid delivery truck outside the comedian's apartment or even just a visual like this (http://www.toplessrobot.com/watchzsquid.jpg), although I actually picked this one up the first time I just can't remember any others and my friend has my copy so). and you don't seem to get that everyone considered the idea that Batman and Robin was some brilliant send up of the Silver Age Adam West Batman but dismissed it. I do not see how you can think you cracked the code and Roger Ebert did not!
-
There are numerous lines in The Dark Knight that come-off as sounding rather contrived.
In Batman & Robin the line-delivery is often accompanied with a knowing wink from the actors. In general the dialogue flows a lot more naturally, despite how cringeworthy it is at times.
you really think this
you know what sucks about a debate? more often then not you end up arguing in favor of something that's not necessarily that argument worthy or phenomenal in the first and place and it makes you ELEVATE this thing to show that it's better then this other thing when in context it is nothing special
ya know
-
ugh when you type its really odd but not interesting at all you are obviously a DUMB PERSON trying really hard to be smart whilst still at the same time coming to terms with crippling amounts of a numb aesthetic sense and overwhelming stupidity
really name one of those movies steel listed that really warrant excellent as a valid ddescription because i do not see one. don't even get me started on multiple excellent movies that would establish for him a reputation as such.
seriously man your insights are warped to say the least i don't know where to start. if you think at all the dialogue is better executed or written then in the dark knight (which is not brilliant by any means) youre a nutter
please, give examples. id love it.
-
do not hate me i am mean drunk
-
haha fuck you champ. I said for people who didn't get it to check out the annotated version. I won't say I picked up everything on the first read but I don't think everyone notices everything in the comic the first time around...
Neither did I. I've read it twice in full, and have read chapters, out of sequence, numerous times since having first read it three years ago. I still "got it" without the aid of external analysis, though. Not that I think it's a grand feat; it's just indicative of the way I consume media.
and you don't seem to get that everyone considered the idea that Batman and Robin was some brilliant send up of the Silver Age Adam West Batman but dismissed it. I do not see how you can think you cracked the code and Roger Ebert did not!
I never suggested that I thought I'd "cracked the code", or ascended to some higher plane for the enlightened. Others may have dismissed that it was some "brilliant send up", but not a single person in this topic has recognised this possibility. All I've read is "it's shit" or "it was poorly-made". There's a difference between a poorly made film and a poorly told story, of which I've been arguing that Batman & Robin is neither.
Countless times have I asked people to explain exactly what is wrong with the Star Wars prequels, but I've gotten no answers. Actually, Evangel said that he wasn't too keen on the CGI, but didn't attack the films any further. That's just a matter of preference, and he acknowledged its subjective nature.
ugh, when you type its really odd but not interesting at all you are obviously a DUMB PERSON trying really hard to be smart whilst still at the same time coming to terms with crippling amounts of a numb aesthetic sense and overwhelming stupidity
This is rich coming from someone who cannot construct a grammatically-correct sentence. Also: why exactly do you think I'm a "DUMB PERSON"? You didn't fully explain this.
really name one of those movies steel listed that really warrant excellent as a valid ddescription because i do not see one. don't even get me started on multiple excellent movies that would establish for him a reputation as such.
By "excellent" I meant "more than capable." How can you even define "excellent" direction, anyway? This reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a friend about the notion of "perfection", and how there is no such thing as the definition of what is "perfect" varies from person to person.
seriously man your insights are warped to say the least i don't know where to start. if you think at all the dialogue is better executed or written then in the dark knight (which is not brilliant by any means) youre a nutter
I never said it was, and I invite you to back-up your claims that my insights are "warped".
do not hate me i am mean drunk
Ugh... drinking... what's the point in it?
-
My issue is with audiences these days picking things to hate for the sake of it, rather than being grateful for every plateful of food that lands on the table, however foul it may taste.
so basically i should go to a high class restaurant, pay hundreds for reservations, food, tips, etc, receive what amounts to MOLDY BREAD AND DIRTY RIVER WATER, and then go "oh thanks that really hit the spot!"
like really dude? thats probably the one of the dumbest outlooks i have ever seen
-
so basically i should go to a high class restaurant, pay hundreds for reservations, food, tips, etc, receive what amounts to MOLDY BREAD AND DIRTY RIVER WATER, and then go "oh thanks that really hit the spot!"
like really dude? thats probably the one of the dumbest outlooks i have ever seen
If a fillet of chicken is undercooked, it makes sense to send it back. If you throw-down hundreds for "MOULDY BREAD AND DIRTY RIVER WATER", you have every right to feel just a little bit miffed.
If you shell-out five or six quid for a cinema ticket, and the film turns out to be disappointing, there isn't really much to complain about. A bad cinema experience isn't going to give you gastroenteritis (unless you eat a dodgy hotdog from the refreshments stand), and it's hardly as if you've been grafting-away in a sweatshop all week earning a pittance. Six pounds is like an hour's pay, on minimum wage. It's nothing.
Oh the sacrifices you must've made to see a film that turned-out to be disappointing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus&feature=bz301
-
Ugh... drinking... what's the point in it?
lmao.
-
This is rich coming from someone who cannot construct a grammatically-correct sentence. Also: why exactly do you think I'm a "DUMB PERSON"? You didn't fully explain this.
told you i am drunk, so my grammar is probably fucked right now you're right. also i really FORGO grammar and spelling on forums anyway what does this have to do with anything
By "excellent" I meant "more than capable." How can you even define "excellent" direction, anyway? This reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a friend about the notion of "perfection", and how there is no such thing as the definition of what is "perfect" varies from person to person.
oh man dumbest thing ever right here. excellent's meaning is not even in the same GALAXY as "more than capable". what are you even talking about?
you: "this food is MAGNIFICENT. presentation? BEAUTIFUL? overrall experience? IMPECCABLE!"
friend : "dude u just ate dog shit you know"
you: "ha whats EXCELLENT mean anyway........."
do you get that this is what you did.
I never said it was, and I invite you to back-up your claims that my insights are "warped".
at some point it becomes so terribly obvious that you are beyond the point of reasoning with that it just is a waste of time. seriously i would back up my points but to people like me and steel and toaster you're just not worth it. you say WHIMSICAL i say campy as fuck (and not in a good way).
and of course
Ugh... drinking... what's the point in it?
FEH
-
So is anyone going to see Watchmen this week? (Sorry to interupt the Batman and Robin thing)
I'm going to try to see it at midnight.
-
oh man dumbest thing ever right here. excellent's meaning is not even in the same GALAXY as "more than capable". what are you even talking about?
And that's dumb because...?
I re-phrased myself. It's difficult to judge whether Schumacher is an "excellent" director or not because there's no real basis for comparison; the conditions change depending on the nature of the production. My point was that it's not as if Schumacher's films are sloppily put-together, as you all seem to suggest. You may not have enjoyed it, but that doesn't mean that it's poorly made.
Again, there's a fine line between a poorly made film and a poorly told story. Nobody has yet explained why they think Batman & Robin was poorly made.
you: "this food is MAGNIFICENT. presentation? BEAUTIFUL? overrall experience? IMPECCABLE!"
friend : "dude u just ate dog shit you know"
you: "ha whats EXCELLENT mean anyway........."
do you get that this is what you did.
Nope. You're talking bollocks, mate. Go and sober-up.
You didn't like the film. Fair play. Why are you attacking my interpretation of it? It's not as if I called you an idiot for having not noticed what I have. The way I see it, it's fairly obvious. But that's just the way I see it.
at some point it becomes so terribly obvious that you are beyond the point of reasoning with that it just is a waste of time. seriously i would back up my points but to people like me and steel and toaster you're just not worth it. you say WHIMSICAL i say campy as fuck (and not in a good way).
I have been trying to reason with you all; I invited you to explore the points you were making further by asking you questions. I wanted to spark intelligent discussion, as I said. But there's no logic behind your opinions; no reasoning. It just 'is'.
and of course
Ugh... drinking... what's the point in it?
FEH
Do pardon that comment. I just know too many people whose interests are limited to drinking, Facebook and music, to an extent (as in "I love this song. Don't know why. Just do."). They often can't enjoy themselves without having had a couple of drinks, and if you ever do engage them in dialogue the potential topics of conversation are very limited. They don't probe much further than what merely 'is'.
-
So is anyone going to see Watchmen this week? (Sorry to interupt the Batman and Robin thing)
I'm going to try to see it at midnight.
I'm scheduled to go on the 14th with my comic-drawing pals. we're going IMAX. :D
-
So is anyone going to see Watchmen this week? (Sorry to interupt the Batman and Robin thing)
I'm going to try to see it at midnight.
I was considering the midnight showing, but it'd make organising the whole thing a bit awkward as there's a few of us going.
So I'm now seeing it on Friday evening. Plus, I really want to see it with an audience who are largely ignorant of the source material; see how many gasps it elicits :).
-
how would that make organizing it awkward
-
No buses running early in the morning, and a couple of us live pretty far-out from the City Centre. Taxis aint too cheap these days.
Then there's the matter of whether people are at work the next morning and so on. On a Friday evening it's pretty certain that everyone will be able to make it there and back.
-
oh ok that is pretty awkward.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus&feature=bz301
dude this video is the worst because he is complaining like "THINGS WERE SO MUCH HARDER BACK IN THE DAY" when his argument applies to back then as well. like he is just suggesting PERPETUAL AMAZEMENT when he himself was annoyed that he had to dial longer for phone numbers with a zero. its just that he doesn't even realize like BACK IN THE DAY BEFORE THAT things were even harder, or else he would have retained his amazement of talking with another person who is not in the vicinity, instantly!
like dude technology wears out. people CAN'T just sit and be complacent and amazed at every single thing that happens to them. its not productive! society as a whole, including art and storytelling, would not evolve if everyone was just like "well i guess it was GOOD ENOUGH" (which seems to be your argument here but i can't really tell because you have no command of coherency)
edit: i plan on seeing it this weekend if its being shown around campus, or if i can get a ride to a theatre
-
What I really want to see is the reaction of the people that will go see it thinking it's a normal hero movie.
-
lmao.
the real lmao is this is you three years ago
-
like dude technology wears out. people CAN'T just sit and be complacent and amazed at every single thing that happens to them. its not productive! society as a whole, including art and storytelling, would not evolve if everyone was just like "well i guess it was GOOD ENOUGH" (which seems to be your argument here but i can't really tell because you have no command of coherency)
You cannot deny that we take too much for granted these days. That said, you can't really blame 'Generation X' because we were born into this age of convenience, and any lapse in quality or service is bound to disappoint. However, we consume and criticise without taking the time to consider just how much hardship went into providing us with the meat that we mock.
Nipples on the Batsuit? Changing the name of the 'Crimebusters' to the 'Watchmen'? Why are these things important? They're not, in the slightest. This isn't criticism, it's cynicism; which in its nature is often baseless and born of suspicion and speculation.
You say society would not evolve if everyone sat-back and remained content, but I'm of the belief that public opinion is more of a hindrance to such progression than complacency. The reason is evident in this topic. None of you explained exactly what was wrong with Batman & Robin. You all stated that it was poorly-made, but didn't point to any examples of these technical flaws. I listed three clear reasons why I thought the aforementioned film was a greater accomplishment than The Dark Knight, even though that film is excellent in its own right (but like B&R, isn't without its flaws).
I'll say it again: if you didn't enjoy the film, then fair enough. By all means express your opinion in a manner that acknowledges its subjectivity, but don't trespass on mine.
Amid the chaos of a fierce debate my arguements do tend to lapse into incoherence. I hope I've made my point a little clearer.
the real lmao is this is you three years ago
I've never done anything as idiotic as the 'joning' of Avril Lavigne that he partook in around this time. If you're equating the person I am now to who that person was back then, I cannot take you at all seriously.
In fact, given the shallowness of many of the responses I've received in this topic, I'm struggling to maintain even a level of base respect for the majority of you.
What I really want to see is the reaction of the people that will go see it thinking it's a normal hero movie.
This is the reason why I want to see it with a passive audience. It's either going to completely baffle them, or totally blow them away.
-
that was actually obviously directed towards him because he is like lmao now but a few years back he was like DRINKING....EW. lil thing we call "irony" there for ya. as for you, i couldn't care less. by the time you even get far enough off the mark that you're intellectualizing a claim that episodes 1/2/3 are better than the originals, there's probably nothing that can be said to convince either side that the other isn't insane. it is like talking to a guy who thinks that shit tastes great about food. there isn't even enough common ground here to have a constructive discussion about this; clearly we have fundamentally different perspectives on what the word GOOD means. idk why they're wasting their time with you
-
that was actually obviously directed towards him because he is like lmao now but a few years back he was like DRINKING....EW. lil thing we call "irony" there for ya. as for you, i couldn't care less. by the time you even get far enough off the mark that you're intellectualizing a claim that episodes 1/2/3 are better than the originals, there's probably nothing that can be said to convince either side that the other isn't insane. it is like talking to a guy who thinks that shit tastes great about food. there isn't even enough common ground here to have a constructive discussion about this; clearly we have fundamentally different perspectives on what the word GOOD means. idk why they're wasting their time with you
My apologies; I take that previous comment back. I thought you were referring to the way in which I 'read' into films.
And you make a good point. I'll desist.
-
OK BACK ON WATCHMEN
Just came back from an advance screening (apparently FIRST IN THE WORLD... well) and loved it. Certainly dragged a bit in parts, but holy shit it was a good adaptation of the graphic novel. Worked on its own as a film and as an adaptation. There is a lot of dong tho. Like, I didn't really think about it but there is a lot of Manhattan's glowing blue dong.
Seriously tho, well worth the wait.
-
i am GLAD to hear there is a lot of manhattandick. yeah some people might be like EWWW PENIS but it was in the book and it was there for a reason and i'm happy to hear that they didnt feel the need to CENSOR it
i really want to see this movie in theaters but knowing me i'll probably end up watching a subpar stream online
-
The audience was all like GIGGLE, IT'S A PENIS. whenever it appeared on screen.
sigh.
-
The audience was all like GIGGLE, IT'S A PENIS. whenever it appeared on screen.
sigh.
Let's start a countdown to controversy, cause you know some people will be like "OMG they showed a penis to my child!".
-
This is the reason why I want to see it with a passive audience. It's either going to completely baffle them, or totally blow them away.
Or they are going to take it for face value (see: director) and I will feel endless shame for endorsing a film based on the source material alone and not by any of the film's actual merits.
-
that was actually obviously directed towards him because he is like lmao now but a few years back he was like DRINKING....EW.
I still don't like drinking much even after I did the whole thing, but a few years? uhhh...I started drinking freshman year first semesterish, that's 2004. that's five years ago! how is half a decade a few years??? you even said three! jaffs...have you forgotten that time is a river...
also as I recall people still said "lmao" when I said this, and also I was more lolling at "ugh...whats the point". the phrasing was pretty funny.
-
also I just realized I could have posted "panda...did you forget I had cancer...maybe...it gave me time to reflect..." and it would totally be right! I am not getting enough mileage out of this thing.
also 68% on rotten tomatoes means unless a friend really wants to see it I'll wait for netflix.
edit: ahhhhhhh holy shit anthony lane may have written the worst review...
Incoherent, overblown, and grimy with misogyny, “Watchmen” marks the final demolition of the comic strip, and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?
really guy.
he also levels criticisms against the graphic novel as much as the movie, when I think the fact that Snyder films the rape more graphically where in the comic book it is a single, sad, panel, should count more against the movie. he also quotes a line I don't remember from the book that he says is in there:
You want to hear Moore’s attempt at urban jeremiad? “This awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.” That line from the book may be meant as a punky retread of James Ellroy, but it sounds to me like a writer trying much, much too hard; either way, it makes it directly into the movie, as one of Rorschach’s voice-overs.
that is a fucking awful line. is that really in the book? ugh. I would have winced if it was, and I don't remember wincing.
some of his criticisms are interesting to think about; I don't think enough people lend thought to how everyone except for Rorschach decides killing half of New York (an act admittedly more violent in the movie as I think they just blow it up) is a small price to pay for a bid at world peace, satyagraha be damned. but most of it made me wonder if he had actually read the book. saying Rorschach has a lot of overblown lines makes sense when you don't view him as a badass but as a kind of horribly broken human being, but I'm getting the impression the movie doesn't portray this subtlely.
anyways it's an interesting review for sure, but I think it's kind of awful in a lot of arguments.
-
OK BACK ON WATCHMEN
Just came back from an advance screening (apparently FIRST IN THE WORLD... well) and loved it. Certainly dragged a bit in parts, but holy shit it was a good adaptation of the graphic novel. Worked on its own as a film and as an adaptation. There is a lot of dong tho. Like, I didn't really think about it but there is a lot of Manhattan's glowing blue dong.
Seriously tho, well worth the wait.
THEY KEPT THE PENIS Alan Moore's vision has seen fruition. Seriously, I'm glad to hear the movie wasn't a pile of crapshit and fuckyou I can't see it until Friday.
OddButInteresting, where did you come from? You just increased your post-count 20% arguing the finer points of Batman and Robin. I'm not complaining, I think it's kind of awesome. Did somebody strike a nerve with you?
-
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/pvp20090302-f34.gif)
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/alanmoore.jpg)
also unbelievably awful soundtrack:
1. Desolation Row (My Chemical Romance)
2. Unforgettable (Nat King Cole)
3. The Times They Are A-Changin' (Bob Dylan)
4. The Sound Of Silence (Simon & Garfunkel)
5. Me & Bobby McGee (Janis Joplin)
6. I'm Your Boogie Man (KC & The Sunshine Band)
7. You're My Thrill (Billie Holiday)
8. Pruit Igoe & Prophecies (Philip Glass)
9. Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen)
10. All Along The Watchtower (Jimi Hendrix)
11. Ride of the Valkyries (Budapest Symphony Orchestra)
12. Pirate Jenny (Nina Simone)
its the perfect mix of "oh come on really" and then noticing my chemical romance covering dylan.
-
that wsa some hilarious comix
My Chemical Romance covering Bob Dylan!?!?! I think I just cummed.
-
i'm seriously hoping that was a fakepost because that soundtrack helped cement me not going to see this movie in theaters.
hmmm lets see guys guys! I've got it! we have a montage of history right...and play the Times They Are A Changin.
BRILLIANT. WE SHALL BE CHAMPIONS.
-
i'm seriously hoping that was a fakepost because that soundtrack helped cement me not going to see this movie in theaters.
hmmm lets see guys guys! I've got it! we have a montage of history right...and play the Times They Are A Changin.
BRILLIANT. WE SHALL BE CHAMPIONS.
Yeah, how subtle.
Also, nowhere in the comic did I thought to myself "That scene would be great with some Janis Joplin playing in the background".
-
Terrible soundtrack, but at least they didn't have that Mad World cover on it.
I kinda imagined them either playing that when Comedian flies out the window in slo-mo or over the top of the finale.
I know that will be on youtube within a month of it's release, I'm just calling it first.
-
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/pvp20090303-182_1.gif)
-
I did, I assaulted him with words. I hit the strings....
What the hell did they do to the music? The trailer music was alright why the hell did they do that?
-
I did, I assaulted him with words. I hit the strings....
What the hell did they do to the music? The trailer music was alright why the hell did they do that?
fuck with the nerds
who makes these watchmen parody comics?
-
that is a fucking awful line. is that really in the book? ugh. I would have winced if it was, and I don't remember wincing.
Yup. I distinctly recall an abbatoir-related line in Rorschach's journal. I quite like the sound of it: it conjures a rather vague but really fucked-up image. Also, remember that Rorschach isn't a particularly skilled writer or orator; by his own admission, at one point in the comic.
Or they are going to take it for face value (see: director) and I will feel endless shame for endorsing a film based on the source material alone and not by any of the film's actual merits.
Well, having read the comic again fairly recently, I'm going to find it pretty difficult to remain neutral when the curtain goes-up and the flick starts to roll. I'll probably just be sat there quietly giggling at every little reference. Thankfully I'm going to see it with the guy who introduced me to the comic in the first place, so I shouldn't feel like a complete prat.
OddButInteresting, where did you come from? You just increased your post-count 20% arguing the finer points of Batman and Robin. I'm not complaining, I think it's kind of awesome. Did somebody strike a nerve with you?
I'm a regular lurker, but occassionally I come-out of hiding to dispense pearls/shitpebbles of wisdom/inanity. Once I get engaged in something I find it hard to stop 'til business is finished. Add to that my tendency to write at painstaking length. My keyboard's taken a real thrashing this past day or so.
i'm seriously hoping that was a fakepost because that soundtrack helped cement me not going to see this movie in theaters.
Have you heard any of Tyler Bates' original score?
http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/
Although it's been released, there are samples of it on the official site's character pages. I'm particularly fond of the track on Manhattan's page (titled 'You Quit' on the actual soundtrack. So I'm assuming it plays when Rorschach leaves Dan's basement earlier on).
By the way: I saw a monochromatic WIP of that Alan Moore strip a few days ago, but it's great to see the completed version. I especially like the mural of Glycon in the background :).
-
Tyler Bates.
Fucking awful composer.
-
I like generic emotionless music in my films.
-
Reviewers of the soundtrack have noted that the music doesn't hold-up that well on its own, but it complements the overall atmosphere of the scenes in which it features.
I think it's unfair to call Bates an awful composer, or label his music emotionless. I thought you, as an aspiring film-maker, would recognise this before most people, Psyburn.
-
how does being an aspiring film-maker affect someone's decision on whether the music is awful or not
-
Reviewers of the soundtrack have noted that the music doesn't hold-up that well on its own, but it complements the overall atmosphere of the scenes in which it features.
I think it's unfair to call Bates an awful composer, or label his music emotionless. I thought you, as an aspiring film-maker, would recognise this before most people, Psyburn.
If the score sucks, it sucks.
-
I think it's unfair to call Bates an awful composer, or label his music emotionless. I thought you, as an aspiring film-maker, would recognise this before most people, Psyburn.
this reminds me of when in highschool i told a libertarian i didn't like atlas shrugged and he lectured me like this
-
Man it seems to me like you've become a film industry tool. I wasn't going to say this until I was sure but after a bunch of your comments and the last one you said about psyburn, well....yep.
-
how does being an aspiring film-maker affect someone's decision on whether the music is awful or not
I was just saying that he's more likely to acknowledge the difference between good music (in its own right), and a good film score. Good music, very much like good writing, needs to try a little bit harder to elicit a reaction from the recipient ("showing" not "telling": try randomly punching someone who clearly isn't listening to you; it's guaranteed that you'll grab their attention). Film scripts and film scores, on the other hand, are merely singular elements in a larger piece that all contribute in some way to the complete effect.
In music, the product itself is often created in a similarly synergetic fashion. Remove the guitar segments from 'November Rain' or another classic rock song, and what do you have?
If the score sucks, it sucks.
Again, you say this, but I felt that Bates' score was the best thing about 300; it gives the testosterone-fuelled action scenes that extra kick. I can't say I was that moved by the rest of the film. Sure, it looks great, but it wasn't that exciting or entertaining, in my opinion.
this reminds me of when in highschool i told a libertarian i didn't like atlas shrugged and he lectured me like this
I'm all for people expressing their opinions, and I'm happy to hear them. But if I'm subjected to something along the lines of "It's shit, and you're an idiot if you don't think so too" I tend to get a wee bit vexed, especially if it's coming from someone who clearly hasn't given it much thought, or at least considered all sides of the arguement.
A simple "I enjoyed it"/"I didn't enjoy it" will suffice. Simple as they sound, I regard them as much more intelligent responses than "What a pile of horse shit! I couldn't tell you why, but it was shit... so there!... What? You actually ENJOYED that shit?! You must be a moron; there's no other possible reason for it because that film was clearly SHIT!"
Man it seems to me like you've become a film industry tool. I wasn't going to say this until I was sure but after a bunch of your comments and the last one you said about psyburn, well....yep.
Nah, I'm not an industry "plant", as they're known. I just love cinema. I devote a great deal of my thinking to film, literature, etc... In some ways, as sociable as I am, I find "art" much easier to relate to than people.
But despite my appreciation of films that are condemned by the majority, there are plenty of films that I haven't enjoyed, including many that are considered classics.
The Godfather, for example, bored the crap out of me. I didn't find it at all interesting. That's not to say that it wasn't well-made; it just failed to entertain or inspire me. Same goes for Taxi Driver: I felt Fincher did a better job conveying similar messages with Fight Club.
-
guys. i figured it out.
he's... trolling.
-
The audience was all like GIGGLE, IT'S A PENIS. whenever it appeared on screen.
sigh.
Hahaha, this didn't happen at the cinema I was in. What was noticeable about his penis was that it was like twice as long as in the novel. I think the only part the audience laughed at was when Dreiberg can't get it up, all the guys in the cinema laughed at him.
I think for my opinion on the movie, I thought it was pretty good as an adaption. To be honest I wanted it to be more faithful, but I knew that wasn't going to happen. Also the major sex scene was ridiculously long, something I think Mr. Snyder seems to like doing (re 300). Other than that it was really good.
Also, what stood out the most as being awesome was Rorschachs first journal entry. I had just read the first chapter again before I saw the movie, and that entry in the movie was pretty much word for word.
-
I sometimes use this music streaming, radio, suggestion thing called spotify and cause I have the free version it has a short ad every 10 songs or something. It just played one for watchmen and it was full of great testimonials like
FOUR STARS
FILM OF THE MONTH
-
I'm seeing this film tomorrow becuase I have some friends who are bunch of comic book geeks. I never read comic books and have not heard of Watchmen until this movie so I haven't got the hype about it that a lot of people seem to have. I dunno, am I the only one who's sick to death of the default comic book/super hero movie of the year? Man, they're so camp and shitty looking.
We'll see, it might be alright. I'll be going in with a pretty negative attitude becuase 300 was pretty awful, but this might help the film if it's actually ok.
-
Going to see this tonight. I really don't like midnight showings because of all the people shouting when their favorite characters come on screen, and it just generally ruining the atmosphere. But what the hell.
Gracias for the annotated Watchmen, whoever posted that. There are so many little details that I've missed, it's amazing. This is the first work of Moore's that I've read; someone more familiar with him suggest something else of his to me? I'm thinking of Lost Girls, since Gaiman mentioned that one a few times, but I haven't a clue where to go from there.
-
no dude i wasnt kidding its during a history montage.
also don't read lost girls yet. what aspect of watchmen appealed to you most? if you liked the plotting, reading something like top 10 or his brilliant run on swamp thing is a great bet. if you liked....art.....from hell or league or something along those lines. v for vendetta is way better than the movie.
-
that is a fucking awful line. is that really in the book? ugh. I would have winced if it was, and I don't remember wincing.
just looked, it is. rorshach says it shortly before enterting harry's bar. haha.
sounds to me like a throwback to those monologues at the beginning of those noir detective books and tv shows. Rorschach always reminded me of a sober Assy McGee.
I'm seeing this movie in about 3 hours, woooooot. I hope we get some cosplayers. I REALLY want to see a Rorschach impersonator.
-
9. Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen)
That is just so delightfully hacky.
-
there's... uh. 99 red balloons in the movie too.
the song.
-
I probably shouldn't but... Yeah:
-
No that can't be real
ahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahaahahahaah
-
The sad thing is that this is what most people who didn't know better thought the movie would be like before seeing it.
Which I saw btw.
Rorschach was spot on.
The rest was really hit or miss with me. They Michael Bayed the roof top rescue... though arguably worse was the extended sex scene that came afterwards (which is where Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah comes in). There where a few other alterations that I felt was in bad taste.. though oddly enough I thought the ending did a much better job in conveying the message than the original one did. All in all though I couldn't help but feel disappointed in the direction they took. I was definitely more excited about the movie before I saw it than afterward. They nailed the action and effects (which was never the point!?!)... but the story fell short in several places while dragging on in others.
-
Wow Chainer those are like my exact words. Rorschach really couldn't have been any better. I don't believe there is an actor out there that could've done it better than it is. I agree about the ending though too! In the book after Adrian explains his plan the rest of them just kind of accept it and give a few sobs, but in the movie they really express "wow ozymandias, you may be right, but you are a TOTAL dick."
There were a few things I didn't like, especially the way they handled Dan+Laurie. The scene where Dan can't get it up was not obvious enough and a TON of people in my theatre burst out laughing because they thought he was pre-jaculating. I felt like a total asshole for wanting to stand up and say "wait guys, that's not what it looks like." Also, I knew the Black Freighter wouldn't be in the movie, but the News-stand guy and the comic kid don't have any audible lines in the movie.
Btw, I don't remember Nixon in the novel, does he even speak? Well there's maybe 10 minutes of him spread about the movie, and it's excruciating. The actor playing him is terrible, and the fake nose they put on him is ENORMOUS.
The soundtrack wasn't too bad, but there were a few moments, (the hallelujah thing, people also thought this was hilarious), where the soundtrack drew more attention than the scenes.
I really enjoyed it and I'm going to see it again on Sunday. What I liked most about it probably, is that the entire movie has this epic feel, even during the dull scenes between Laurie-Sally and the like. Apparently there were a bunch of people who got up and left but I never noticed because the movie had me glued to the screen the whole time. I'd give it at least an 8.
-
Wow, this movie really blew my expectations out of the water. I just thought it was amazing how much they covered in (relatively) so little time. Sure, there was a lot of exaggeration as far as the action and sex scenes, and some of the soundtrack was gaudy, but I thought it was very well done, and coherent at the same time.
I agree on Rorschach, his constant one-liners were pulled off in a pretty awesome way. Dude had me laughing throughout the entire movie.
-
Hey also, the slow motion stuff that I thought was over the top in the trailers, is kept pretty well in check. For the most part I didn't even notice it!
-
Saw it. Rather than compare it to the source, I tried to review it as an original film.
It was decent. Somewhere above average but a lot of pacing issues dragged it down. I was impressed by the way they handled the montages especially opening title sequence where they show all masked adventurers... anyone else catch Hooded Justice and Dollar Bill lovingly touching each other off to the side??? However, most of the film was flashbacks with voice narratives and the actual plot itself was paper thin.
Again, it's hard to judge this film on the merits of a film and not being based on an original property. The cold war is the heart of the story, the human condition is what drives it and yet everything just "falls into place." There's very little struggle between the characters because everything happens so quickly.
I forgot where I read it but I think the original guy they asked to direct the movie said it would have worked better as a 10 episode mini-series and I agree. The movie was essentially a trailer for the 3+ hour long DVD release which will probably be leagues better.
-
actually as soon as i wake up i'll probably forget the movie entirely and think it was shit.
-
blue dick
-
Just got back from the midnight showing.
I'm going to add to the chorus here. Rorschach was indeed, spot on. I didn't care for the mask much, how they made it a constant shifting stain, rather than liquid, but. I didn't like Laurie much; maybe the actor, maybe the character, I'm not sure what it was, but something about her just seemed childish and egocentric. And though I thought the ending was more to the point when it came to the message, I didn't care for it as much. The monster was something that I didn't suspect, using Manhattan as a scapegoat was formulaic.
I really didn't care for the slow down, or that the characters could punch through walls and break countertops. Adrian doing some of the stuff he did in the graphic novel was almost pushing it, but in the first few minutes of the movie, the Comedian punches through the wall, and Adrian slams his head against the counter, breaking a large slab of it off, just seconds before the high-speed knife fight. Or when Dan and Laurie get attacked by the thugs in the alley. The violence was over the top, even for what it depicted in the graphic novel.
(The scene where it plays 'Hallelujah' was cheesy as all hell.)
It was a good movie over-all though.
Magical Negro wrote,
also don't read lost girls yet. what aspect of watchmen appealed to you most? if you liked the plotting, reading something like top 10 or his brilliant run on swamp thing is a great bet. if you liked....art.....from hell or league or something along those lines. v for vendetta is way better than the movie.
I liked the plot a lot. I've heard good things about Swamp Thing, so I'll check into that first.
Why not read Lost Girls yet though?
-
guys is v for vendetta good cuz i like graphic novels but uh have NO FUCKIN CLUE where to start sooooooo
halp!
-
I didn't care for the mask much, how they made it a constant shifting stain, rather than liquid, but.
It's supposed to be a shifting stain in that it's symmetrical like an actual inkblot test.
Or when Dan and Laurie get attacked by the thugs in the alley.
I agree. I understand they're guys at the peak of human agility but fffffffff Dan was breaking bones and snapping necks.
Shit just happened too fast.
Opening
Flashback
5 minutes of plot
30 minute flashback
some plot
double the exposition
hint at more plot
NOPE NOPE EXPOSITION THIS SHIT UP
-
After giving it some thought, there are two things that really stood out and I can't get them out of my mind. They haunt me; they shouldn't have been in the film and they portray their particular characters in a horrible light.
The Comedian shooting JFK.
And Rorschach butchering the pedophile. In the comic he sets the room on fire, gives the guy a hack saw and says "No time to cut the chains."
The scene where Rorschach butchers a guy made me feel uneasy; not because of the violence but because they made it seem Rorschach takes pleasure in killing criminals yet there's nothing in his character that points to you believing this. When Rorschach snapped in the comic, he became his masked persona but he didn't flip out like a psycho.
Rorschach is a sociopath but he's not completely mental. As far as the JFK thing went, it just felt... wrong. Not controversial or sensationally wrong, just completely wrong for the character.
-
I've been playing the Watchmen videogame. I don't really care if the creator didn't want the game made, because it's a fun beat-em-up, that's all. You smack groups of enemies with quick or heavy attacks, and pull off combos. Changing enemies during attack is as simple as moving the analog stick. You can also do finishers if you get an enemy near dead, and they can be repetative... but there's definitely enough of them to keep you entertained enough. The only draw back is the blood. When you bash someone there's copious blood, but no physical change in the enemy. This sort of thing reminds me of PlayStation 2... The only graphically nice thing is the comicbook style cut scenes and the too-wet streets during rain.
-
there was a softcore porn halfway though the movie. it was pretty lame.
-
lost girls is unlike every graphic novel i've ever read. highly sexual, and it's all about the female characters from old books, and they all have sex and it's really not very erotic and more strange as fuck. don't get into lost girls until you've read more moore so you know what you're getting into.
-
wake me up when this is on the internet. Note: I'm not really gonna sleep that long
-
some other gripes that suddenly arised
Manhattan and Veidt don't have the one-on-one talk. In the comic, Veidt shows a hint of remorse by asking Manhattan if what he did was right. This could be paralleled in the movie when Veidt said that he felt every sacrifice and let Dan beat him up but it was still an important scene and the lack of it cheapened his character.
Manhattan telling Spectre that Blake was her father. In the comic, it's implied at first and confirmed later. Why the fuck did Hayter and the other writer guy think that the audience was too retarded to get the connection? "Your father... was THE COMEDIAN" COME ON!!!
Finally, Rorschach in the pedophile's house where the leg bone still had a foot attached to it. In the comic, it's just a femur. Again, did they expect the audience to NOT understand the connection? The killer was careful enough to burn her panties but felt like feeding the still-attached shoe (complete with sock) to the dogs? Gimme a fucking break!
-
nah bro. it was way cooler with the foot still attached
-
I was expecting the audience to gasp during that whole scene but they didn't. The audience did gasp when the shank guy got the grease in his face and when the fat dude had his arms cut off.
There was also a group of high school boys that kept giggling every time Manhattan was shown naked.
Seriously... giggling over a fucking CGI penis. My buddy sitting next to me was like "They put so much detail in the way his wang moves, man" and I'm sitting here like "WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU LOOKING!?!?!?"
I'm pretty sure all the nude scenes were digitized. That smooth, perfect ass couldn't have been Ackerman's.
OH OH the movie 300 plays on one of Veidt's screens and the number 300 is on his door. THANKS SNYDER NOBODY KNOWS WHO YOU ARE OR YOUR WORK
-
Hayter needs to write a MGS script, I think between himself and Snyder, they could pull it off. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing MGS filmed in this way.
-
hahahaha
-
Hayter needs to write a MGS script, I think between himself and Snyder, they could pull it off. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing MGS filmed in this way.
considering twin snakes featured plenty of slow motion and MISSILE BACKFLIPS i kind of agree
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/QggOfblvt4U&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1&start=254&autoplay=1
you mean like this
they could have tom cruise or some faggot as raiden, hugh jackman or hayter himself a solid snake.
I don't know, maybe Michael Bay would be better for this one.
-
i might be going to see this with someone tomorrow. i read the comic a long while ago and i enjoyed it a lot when i did. i've never thought this movie looked good and i defintely don't now.
brgfh.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/QggOfblvt4U&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1&start=254&autoplay=1
you mean like this
they could have tom cruise or some faggot as raiden, hugh jackman or hayter himself a solid snake.
I don't know, maybe Michael Bay would be better for this one.
MGS2 was supposed to be intentionally stupid. MGS1 Twin Snakes was like... directed by the Wachowski bros or something. When the Hind D shoots missiles at Snake he uses one of them as a springing platform and does a back flip or something.
It's blurry, but 1:00 in Snake does a backflip in slo-mo, lands on the missile, and springs off it without somehow detonating it.
-
i guess this was already established a little while but warner bros is also heading up a Doom Patrol movie, although pretty much nothing is known about it right now.
..i just hope they use grant morrison's version.
-
MGS2 was supposed to be intentionally stupid.
would you quit with this stupid shit
-
The only way a Doom Patrol movie would be watchable was if terry gilliam did it. Everybody else would just do a dumb superhero movie.
Also Ryan MGS2 seriously was meant to be stupid, that was kinda a central point to it.
-
Also Ryan MGS2 seriously was meant to be stupid, that was kinda a central point to it.
I don't know if I'd say stupid but certainly self-aware. Like some of Godard's movies. It's not the same level of, let's say, depth, but the idea is the same.
-
when you have a generic action vamp, a fat guy on roller skates planting bombs, cyborg ninjas, magic boxes which render you invisible in the middle of corridoors, a battle against numerous nuke-carrying mechs and shit.
It's more than self awareness. It's to the level where it's stupid deliberately to say "hey look games are stupid, stop taking them so seriously".
I think MGS are comedy games set out to affectionately parody the absurdity of games and movies.
-
would you quit with this stupid shit
quit with what?
MGS2 was specifically designed to be as campy, dumb, and ridiculous as possible. Kojima was trolling everyone by making fun of hero worship and preconceptions of the generic action hero.
-
MGS2 was supposed to be intentionally stupid. MGS1 Twin Snakes was like... directed by the Wachowski bros or something.
Ryuhei Kitamura.
-
Leaving the theatre, I thought to myself that if Zack Snyder showed up around the corner, I'd punch him in the face. Don't feel like writing up an in-depth analysis. All I can say is that even though it was a very faithful adaptation (even annoyingly faithful, which made me wonder why this film had to be made in the first place), it was the little things that ruined it for me.
Well, at least it had a large, blue glowing penis. Never seen that before in a film.
-
there is absolutely no evidence that kojimi intended mgs2 to be intentionally stupid or a troll. sorry, but there's not! i don't know why you guys keep repeating this same argument when there's absolutely no evidence supporting your claim!
-
when you have a generic action vamp, a fat guy on roller skates planting bombs, cyborg ninjas, magic boxes which render you invisible in the middle of corridoors, a battle against numerous nuke-carrying mechs and shit.
It's more than self awareness. It's to the level where it's stupid deliberately to say "hey look games are stupid, stop taking them so seriously".
I think MGS are comedy games set out to affectionately parody the absurdity of games and movies.
every metal gear solid game has ridiculous enemies. they're videogames.
-
I've never seen so much penis in a movie before.
It was pretty good, but the changed ending was kind of weird. Other than that, there wasn't a whole lot changed, just omitted.
Some fucking idiot brought his five year-old daughter to the movie, and the girl cried several times during it. There needs to be some kind of law for movies like this that keeps kids out of the theater because they can't fucking handle that shit.
-
there is absolutely no evidence that kojimi intended mgs2 to be intentionally stupid or a troll.
nah it's pretty clearly a postmodern videogame. why would you think otherwise? every character is designed to be a send up of another character while pushing just what "character" is. you can argue how successful the experiment was but it's definitely intentional.
-
there's a clear difference between what they were saying (big joke..) and what it actually was! (retelling of MGS, postmodern, etc etc)
-
I've just seen it after along and tedious ordeal at the cinema involving power failures, long lines, and a midnight show.
I was very excited to watch it but also very skeptical from what I've seen in trailers and the changed endings and general foreshadowing over the internet. In the end, I'm very pleased.
Considering that Hollywood is responsible for this, Watchmen manages to avoid many cliches. The final product was very loyal and true to its sources.
The opening scene was magnificent. The exposition scenes were well made.
The mostly anonymous cast did mostly great job, they looked the part, they played the part.
I was slightly annoyed by some of the action scenes and while I loved the soundtrack, some songs felt out of place (though that didn't stop me from singing along!).
The new ending held most of my fears, but I think they pulled it off well.
All in all, it was a different experience from the comics, darker, rooted in our times, still loyal to the spirit.
I wish the other Moore comics had received similar treatment.
-
Ok, I'm surprised. I was mad at the slow motion bullshit and whatnot from before, but coming back I am surprised. I liked it more than I expected to. Granted, it has it's problems, but overall it's well put together and isn't entirely dumbed down into a generic gritty supe flick. It still had some of it's "message" and some "intelligence" intact despite the changes (which I don't mind since I haven't read it in a while). Pacing I felt was off, I was really into it especially at the Dr. Manhattan interview sequence, but after the first half it kinda lost it's touch. Probably due to the material that was cut out. I liked the idea of the new ending, but I didn't necessarily dig the execution. Some dumb final showdown fight scene and whatever...
Some guy expecting a generic supe action flick left the theater towards the end and yelled "this movie sucks!". Call me a dumb as fuck, but I do think that shows how much more this film conveys than most shit these days.
Still dislike Zack Snyder. The cast was great, Rorshach was the bomb... Also was into all the historical figures they put in, it was fun picking them out. I thought it was clever what they did with Andy Warhol.
I liked it.
-
they should have used the real henry kissenger tho imo
-
there's a clear difference between what they were saying (big joke..) and what it actually was! (retelling of MGS, postmodern, etc etc)
I use stupid as a general term, but MGS2 was designed to troll the player by being as over the top as possible while still asserting itself as being "very real." You can't tell me you took the game seriously when Snake's like "CHOOSE UR OWN DESTINY" then Raiden throws your dog tags to the wind.
-
Some guy expecting a generic supe action flick left the theater towards the end and yelled "this movie sucks!". Call me a dumb as fuck, but I do think that shows how much more this film conveys than most shit these days.
Yeah, this movie is gonna be hated by everyone who didn't read the book or who expect a generic super hero movie.
-
god the woman who played the older silk spectre was horrible
-
Ryan you're just dumb.
-
I believe I've written enough in this topic, so I'll keep this brief...
I thought that truly was one of the greatest films ever made. I'll admit, for the first half hour I was almost nodding-off. It was an exposition overload moving at a snail's pace; I felt a little sorry for those members of the audience who'd paid to see a flick akin to 'The Dark Knight' or 'Spiderman'. But, once it really got going... Jay-Zeus Christ!
Yes, 'Hallelujah' was a godawful choice of music for the sex scene in Archie, but it was one of the (very) few complaints I have about the film. The music on the whole was excellent. From 'The Times They Are A Changin'' over the opening credits, to the disco track played during the Keene riots, to the Hendrix (I believe) track played on Archie's approach to Karnak.
I also loved how they really amped-up the tension in places. Two scenes in particular are the one in Adrian's office when Dan realises who's behind the conspiracy, and the scene when 'S.Q.U.I.D' engages. The music, the camerawork, the performances... Thrilling! And the slo-mo was absolutely fine, in my opinion. It was employed at just the right moments.
And Jackie Earle Hayley's final scene was simply beautiful. In the comic the impact of Rorschach's demise is dependent upon what the reader has learned about his character over the course of the story. You're left feeling genuinely sorry for him, and want him put out of his misery. Time constraints didn't award the film the benefit of this background. The build-up was marvellous, and Hayley really poured every ounce of his efforts into making that final dialogue really moving. I was seriously close to tears. In the comic Rorschach came-off, understandly, as a little one-note. Hayley managed to imbue the character with a soul, even if that had been severly diminished by Kovacs' almost complete absorbtion in his sociopathic alter-ego.
I could write all day about how great the cast was, even Ackerman and Goode. The latter really surprised me actually, having read many reviews commenting on how the weakness of his performance holds things back. I say bull-shit to that!
All in all, this film pleasured me in a way a woman never could. I mean that, seriously. Ever seen those posters detailing "10 Reasons Why A Cold Beer Is Better Than A Woman"? Same thing. 'Watchmen' was a soft, smooth fuck to the senses.
And...
some other gripes that suddenly arised
1. Manhattan and Veidt don't have the one-on-one talk. In the comic, Veidt shows a hint of remorse by asking Manhattan if what he did was right. This could be paralleled in the movie when Veidt said that he felt every sacrifice and let Dan beat him up but it was still an important scene and the lack of it cheapened his character.
2. Manhattan telling Spectre that Blake was her father. In the comic, it's implied at first and confirmed later. Why the fuck did Hayter and the other writer guy think that the audience was too retarded to get the connection? "Your father... was THE COMEDIAN" COME ON!!!
3. Finally, Rorschach in the pedophile's house where the leg bone still had a foot attached to it. In the comic, it's just a femur. Again, did they expect the audience to NOT understand the connection? The killer was careful enough to burn her panties but felt like feeding the still-attached shoe (complete with sock) to the dogs? Gimme a fucking break!
1. Veidt very clearly showed remorse, as you say. Heck, that final shot of Ozymandias stood alone in Karnak, when Dan and Laurie look back, said all that needed to be said. It conveyed his complete moral ostracization from humanity (which now included his former friends), and the look on his face was clearly one of both guilt, and longing for the lost respect of his former comrades. You could tell that he was less than happy about the sacrifices he'd had to make. Very much like Batman, he knew he needed to become the villain in order to prevent human extinction. He even said earlier in the film that he'd devoted himself to a higher cause. He did so at the expense of walking alone from then on, even if it was only in his conscience.
2. Given the almost overwhelming quantity of information being thrown at the audience, I felt it was completely necessary to clarify that Blake was Laurie's father. In the comic this revelation occurs over a couple of pages, if I recall. The reader is given enough time to take it in. Again, the film didn't have the luxury of time. Manhattan's ability to induce memorial regression was one addition that I was quite pleased with, as well as the re-written ending. The Squid would've been... laughable, to say the least.
Also, bear in mind that Manhattan is also discovering the truth of Laurie's ancestry at the same time as she is, and he isn't one to be tactful when stating what's on his mind. His clarification was completely consistent with his character. And, by the way, Crudup played him wonderfully. Reading the comic, I expected that Manhattan would sound much deeper, and more direct in his address. Quite the opposite of Crudup's passive, distracted portrayal. Anyway, enough arse-kissing the cast...
On to...
3. It's a bloody bone. In the comic it wasn't entirely clear that it once belonged to Blaire Roche. However, in the comic you could take a second or two to make the connection. It's a matter of pacing. The film was so dense that it would've been easy to miss, like the confirmation of Laurie's revelation.
I love the comic, but I think I preferred the film. It was much leaner, and a great deal more imaginative (contrary to Alan Moore's opinion). The production design was phenomenal, very much like in Batman & Robin; only in Watchmen it didn't feel excessive or overly fantastical.
The only thing I did miss was the extra background that you get from the inserts between chapters in the comic. Thankfully I was able to apply that information to enrich my experience of the film, so it wasn't a biggie. I greatly look forward to seeing the full, 3 1/2 hour Director's Cut.
I said I was going to keep this short...
-
I really disliked this movie. I think its probably due to me not knowing anything about Watchmen and not reading the graphic novel, but here we go...
Ok, so the main thing that bothered me in this movie was the pace. One of the worst cut films I think I have ever seen. A 3 hour film that should not have been this long. Why were there so many seemingly useless back stories that were pretty irrelevant to the plot? I couldn't consentrate and didn't know wtf was going on for most of the movie. For instance, the film stalled for about 20 mins at the funeral whilst in turn every single character looking at the Comedian's back story. This should have been cut out imo. Ok, I get it, its to show what an asshole he is etc, but once is enough. I also get that all this stuff happens in the graphic novel, but it definitley doesn't work on screen. The most part I thought that this movie was big montage, with a shoddy narrative flow.
Ok, the soundtrack...Never have I watched a film with truly some of the most unfitting and random songs in all my life. Sound of silence, Hallelujah, All along the watch tower?? I got the impressions that these tracks were put in as becuase Zack Snyder liked these songs and wanted to add them. I can't think of any other justification other than one big troll.
The slow motion really got in my nerves. I mean it's one thing to do a Michael Bay and use it when there are big explosions etc, but he must have film about 40% of the film in high speed. and not just the action shots. It felt so stylised and focusing on stupid stuff like Nite Owl stepping in a puddle in slow motion...
Ok, next the visuals. Firstly, some of the costumes and make-up looked a bit like a joke. Richard Nixon prosthetic nose comes to mind. It looked completely ridiculous and actually reminded me more of that yellow pedo in sin city than Nixon. There were a few other character's that bothered me, but other than that the cgi world created felt fitting and looked nice.
I have spoken to people who love the graphic novel and they were loving this movie, so I guess that it did the book justice, but for a non-fan like me, it felt like a really poor stand alone movie. I would assume there will be quite a lot of mixed reviews for this film
-
(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7590/42v4n.jpg)
also
I really disliked this movie. I think its probably due to me not knowing anything about Watchmen and not reading the graphic novel
if anything this makes your complaints a lot more valid than anyone who has read the book, since you'll be judging it as a film. from what you've said it seems like stupid fanboy trash so I won't be seeing it. I bet if you made a chart of the people that liked that Clone Wars movie and saw how many liked the prequels as well it would be one to one.
-
holy fuck i dont know anyting about watchmen but is that tobias from arrested development??
-
if anything this makes your complaints a lot more valid than anyone who has read the book, since you'll be judging it as a film. from what you've said it seems like stupid fanboy trash so I won't be seeing it. I bet if you made a chart of the people that liked that Clone Wars movie and saw how many liked the prequels as well it would be one to one.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997
Roger Ebert was completely unfamiliar with the comic, yet he still thoroughly enjoyed it.
He also rated The Phantom Menace and Revenge of The Sith quite highly, but despised the Clone Wars animated film, and wasn't that thrilled with Attack of The Clones either.
His review of The Spirit was fairly adverse, but I rather enjoyed it myself. It wasn't great, but I had a good time and the visuals were worth the price of admission to behold.
Point: If you want to see it, see it. Ticket prices aren't extortionate these days, so it doesn't require too much compromise on your part (unless transport to and from the cinema is likely to tear a gaping hole in your wallet). Ebert is arguably the best professional film critic there is, yet there are films I have enjoyed which he gave the full thumbs-down. Make your own blummin' mind up!
-
Point: If you want to see it, see it. Ticket prices aren't extortionate these days, so it doesn't require too much compromise on your part (unless transport to and from the cinema is likely to tear a gaping hole in your wallet).
$12 USD per ticket fuck no.
-
Did you motherfuckers not notice every minority in Watchmen got fucked over?
-
holy fuck i dont know anyting about watchmen but is that tobias from arrested development??
Yes, but that's not in the movie. It's a photoshopped image.
I can definitely understand why someone who hasn't read the book wouldn't like the movie. It's just not a typical superhero movie, and it's just not that relevant to today. We don't have the threat of nuclear war looming over our heads all the time. The book did a much better job of keeping the threat in the air at all times.
When I read Watchmen, I went back several times to remember certain events, since the story is so complex. Not being able to do this during the movie made keeping up with the events difficult.
I think the biggest shame for the movie was that they made it under 3 hours. I know the director wanted it to be 3 hours, but the studio wouldn't let him. While some might complain the movie is too long as it is, that's because a lot of the side stories were chopped down. Like when you see the old Nite Owl for like two minutes, and then never again, and you wonder why they bothered with that scene at all. There's a shit load more to that guy's story that ties in with everything else going on, and it leads up to one of the most important scenes in the book, but not in the movie. Since they cut that scene, the full impact of the Watchmen on society was played down significantly in the movie.
Anyway, on another note, not showing dead people in New York City at the end kind of pissed me off. I'm sick of this "we can't seem like we're referencing 9/11 at all" bullshit because the comic was written in 1985.
-
Ryan you're just dumb.
coming from you of all people!
-
$12 USD per ticket fuck no.
I paid £7 here in England, which works out to roughly the same. For an hour's work, on minimum wage, you get 2 hours and 43 minutes of cornea-titillating cinema.
Can't say you'd get the same enjoyment out of two or three shots of vodka...
-
I paid £7 here in England, which works out to roughly the same. For an hour's work, on minimum wage, you get 2 hours and 43 minutes of cornea-titillating cinema.
Can't say you'd get the same enjoyment out of two or three shots of vodka...
That depends on where and who with you have the three shots of vodka.
I paid $8 to see it, but that's because I always do the matinee. I hate going to the theater at night because traffic always sucks, the theaters are packed, and you have to pay more. The more people in the theater, the more chances you have there will be some asshole with an annoying laugh or a cell phone that rings.
-
Watched it 2 days ago and I have mixed feelings. Some of its parts were enjoyable and it was worth the money but I wouldn't call it a good movie. Unnecessary and uninteresting scenes got too much screen time in my opinion, taking away the time from more important parts like the explanation of Ozy's plan for example. Ridiculously long and weird looking sex and fight scenes, too much gore.
I think people who haven't read the comic will have hard time to follow the story, though some of my buds had no problems with this. It's obvious that the creators of this movie respected the source material and they haven't done anything disgraceful. That is a good thing. The changes weren't stupid and I actually liked this ending more than the original. Rorschach, Dr Manhattan and the Comedian were great, their looks, their voices, their acting, everything. So anyway, it was crammed and the ending was rushed as hell, but it was great to see Rorschach LIVE.
Maybe the DVD version with the extra time and scenes could save this adaptation.
edit: and yeah the songs: I also had the stink eye when I heard that my chemical romance is going to make a song for this film, fortunately it was only in the credits roll. But man, 99 luftballons? what were they thinking? On the other hand, Jimmi Hendrix was a fine touch
-
I liked that they used 99 Luftballons, but the scene they used it in didn't work with it. The rest of the songs worked really well, especially at the beginning. I thought it was a great way to set up some of the back story and themes while being pretty amusing to watch.
-
Did you motherfuckers not notice every minority in Watchmen got fucked over?
oh SHUT UP. SHUT UP. you are the most annoying person on the planet.
-
I know I am but I am being serious. Every Asian person in this film gets killed or humiliated, every black person gets killed or humiliated. I don't understand.
-
I know I am but I am being serious. Every Asian person in this film gets killed or humiliated, every black person gets killed or humiliated. I don't understand.
nothing happened to the psychologist guy though (well apart from VAPORIZING)
-
compared to what happened to him in the novel, that was pretty light treatment
-
I know I am but I am being serious. Every Asian person in this film gets killed or humiliated, every black person gets killed or humiliated. I don't understand.
Who in the movie doesn't get fucked in one way or another? Yes, every minority character gets killed, but so do most of the white characters. And the ones who survive don't exactly get off lightly, either.
-
what black characters are there other than the psychiatrist and the inmate?
what asian characters are in the entire movie?
-
what black characters are there other than the psychiatrist and the inmate?
what asian characters are in the entire movie?
The Vietnamese girl who gets shot by the Comedian and the Vietcong bowing down to Dr. Manhattan.
Ok whatever fuck this
-
Psyburn I think you're being a bit over the top with this racial minority bullshit. It's not like this is the only movie that has racial minorities dying, and as Xanqui said, a lot of white characters are killed as well.
Anyway, the Vietnamese bowing down and whatever is suitable, because the Vietnam stuff HAPPENS IN THE FUCKING GRAPHIC NOVEL. Get off your fucking high horse, Psyburn.
-
The Vietnamese girl who gets shot by the Comedian and the Vietcong bowing down to Dr. Manhattan.
Ok whatever fuck this
maybe that is because they were in vietnam??
-
Just saw it and I agree with what a lot of you said. On his own, the movie is kinda weak and I heard a lot of people coming out of the theatre saying that, well, it sucked. You really need to know the source material to really enjoy it. But besides that, Snyder didn't do a bad job. It pretty much respected the book, the ending was even better and to the point than the original and there was a lot of attention to the details. I also liked the music. The montage at the start of the movie wasn't that bad.
If I have a critique, it goes to the weird pacing and the incredibly long and not really useful porn scene put in the middle of the movie.
Talking of porn, it was pretty funny to see a bunch of moms and their 5-6 years old going out of the theatre starting at the scene where Rorschach kills the pedo with a butcher knife and at the porn scene.
-
I'm an idiot guys forgive me.
Just saw it and I agree with what a lot of you said. On his own, the movie is kinda weak and I heard a lot of people coming out of the theatre saying that, well, it sucked. You really need to know the source material to really enjoy it. But besides that, Snyder didn't do a bad job. It pretty much respected the book, the ending was even better and to the point than the original and there was a lot of attention to the details. I also liked the music. The montage at the start of the movie wasn't that bad.
If I have a critique, it goes to the weird pacing and the incredibly long and not really useful porn scene put in the middle of the movie.
Talking of porn, it was pretty funny to see a bunch of moms and their 5-6 years old going out of the theatre starting at the scene where Rorschach kills the pedo with a butcher knife and at the porn scene.
Most of the people who say the film outright sucks are probably just into shitty action blowing shit up flicks. They have no respect for good cinema, let alone a decent film with Watchmen which has some sort of "intellectual" message.
I want to hear stories about parents taking their kids to see this movie.
-
I know I am but I am being serious. Every Asian person in this film gets killed or humiliated, every black person gets killed or humiliated. I don't understand.
And what about the blue people, huh? The first time in cinema history that the blue man is represented on celluloid, and he's made-out to be the villain! Blowing people up left, right and center, for seemingly no other reason than "because he can." And if that wasn't enough, some aryan bloke commits genocide and sets it up to look as though the blue man did it. He knows everyone's gonna suspect the blue man, because that's what they do, right? They just go around blowing shit up for no apparent reason!
Sod this! I'm gonna march on Washington!
On his own, the movie is kinda weak and I heard a lot of people coming out of the theatre saying that, well, it sucked. You really need to know the source material to really enjoy it.
I was thinking about this an hour or so ago.
I think in order to fully appreciate the film, you have to regard it as though it were based on true events. What I mean by this is that you may go and see a film like Valkyrie or Pearl Harbour, and it will spark in you an interest to learn more about the historical context depicted on screen.
In a similar sense, the comic is a history book that details the 'factual' events upon which the film is based.
By the way: why has everyone got such a problem with the sex scene? I thought it was quite refreshing to see something that actually resembled a realistic sexual encounter.
-
Reviewers of the soundtrack have noted that the music doesn't hold-up that well on its own, but it complements the overall atmosphere of the scenes in which it features.
I think it's unfair to call Bates an awful composer, or label his music emotionless. I thought you, as an aspiring film-maker, would recognise this before most people, Psyburn.
do you like yngwie malmsteen? please say yes.
-
do you like yngwie malmsteen? please say yes.
I had to Youtube that.
I remember someone showing me one of his videos in my first year of Uni. I was quite amazed with his endurance. I don't play any instruments myself, but if I did my fingertips would be sheared to the bone by the time I'd finished playing a piece of that length.
-
it was pretty funny to see a bunch of moms and their 5-6 years old going out of the theatre starting at the scene where Rorschach kills the pedo with a butcher knife and at the porn scene.
Yeah this happened here as well, and with adults too. I don't know what were they expecting, a pixar movie? Why? The trailer is dark, the posters are dark, i don't get it why would anyone watch this with kids
-
the bombs blow up in different cities around the world because david hayter wanted all races and cultures to die equally.
if it was just new york that got blown up i would have RAGED because more black people live in inner city manhattan during the 80s than whites yep true fact
-
the film takes place in an america that is still racially segregated. you will remember in the comic the indian place was called GUNGA'S DINER, but I think that's about it as far as a racial statement goes in the book. basically it is more representative of the time than it is of an actual racist perspective.
-
Yeah this happened here as well, and with adults too. I don't know what were they expecting, a pixar movie? Why? The trailer is dark, the posters are dark, i don't get it why would anyone watch this with kids
It's rated R in America for strong violence, isn't it? Shouldn't that be some kind of hint?
I really enjoyed the film, to be honest. There was some poor acting and bits of it felt really jumbled, but I can't deny that I liked it as a whole. It's obviously a tough thing to film and I think Snyder did as good a job as we could hope. I really didn't have a problem with the new ending either.
-
i have never seen ptizzle dislike anything without qualifying his statment.
also
(http://j.photos.cx/pvp20090304-511.gif)
the end joke in this one kind of sucks:
(http://j.photos.cx/pvp20090305-c15.gif)
-
we saw it today. it was unremarkable shit with a lot of cheesy crap and treating the audience like 5 year olds which would be OKAY if it wasn't a film specifically geared for adults
yes it was not great you aren't missing anything anyone.
-
i have an exciting new name for this film:
Don'twatchmen.
Guys.
Heh Heh.
Don'twatchmen.
That's all. Peace Audi 5000.
-
also if you aint seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
http://elected.by.dogs.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/a1/a15213bb9090c9e6deb6281ac3aa98e29e44b53e.gif
ACK
http://angryhosting.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/a6/a6414fe930e71e273575d5da9b3cec34d5539ee2.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1T8UBOvzsI
jesus there are so many of these.
-
also if you aint seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
http://elected.by.dogs.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/a1/a15213bb9090c9e6deb6281ac3aa98e29e44b53e.gif
ACK
http://angryhosting.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/a6/a6414fe930e71e273575d5da9b3cec34d5539ee2.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1T8UBOvzsI
jesus there are so many of these.
Saturday Morning Watchmen is amazing. I like how Rorschach is a friend of the animals.
-
I watched it tonight with a couple friends who had never read the comic. They both enjoyed, I thought it was ok. It had its flaws, most of which already mentioned, but I found it pretty enjoyable overall.
-
It's rated R in America for strong violence, isn't it? Shouldn't that be some kind of hint?
Exactly. Don't cinema staff stop people from taking small children into rated movies, cause that's just ridiculous.
-
Who watches the watchmen. I don't.
-
Exactly. Don't cinema staff stop people from taking small children into rated movies, cause that's just ridiculous.
i don't actually think they're allowed to do something like that if the person above 17/18 gets the tickets
-
Isn't it strange that in a movie where a pregnant woman gets shot through her fetus, the Silk Spectre is required to not smoke? What is this world coming to?
-
Isn't it strange that in a movie where a pregnant woman gets shot through her fetus, the Silk Spectre is required to not smoke? What is this world coming to?
Well we wouldn't want to negatively influence little children with the movie.
-
wait what—silk spectre doesn't smoke in the movie??
-
wait what—silk spectre doesn't smoke in the movie??
Yeah. Well, Laurie doesn't. It's kind of ridiculous cause why would she press the flame button on the Owlship if she didn't smoke?
-
TO BURN THE MOTHER DOWN.
-
if laurie doesn't smoke that sit FUCK ZACK SNYDER FUCK HOLLYWOOD thats the final straw
no not really but it is pretty disappointing i think it was a big part of her character, she smoked at a lot of key scenes.
-
Yeah she did. Tbh I reckon Laurie was one of the weakest parts of the movie, in terms of the acting and how similar to the comic character she was.
-
Thanks, Zack Snyder.. I'm going to stop smoking now.
-
the actress for the older version of the original silk spectre was so horrible
-
smoking is the core of watchmen
-
the actress for the older version of the original silk spectre was so horrible
Ya man, but I was rereading the book and at least she isnt as ugly as the comic version.
Ugh
-
I ove the family guy avatar bro
-
if laurie doesn't smoke that sit FUCK ZACK SNYDER FUCK HOLLYWOOD thats the final straw
no not really but it is pretty disappointing i think it was a big part of her character, she smoked at a lot of key scenes.
As nerdy as this sounds, one thing I was really looking forward to seeing was those funky pipes they smoke in the comic. Basically a silver straw with a hollow sphere near the end, for the tobacco. It was a minor disappointment, but I did give it some thought...
In short:
- Sally opening all the windows in her bungalow to let the smoke out, before Laurie extinguishes the pipe.
- Janey Slater having a smoke during her interview with Doug Roth, because she's decided she doesn't give a shit about her lungs now that she's got terminal cancer
- Laurie trying to have a smoke on mars, but her aura doesn't extend far enough to accommodate sufficient oxygen for her lighter. Manhattan offers to extend her aura, but she refuses.
Basically, the film was better off without all the extra baggage listed above, even if I did miss those pipes.
I really can't get this film off of my mind... I may never be able to enjoy another film again.
-
I really can't get this film off of my mind... I may never be able to enjoy another film again.
:fogetgasp:
-
I keep wanting to say something to OddButInteresting (not that interesting actually), but I know that I'll just end up calling him a complete tool and he'll probably just start talking about the finer points of Santa With Muscles.
-
I'm pretty impressed that some of you people are so serious into this book. If it were a series or something it would make sense to me, but given that it's relatively short it just seems so crazy that you can list the moments where characters smoke. Wow.
-
I'm pretty impressed that some of you people are so serious into this book. If it were a series or something it would make sense to me, but given that it's relatively short it just seems so crazy that you can list the moments where characters smoke. Wow.
it was a series that was like a year long (i think) when it came out
-
12 issues, once per month excluding delays (if any).
-
PEEEENIIISSS!!!
-
I keep wanting to say something to OddButInteresting (not that interesting actually), but I know that I'll just end up calling him a complete tool and he'll probably just start talking about the finer points of Santa With Muscles.
That shit died at least three pages ago. Your chat is dry. These shallow attempts at wit are near unbearable to behold.
Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the David Lynch enthusiast? The only Lynchflick I've seen is Dune, and it was fucking dire. It had its occassional redeeming moments, but I'm not going to waste any time listing the finer points of why it's a complete and utter failure; as an adaptation, and as a film in its own right. But as a starting point: if you're greeted in the first shot by the worst chromakey work in cinema history, it's fairly conclusive how the rest of the film's going to present itself. Nice costumes, though.
However, I'm not one to judge a person by counting the warts on their face. I've been meaning to give Blue Velvet a shot for some time.
By the way: I believe you not only didn't state whether you'd even seen Watchmen, but in the event that you had, you didn't elaborate upon why you loathe it so either (at least that's what I managed to glean from the inferences in your earlier post).
This isn't a counter-attack, by the way. I'm just hoping to engage you, as a fellow cinephile, in an intelligent critical dialogue.
I'm pretty impressed that some of you people are so serious into this book. If it were a series or something it would make sense to me, but given that it's relatively short it just seems so crazy that you can list the moments where characters smoke. Wow.
I just have a good memory for this sort of thing. Plus, I read the whole thing from back-to-front a week or so ago, in preparation for the film. I've also occassionally read random chapters over the past three years, so I've got a pretty in-depth understanding of the material.
Or I'm just a nerd, which I'm more than comfortable with :).
-
Kinda off topic but I'm pretty sure he hates Dune more than you do.
-
I really can't get this film off of my mind... I may never be able to enjoy another film again.
:shrug:
-
the actress for the older version of the original silk spectre was so horrible
Yeah, she was way too young and soap opera.
i have never seen ptizzle dislike anything without qualifying his statment.
I'm not a hater mayne
-
Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the David Lynch enthusiast? The only Lynchflick I've seen is Dune
oh christ man.
-
how.. unusual
-
but still.. strangely... intriguing?
-
http://scuttle.mirror.waffleimages.com/data/files/fb/fb757343bb751505f1526f593e68b2b7d3cca47f.png
-
Kinda off topic but I'm pretty sure he hates Dune more than you do.
Common ground! In light of that, I'm now confident enough to ask Roman out on a date.
:shrug:
It has reconciled my childhood and adulthood in a way that I can only describe in terms of Batman '89. I am confident that no other film will have this same effect on me, personally.
Or the :shrug: suggests that you regard that comment as pointless. In that case...
:shrug:
Yeah, she was way too young and soap opera.
I dunno. Something did strike me as a little off, but she brought this 'washed-up 40s screen starlet' sensibility to the role that felt rather appropriate, given Sally's 'marooned' state. Like an alcoholic Lauren Bacall (that is assuming Bacall isn't actually an alcoholic).
Lovin' 'Margarita o'clock' :).
oh christ man.
I just never really dug the prospects of Lynchian cinema enough to check out his work. He strikes me as one of those intensely 'arty' types that pass-off the downright bizarre and twisted as "profound" and "insightful".
Arty farties creep the shizzlies outta me!
how.. unusual
but still.. strangely... intriguing?
http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/2099364/The-Sound-of-No-Hands-Clapping/Product.html
I'm sure if you and Toby met you'd have a lot in common.
-
i have a bad feeling i know the plot of every movie you've ever enjoyed.
-
i have a bad feeling i know the plot of every movie you've ever enjoyed.
My taste is extremely eclectic (that goes for all media), so I doubt that very much.
I don't recognise the apparent distinction between 'High Art' and 'Low Art'. It's all elitist bullshit, in my book. Just sit back and soak it in; that's my approach.
-
like a sponge in a sewer
-
like a sponge in a sewer
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/getComicPage.gif)
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/getComicPage2.gif)
-
like a sponge in a sewer
If by that you mean I'm surrounded by the intellectual equivalent of piss and shit, you're spot on :).
I doubt you've got the cerebral chops to distinguish logs of faeces from bars of gold.
To Negro: Intertextuality is indicative of a lack of individual imagination.
-
if you're gonna twist my shitty (heh) metaphor that way then you'd be getting dumber just posting here and that's impossible because you like batman and robin unironically
also guy I had to look up "intertextuality" because I'm pretty badly educated and it's exactly what you just did.
-
i dont even think he knows what it means. either that or he didn't get the simple idea of giving someone ups.
i knew what intertextuality meant but im the worst person imaginable so.
-
if you're gonna twist my shitty (heh) metaphor that way then you'd be getting dumber just posting here and that's impossible because you like batman and robin unironically
You're yet to explain why liking Batman & Robin suggests that I'm dumb.
And the great thing about being a sponge is that I can squeeze the shit out of me once I've finished processing it.
i dont even think he knows what it means. either that or he didn't get the simple idea of giving someone ups.
Your last post could be considered intertextual as you used a third party text (or image) to illustrate your point. A point which is intertextual in itself, as you merely reiterated Mark's comment by quoting it. The only content that you can claim credit for is your concurrence, conveyed through the juxtaposition of the two citations in the collective context of your own post.
A vast body of knowledge is no substitute for raw intelligence.
The ball's in your court... bitch.
-
CATFIGHT *popcorn and lawnchair magically appear* *munch munch*
i don't understand any of these words you're using but keep talking!
-
holy shit you're so dumb it's unbelievable. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa jesus christ dude. you even had to edit the definition of intertexuality to include images (THE WORD TEXT IS IN THE WORD INTERTEXUALITY) and then tried to claim it was a point on its own and then you're trying to claim that quoting anything to give someone else kudos is weak minded and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
you know you're really fucking annoying and here's the worst part you aren't very smart at all! you are in fact one of the stupidest members ever. I mean that! like you are really chronically dumb! I feel really awful for you. I bet you can get better though. like someone has clearly filled your head with a lot of garbage but at least there is a head to fill. good luck.
also
And the great thing about being a sponge is that I can squeeze the shit out of me once I've finished processing it.
no you can't. this is why people buy new sponges.
also also just saw sex scene from Watchmen, laughed so fucking hard.
-
man Alan Moore even uses quotes all the time in Watchmen to prove points. each chapter ends with a quote. holy shit you're so committed to some false purity you don't even get how dumb you're being.
no one quote anything to agree with it unless you use a five syllable word.
here's one.
odd but interesting:
like a sponge in a sewer
a sponge could not absorb the shit he does and then emit such an unnecessary amount of sesquipedalia.
whew im safe!
-
And the great thing about being a sponge is that I can squeeze the shit out of me once I've finished processing it.
you never get out the smell or the stains and then you get it all over your hands.
-
yep this is getting pretty tired.
-
wait i didnt get to tell you my favorite watchman
-
Topic is locked but I saw Watchmen yesterday and I have to say, I thought it was absolute garbage. Absolute fucking garbage. Pacing was awful and whatever the director was trying to do with the movie wasn't obviously working. Some of the acting was truly horrible and some of the action scenes were equally laughable. Sometimes music didn't fit at all and ugh, there were just so many things wrong with the movie. I'm not familiar with Watchmen so maybe there was a lot I didn't get but the movie sucked, that's for sure. It had a few good parts though and Roschach was cool.
-
I know this is locked (but I'm going to unlock just because I'd like for this to continue in a civilized manner... and I want responses to my questions).
I'd like to state my own opinion on this film as I've never read the book and I was not familiar with Watchmen in any way shape or form. All I knew going into the movie was that it takes place during Nixon's presidency and that apart from one character no one has any super powers. Also, I was told not to expect a typical action film but one with narrative and meaning.
Overall, I have to say that I enjoyed it, but while I feel that I did keep up with everything that was being thrown at me, in the end there are a few things that just came out of nowhere that left me puzzled.
1) WHAT THE HECK IS THAT TWO-HORNED TIGER? AND WHY DID IT'S HORNS DISAPPEAR AT ONE POINT IN THE FILM? Ok, so the film explained the reason for Doctor Manhattan's creation which was good, but then to have this strange mythical creature show up without any explanation was so random to me. It actually distracted me from the ending of the film as my mind was trying to figure out what the heck this thing was. All I got was that it was Adrian's pet, but I maybe way off base here.
:welp:
2) Why were the scientists there at the Temple with Adrian killed by him? Is it because of him using this technology as explosives around the world and he didn't want them to witness it? You see, when he fried them in the same manner that Doctor Manhattan was created I immediately thought that he was creating equals to Jon to be able to rival him. It didn't make any sense though (because then why wouldn't he just undergo the procedure himself?) but that's what I thought given the manner of their execution.
3) What the heck is the point of the Egyptian-like temple? The whole location was beautiful but why was it created like that? And why did Adrian develop a liking to the Egyptians in the first place? In the film he likens himself to Alexander the Great, so this whole Egyptian-esque setting at the end felt so random to me (as well as the Egyptian literature at the Pyramid company). (lol, only now do I get the connection between Egyptian stuff, and Pyramid. HAHAHAHA)
4) I was kind of confused by this Pyramid stuff and the conspiracy. It's sad I know, but I didn't get the connection that Adrian was the "bad" guy until the beginning of the scene after the file is discovered on the computer. There was something about Veidt and I just couldn't remember that company name, so it wasn't until the next scene showed Adrian that I put two and two together. In retrospect I think the film could have put more emphasis on his company early on and repeated it another time so you don't forget. All I got out of it during the film was that Adrian was the only Watchmen who revealed his identity and created a company that sold action figures. (So random...)
I liked the beginning of the film that revolved around the Comedian but then once that was over the story kind of fell flat for me. I think the scene where they rescue the people in the burning building was kind of weak and pointless. Also, while I thought the night vision goggles were neat, since they were never used later on what was the point in showing them? I take it some scenes must have been deleted (but then they should have deleted this as well)..
5) WHY THE HECK WAS A MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON SO OVERRUN IN THE FIRST PLACE??? This came out of nowhere. It was very Prison Break-esque, but at least the Prison Break riot made sense and was orchestrated specifically for a purpose. In the film it was just a little too convenient as a plot device. One scene we see Rorshach (sp?) being put in this maximum security prison, and in the next scene everyone is outside their cell rioting EXCEPT him as his cell is still conveniently locked. WHAT THE???? I was very confused by that.
6) I don't really feel that I understood the neat looking contraption that Doctor Manhattan was making on Mars. Looking back I get that he has a background with watch making, and the machine he was building was very mechanical like a watch, but I didn't grasp why he was making it, or why it broke when it was punched... I'm sure there's some deeper meaning to this, but I don't think the film brought it out. It felt more like, here, look at this awesome contraption.. now look at the awesome CGI as it shatters! It felt very "The Fountain"-like.
I'll end this post by saying that I really liked Rorshach and his character. I felt that was very strong. The rest of the characters were a little weak. Doctor Manhattan would have been a lot better if they showed him as an ordinary man for longer and showed his personality traits, and then allowing us to see how his becoming supernatural changed him, rather than just saying at the end "Oh, Adrian used his psych profile to manipulate him!!" and leaving us to guess at how he was before his conversion.
-
Time to get my geek-on! And don't worry, I'm long done arguing my case.
Questions.
I started to answer your questions, then thought "Sod it! Just tell him to go and read the comic!" All of your questions (with the exception of the fifth. To answer: I just assumed the prisoners controlled the place anyway, given that Big Figure and his lackeys were walking-around freely in both the comic and the film. Some prisons really are this liberal, simply because it's more economical.) will answer themselves.
So, yeah... give it a flick-through.
-
Can someone at least tell me about the tiger? (That's the one question I'm most curious about. Seriously.)
-
Bubastis is a genetically-engineered Lynx. Veidt's geneticists created her as (I assume) a side-project to the infamous 'interdimensional psychic squid' that he teleports to New York at the end of the comic. In the film she's almost a complete anomaly, as the 'squid', and his geneticists are absent.
-
Adding shit like that in for no reason pisses me off. Like, sure in the comic its got a place, but in the adapted version there is no reason for it to be there except that the fans wanted to see it. This is the fundamental reason why this movie is terrible. They didn't consider the wider audience of people who had never read the comic and therefore there are way too many plot holes and irrelevant scenes just becuase they're in the comic. I know it's early on, but I think this movie is a contender for the worst film of the year
-
I disagree. I felt like they really hammered it into your head during the movie that Adrian was the smartest man in the world, and it felt pretty obvious to me that Bubastis was genetically engineered. I don't want to insult anybody, but of the people I saw it with, I'm the only one who's read the book, and nobody else even batted an eye at Bubastis.
-
Adding shit like that in for no reason pisses me off. Like, sure in the comic its got a place, but in the adapted version there is no reason for it to be there except that the fans wanted to see it. This is the fundamental reason why this movie is terrible. They didn't consider the wider audience of people who had never read the comic and therefore there are way too many plot holes and irrelevant scenes just becuase they're in the comic. I know it's early on, but I think this movie is a contender for the worst film of the year
As a fan I really appreciated it. In fact, Bubastis was one of the earliest things I got excited about seeing when the first promotional material went out.
I've now seen the film twice. The first time was with my good friend who initially introduced me to the comic three years ago: we both regard it as our favourite film of all time (and I'm not one to rank things I love in order of preference). The second was with my mum and brother, who actually enjoyed it a great deal. My mum was thankful that I'd told her beforehand not to expect Batman or Spider-Man.
On my second viewing everything seemed to really fall into place and I was better able to see how they'd streamlined the source material. It demands a lot of the audience, but I do feel that on repeat viewings it's going to prove quite rewarding. I suggest giving the extended cut a go when it hits DVD, Lyndon.
I disagree. I felt like they really hammered it into your head during the movie that Adrian was the smartest man in the world, and it felt pretty obvious to me that Bubastis was genetically engineered. I don't want to insult anybody, but of the people I saw it with, I'm the only one who's read the book, and nobody else even batted an eye at Bubastis.
You've got to agree though that in the film she really did come out of nowhere. That said, her presence didn't really require an explanation. I love densely-constructed mythologies, but when I'm forced to endure numerous explorations of all its tiniest facets it just turns into an authorial wank. Bubastis certainly had a place in the comic, but even in the film it wasn't as if she was that distracting.
-
I think this is one of the few movies based on a "novel" where you are better off reading the text before watching the film. I watched it and saw everything I could dream of seeing in a Watchmen adaptation. For an outsider to the material, I could see how certain parts don't make sense without some kind of foreknowledge, or at least multiple viewings. However, this is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I really can't wait to see the director's cut, to see everything as originally envisioned.
I don't understand what everyone has to bitch about this movie. I'm not sure what better could have been done with the time alloted. Sure, some of the music was cheesy, but it often played through the drama/action quite well. Watchmen is pretty dark material, but the movie soundtrack really helped play through scenes that cinematically would have been kind of depressing to watch. And then people complain about the extended softcore scene, when really it's part of a major sexual theme used in the book. You've got these masked "heroes" who really can't get heir jollies until they beat the shit out of some thugs while wearing some serious BDSM attire. Then they have really hot sex.
-
this movie was pretty bad. did I say that yet?
-
I read like the first 10 paged of the graphic novel the day before I saw the movie. I was surprised with how spot on the first scene was compared to the comic. I loved the movie. And the only thing that didn't make sense was when it showed Adrian putting that machine in the ceiling at Dr. Manhattans press conference. I learned later that he was the one that gave the people who worked with Manhattan cancer. I'm going read the whole comic now to get every detail and read missing material.
-
this movie was pretty bad. did I say that yet?
say it again..i cant hear you..
-
movie = crap
rorshachgh = awesome
oddbutinteresting = uninteresting
math
-
The movie was alright I guess, worth the money but it wasn't spectacular and I got pretty bored at times.
Thanks to this thread for letting me know about the stupid sex scene though it was perfect timing for me to take a piss. I liked Rorschach but veidt was too wirey imo and didn't give off the intended feel that the original did. He seemed more like the dude you might find leading the highschool chorus.
yep.
-
this movie was pretty bad. did I say that yet?
'Watchmen' is undoubtedly one of the finest cinematic achievements that I have ever had the pleasure to behold. Have I stated that outright yet?
Fuck it, I'm a dirty little fanboy!
say it again..i cant hear you..
'WATCHMEN' IS UNDOUBTEDLY ONE OF THE FINEST ACHIEVEMENTS THAT I HAVE EVER HAD THE PLEASURE TO BEHOLD!!!
Was that loud enough for ya?
oddbutinteresting = uninteresting
math
I'm this close to hunting you down, prising-open your jaw and shitting right down your gullet.
-
'Watchmen' is undoubtedly one of the finest cinematic achievements that I have ever had the pleasure to behold. Have I stated that outright yet?
Fuck it, I'm a dirty little fanboy!
'WATCHMEN' IS UNDOUBTEDLY ONE OF THE FINEST ACHIEVEMENTS THAT I HAVE EVER HAD THE PLEASURE TO BEHOLD!!!
Was that loud enough for ya?
I'm this close to hunting you down, prising-open your jaw and shitting right down your gullet.
Shut the fuck up and stop killing cinema.
-
Shut the fuck up and stop killing cinema.
Shut the fuck up and stop being Asian. Your very existence is a threat to racial harmony.
-
Shut the fuck up and stop being Asian. Your very existence is a threat to racial harmony.
That was racist get out.
-
That was racist get out.
I knew that'd stir your noodles :laugh:.
-
I knew that'd stir your noodles :laugh:.
I'm gonna stur your mother.
-
My mother would eat you for breakfast, little man.
You're better off trying to screw a pencil sharpener. I suggest removing the blades first, though...
-
My mother would eat you for breakfast, little man.
You're better off trying to screw a pencil sharpener. I suggest removing the blades first, though...
I'm gonna screw your mother and remove your mothers blades first.
-
You a piece of shit
-
vagina dentata!!! vagina dentata!!! aaarriiiiiiI!!!!!!!
-
anyone else seen that film btw its pretty hilarious
-
I'm gonna screw your mother and remove your mothers blades first.
...
...
Seriously... what?
anyone else seen that film btw its pretty hilarious
Oh, yes! Teeth is indeed a good'un! I was in stitches (no pun intended) when she goes to visit the gynecologist and he tries to cop a feel.
-
thanks for reopening the thread mateui look at the quality of discourse.
-
-
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/37209/odd.PNG)
TDK > The Watchman
-
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/zia_narratora/rorschach/lol.jpg?t=1237594511)
-
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/37209/odd.PNG)
TDK > The Watchman
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/55092/KojimaSmiley.png)
'nuff said.
And I need a flock of LED sheep.
-
thanks for reopening the thread mateui look at the quality of discourse.
I obviously underestimated the maturity level of GW....
:fogetnah: