Watchmen [Archive] - HPotD Forums

Neil

22-Jul-2008, 02:13 PM

Classic. :D

But fact is, is that he isn't a visionary. Nothing he's done has been visionary. It's been pretty, but that's it.

And Yawn was awful, for many reasons - just during the movie I had 110 gripes, so don't try your "sucky opinion" opinion with me, Neil. :lol:

300 was better, but still stupid. Takes a slice of history, then pisses all over it, throws in some useless giant elephants and a giant in-the-closet Persian dude sending his armies to fight the armies of a bunch of lubed up blokes with (surely) CGI-enhanced washboard chests in tight leather pants and red capes while someone goes nuts with the slow motion button, as somebody else goes insane with MS Paint in the background. :p

300, was okay, nout more in my view. Yawn was complete sh*t.
Oh yeh, him being called 'visionary' is utterly rediculous...

When had you ever seen anything looking to styalised as 300? Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow tried and did a reasonable job... But for me 300 was just raw styalised action... I really liked it...

IMHO I just cannot see how anyone can fairly give it a 'hard time'... If only because of the solid/original production values it should for example get a 4/10...

As for Dawn 04, the first 15 mins was pretty good, but the rest just went pants due to the terrible writing... But still, the overall film deserves at least a 3-4/10 IMHO... And as I've said elsewhere, I'd prefer to watch Dawn 04 to Diary...

What the HELL?! Then you cannot either say that either film is "great" or "ok", because that would be an equally subjective opinion. I do think 300 sucked BIG TIME, so I will say it:

300 sucks. Sue me, I said it and it's out there. It's my opinion that 300 truly, utterly sucked donkey balls. Just as you can say that it's a great film, I can say that it's a sucky film. None of us are right.

Now, Dawn was Ok. But the writing was awful.

It's not about calling it an extreme, it's about only using extremes, and doing it unfairly... I just get the feeling people all too often 'rebound' to a film that has done well, and start giving it an exceptionally (unfair) hard time...

300 was solidly produced, had a reasonably interesting script at least, and pretty unique solid visuals... At the least it's a mediocre film, yet people will slag the hell out of it because they simply didn't enjoy it. And more importantly I suspect because it did so well, they feel they have to go overboard in the opposite direction with their opinion(s)...

You'll no doubt get many of the same people ripping the hell out of 'Titanic' because it did well, but they didn't enjoy it... And once again, at the very least there was nothign particularly wrong with the film, but people will use terms and descriptions suggesting it something worthy of only 1 or 2 out of 10, where clearly this is just not fair...

My issue is with binary unfair opinions; where there is no attempt at fairness and objectiveness... These sort of opinions are to be frank just worthless...

MinionZombie

22-Jul-2008, 03:39 PM

Like I said, Snyder does "pretty pictures" (well, his cinematographers and CGI nerds do), but that's nowhere near the true meaning of someone who is a "visionary".

Kubrick - VISIONARY.

That dude was a visionary, Snyder is not ... and nor is he out of the ordinary ... and his films completely lack substance.

Ridley Scott - another visionary.

James Cameron - he can also be considered a visionary, and indeed if that definition on him was shakey before, it'll be solidified by Avatar - the dude's creating epic technology just to make that movie!

See what I mean? Snyder is nowhere near that calibre, and his films don't fit that box - ergo, not visionary.

The term gets bandied about too easily these days, as that trailer showed.

He paints pretty pictures, or uses comic books and takes pages straight out of them anyway ... which, honestly, isn't exceptionally original.

And indeed, copying panels from Sin City the book to Sin City the movie isn't all that original - stylish and pretty, yes, but not that original. HOWEVER - Sin City backed it up with a good story, strong performances, interesting characters and so on.

Neil

22-Jul-2008, 06:57 PM

MinionZombie

22-Jul-2008, 07:20 PM

Personally, really do think you're being overly harsh with 300... :rockbrow:
And I think you're being too lenient. :p

clanglee

22-Jul-2008, 07:42 PM

Personally I think that Zack Snyder just pissed in your oatmeal in a past life MZ. :p

I think that many people on this board were personally offended by Dawn'04 and they see it as an insult against their favorite movie. This has given them a bad taste over ZS and each movie that he puts out will be slagged by them till the end of days. He would have to put out something mindblowingly genius in order to redeem himself to these guys. Even then. . there would still be the desenters.

But is he a "visionary" director? Only really in the broadest sense of the word. Hell, all directors are visionaries of some sort really.

Neil

22-Jul-2008, 07:49 PM

Personally I think that Zack Snyder just pissed in your oatmeal in a past life MZ. :p

I think that many people on this board were personally offended by Dawn'04 and they see it as an insult against their favorite movie. This has given them a bad taste over ZS and each movie that he puts out will be slagged by them till the end of days. He would have to put out something mindblowingly genius in order to redeem himself to these guys. Even then. . there would still be the desenters.
Here here...

And there there come to think of it :)

Danny

22-Jul-2008, 07:50 PM

neat.

EvilNed

23-Jul-2008, 05:22 PM

300 was solidly produced,

Yes it was, as was Gigli. And Batman & Robin. And Battlefield Earth.

had a reasonably interesting script at least,

No, it did not. Infact, the script sucks ass.

and pretty unique solid visuals...

Of which you grow tired after 10 minutes. One cannot substitute story or character for visuals. As my friend put it "We fast forwarded throughout all the talky bits" (so much for that interesting script, heh?).

At the least it's a mediocre film, yet people will slag the hell out of it because they simply didn't enjoy it.

Who are you to say it's a mediocre film and put your foot down as if that was a fact? I believe it is NOT a mediocre film, I believe it is a suck ass piece of ****. I hated it, and I'll never watch it again. It's my opinion that it's a worthless turd, and yes that is an extreme. But it's my opinion, and there's no way you can say that I am wrong in saying so. No more than you are right.

And more importantly I suspect because it did so well, they feel they have to go overboard in the opposite direction with their opinion(s)...

I have no idea of how well it did, but I don't care. It still sucked.

You'll no doubt get many of the same people ripping the hell out of 'Titanic' because it did well, but they didn't enjoy it... And once again, at the very least there was nothign particularly wrong with the film, but people will use terms and descriptions suggesting it something worthy of only 1 or 2 out of 10, where clearly this is just not fair...

You do realize that most people ripping on Titanic are boys who saw it in their teens and were probably bored to tears. A film has to justify a 3 hour running time, you know. I like Titanic, and I don't believe it deserves all the badmouthing it gets. But whatever, it's obviously their opinion.

My issue is with binary unfair opinions; where there is no attempt at fairness and objectiveness... These sort of opinions are to be frank just worthless...

They're obviously only worthless because you don't agree with them. If you would realize that some people actually hate 300 because it's not that very good of a film (Nor is it a very bad film. It's a work of art, and thus it's in the eye of the beholder), then maybe you'd see things more clearly. Your argument basicly states:

"It's at the very least a mediocre film because alot of money was spent on it, so calling it **** is no no, but by all means, call it great."

If that's not bias, I don't know what is.

Neil

23-Jul-2008, 05:37 PM

They're obviously only worthless because you don't agree with them. If you would realize that some people actually hate 300 because it's not that very good of a film (Nor is it a very bad film. It's a work of art, and thus it's in the eye of the beholder), then maybe you'd see things more clearly. Your argument basicly states:

"It's at the very least a mediocre film because alot of money was spent on it, so calling it **** is no no, but by all means, call it great."

If that's not bias, I don't know what is.

'Sucks' implies nothing worse... It implies you have no lower point on your scale for films truly deserve to well below 300... It also implies your scale appears to range from just 'rocks' or 'sucks'...?

There's many films I do not enjoy, and rip the hell out regularly on this very forum, but I would not suggest they 'suck' or are 'terrible'... Or even truly bad films. For example Dawn04, Indiana 4, all the new Star Wars films. I would suggest all these films have bad/weak/lazy elements to them, but they're all at worst mediocre films by any fair standard... I would suggest likewise, 300, by any fair standard is at worse, mediocre...

...if not, where are films that truly deserve lower ratings to be placed? So 'Sucks' to me just comes across as plain lazy and almost childish.

So, seriously, anyone who deems 300 as 'sucks' implies it's about as bad as can be, which clearly is just nonsense...

BUT, maybe this is all a mis-understanding... My interpretation of 'sucks' is 1 out of 10. Maybe yours isn't... What's you're 'range' for 'sucks' then (out of 10 for example)?

Additionally, I don't believe there's any films I would (seriously) use the term 'sucks' on... So there's another difference...

"It's at the very least a mediocre film because alot of money was spent on it, so calling it **** is no no, but by all means, call it great."

If that's not bias, I don't know what is.

Not at all... It's at least mediocre because it manages to tell a story well. It's filmed in an interesting way (& at times quite unusual/unique). There's no particularly bad film making on show, and all performance are generally good. I cannot see how anyone can give it (fairly) less than say a 4 out of 10 (ie: mediocre).

TBH - I couldn't care less what the budget was... Don't see why that should really come into it at that sort of level. $30m, $60m, $100m, who cares!

EvilNed

23-Jul-2008, 06:06 PM

'Sucks' implies nothing worse... It implies you have no lower point on your scale for films truly deserve to well below 300... It also implies your scale appears to range from just 'rocks' or 'sucks'...?

No, it implies that it is a bad film. A film that sucks, sucks. That's it. Anything rated from 4/10 to 1/10 can suck, because they're bad films. They're not good films, thus they suck. Oh, and the Star Wars prequels suck. Batman & Robin sucks. They're not good films, no matter how much money you pump into them (and thus "solidly producing" them, as you pointed out).

So, seriously, anyone who deems 300 as 'sucks' implies it's about as bad as can be, which clearly is just nonsense...

To you, it is nonsense. To people who hate the film, it isn't. I've seen many films of which I am completly disinterested in seeing again, which usually imply that they suck. And isn't that truly the worst rating a film can get, not ever wanting to see it again? And 300 got that rating from me, so there you go.

But maybe this is a mis-understanding... My interpretation of 'sucks' is 1 out of 10. Maybe yours isn't... What's you're 'range' for 'sucks' then (out of 10 for example)?

I don't place the word "suck" on a scale. A sucky film is a bad film, that's it. It's another word for "bad".

Not at all... It's at least mediocre because it manages to tell a story well. It's filmed in an interesting way (& at times quite unusual/unique). There's no particularly bad film making on show, and all performance are generally good. I cannot see how anyone can give it (fairly) less than say a 4 out of 10 (ie: mediocre).

TBH - I couldn't care less what the budget was... Don't see why that should really come into it at this sort of level. $30m, $60m, $100m, who cares!

See, now you speak as if this is all facts again. It's not. I don't bash you for thinking that 300 managed to tell the story well. It's OK to think it had a good script, but it's not OK to think it had a bad script? What the hell, have you ever heard of art, Neil? If anything is childish, it's being unable to accept another persons opinion.

I rate 300 a 2 or a 3. Probably a 2. It's a piece of ****. I've seen worse, but it's still a piece of ****. You can rate it above 4 if you want, I won't hold it against you or even question it. I just find it funny that you seem to think that there are films that are factually mediocre. Hah.

Neil

23-Jul-2008, 06:18 PM

I don't place the word "suck" on a scale. A sucky film is a bad film, that's it.

LOL! :)

There's the difference then... As I explained, I personally see 'sucks' as something far more dire... To me it would mean 1/10 basically...

Now, you also said that you would see 'sucks' as meaning 'anything rated from 4/10 to 1/10'...

I suggested 300 at worst could (fairly) be considered a mediocre film, getting no less than 4/10... So we, according to your scale, could sort of agree then...

Now, can I suggest you improve your scale? 'Sucks' = between 3/10 and 4/10, and 'really sucks' = 2/10, and 'totally sucks' = 1/10 :)

EvilNed

23-Jul-2008, 06:39 PM

I suggested 300 at worst could (fairly) be considered a mediocre film, getting no less than 4/10... So we, according to your scale, could sort of agree then...

No, we don't, because you still fail to realize that 300 at worst can be considered a stinking piece of ****, at 1/10 and at best a masterpiece at 10/10. Just because you think it's a good film doesn't mean that everyone has to agree.

Sucks is just a word to describe a bad film.

Neil

23-Jul-2008, 07:14 PM

No, we don't, because you still fail to realize that 300 at worst can be considered a stinking piece of ****, at 1/10 and at best a masterpiece at 10/10. Just because you think it's a good film doesn't mean that everyone has to agree.

Sucks is just a word to describe a bad film.

Oh well... I tried to find a happy middle ground an all...

ps: "Sucks is just a word to describe a bad film." - For you... For me it's such a weak and damning term of a film, I can't even think of a film I'd use it on. Words mean different things to different people, hence me trying to clear up the confusion...

clanglee

23-Jul-2008, 07:36 PM

Soooooo. . . . Did I mention that I am really excited about the Watchmen? Yeah. . um. . .looks like great stuff there. So. . .yeah. . .:confused:

EvilNed

23-Jul-2008, 07:43 PM

Oh well... I tried to find a happy middle ground an all...

ps: "Sucks is just a word to describe a bad film." - For you... For me it's such a weak and damning term of a film, I can't even think of a film I'd use it on. Words mean different things to different people, hence me trying to clear up the confusion...

You say potato, I say potatoe. For me, a film that sucks, is just a bad film. I can name many films that suck. I'm simply awe-struck that you seem to think that nobody could, or should, rate 300 below the rating of 4 because you, personally, think it's at the very least a mediocre film. Maybe I've misunderstood you, but that's not how it works. People have different opinions, and no, I did not find the script to be interesting or engaging in any way possible. Infact, I found it horrible.

Neil

23-Jul-2008, 09:39 PM

You say potato, I say potatoe. For me, a film that sucks, is just a bad film. I can name many films that suck. I'm simply awe-struck that you seem to think that nobody could, or should, rate 300 below the rating of 4 because you, personally, think it's at the very least a mediocre film. Maybe I've misunderstood you, but that's not how it works. People have different opinions, and no, I did not find the script to be interesting or engaging in any way possible. Infact, I found it horrible.

I see some people rate fiction in the fiction section in what I'd deem a strange way. They'll give a contribution basically one of the lowest scores they can, even when the contribution is clearly well constructed, gramatically good and a reasonable amount of work has gone into trying to providing a fluid 'ride'. But the reader just hasn't enjoyed the content... Which is of course perfectly OK. But for some reason, they'll ignore all the perfectly adequate or good aspects of the contribution, and give it a low score, just because they are seemingly blinded by one or two other aspect of it... Or they work in a very sort of black and white way...

Some people just work that way... I realise that... Doesn't mean I think it's fair though... IMHO

Also, I have little doubt if Mr Snyder hadn't done Dawn04, some opinions of 300 would be very different here. And I'm almost certain that if Mr Romero had given us 300, then it would be declared a masterpiece by some of the very peope who currently give it a hard time...

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNTQ4MTk2MzY0Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMDY3NjE3._V1._ SX485_SY230_.jpg

EvilNed

23-Jul-2008, 10:34 PM

I see some people rate fiction in the fiction section in what I'd deem a strange way. They'll give a contribution basically one of the lowest scores they can, even when the contribution is clearly well constructed, gramatically good and a reasonable amount of work has gone into trying to providing a fluid 'ride'. But the reader just hasn't enjoyed the content... Which is of course perfectly OK. But for some reason, they'll ignore all the perfectly adequate or good aspects of the contribution, and give it a low score, just because they are seemingly blinded by one or two other aspect of it... Or they work in a very sort of black and white way...

I can't answer for them. All I can say is that all works of fiction, from the most expensive and solidly produced blockbusters, to the tiniest little poem are beauty in the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes that means that what looks like a grammatically sound and nicely written story to you, may actually be a gruesomely boring episode of clichés and predictable situations to someone else. I fail to see how this is so hard to understand.

Also, I have little doubt if Mr Snyder hadn't done Dawn04, some opinions of 300 would be very different here. And I'm almost certain that if Mr Romero had given us 300, then it would be declared a masterpiece by some of the very peope who currently give it a hard time...

Well, that's your opinion. I still say Dawn 04 is Ok, but not great (as the script sucks) and that 300 is a piece of ****, and that once again the script sucked.

You said earlier that the script for 300 was engaging enough to warrant a 4/10 score from anybody. I just proved you wrong, because I think the script is horrible and utterly unengaging, and I gave it a lower score than that. Not out of spite, but because people simply have different opinions. All the well produced films, good scriptwriters and "visionary directors" in the world can't change that. And I'm very surprised that you seem to think there's such a thing as a factual "mediocre at worst" film. You wanna know the truth? There's no such thing, even if you believe in it or not.

Do you think in "relations" at all? That is, 300 had more money pumped into it, and had a bigger team, and had more time spent on it, and thus it's obviously a better film than a crappy B-film from Italy? If so, then I do not think that way, just FYI. A film is a measure of time, and during that time I want to be engaged and entertained. If the film does neither, then it deserves one of the lowest scores, despite it's relation to that other film which might have been just as boring, but had a lower budget.

DjfunkmasterG

23-Jul-2008, 11:07 PM

Way to go binary rating man... :)

God, opinions like that, well, they just suck :sneaky:

Seriously, Dawn was OK, the first 15 minutes was pretty Damn good... I'd rather watch Dawn 04 than Diary TBH...

300, was just great IMHO... As mindless violence, or artistic comic book action, it was just great :)

You cannot fairly say either of these two films 'sucked'... You may not have enjoyed them, but to be so unfair with them just... sucks...

Those films did not suck... Now Deadlands: The Rising... that film ****ing sucks. :p

Trencher

24-Jul-2008, 08:15 AM

Looks good exept for emo Ozymidiaz :lol:
And to be fair Zack Snyder is an visionary in that he is a master of the visual. And cinema is a visual medium first.

Neil

24-Jul-2008, 08:24 AM

I can't answer for them. All I can say is that all works of fiction, from the most expensive and solidly produced blockbusters, to the tiniest little poem are beauty in the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes that means that what looks like a grammatically sound and nicely written story to you, may actually be a gruesomely boring episode of clichés and predictable situations to someone else. I fail to see how this is so hard to understand.

Can't agree there... There's many factors regarding a fiction contribution rating IMO:-
1) Layout/construction/spelling/grammar.
2) Originality.
3) Content.
4) How well the story is told.
5) Dialog if any.
6) etc etc etc

My point is if you look at a piece of work in a binary fashion - did I enjoy it - then a piece you do not will get your lowest possible score. And anything you did enjoy with get a high score... No grey area, nothing else is considered... Seems somewhat shallow and unfair...

If you consider the piece more fairly, you may realise although it let you down in a number of ways, infact it was quite solid in number of others. So an uber low score it not really fair.

I've seen contributions that are well formed, have been well spell checked, have well considered pace and dialog, getting just 1 or 2 out of 10. This is clealy unfair and unreasoned. And I fail to see how this is so hard to understand. ;)

I also see some people ranting about films which are well produced getting slated as if they were quite possible the worse things ever put to film. I see this as somehow unfair and unreasoned. It's not until you see a bad example that you realise what you took for granted in another film (its editing, filming, effects, soundtrack, score, acting, makeup, script, originality, dialog, etc), was actually an example of something done well in it....

You said earlier that the script for 300 was engaging enough to warrant a 4/10 score from anybody.See my point above about considering all the elements involved. Many of which wuold of course go unoticed if done well... Often, you only notice something when it's done badly, and do not notice what is done well...

Anyway, let's agree to disagree... :thumbsup:

EvilNed

24-Jul-2008, 01:07 PM

Can't agree there... There's many factors regarding a fiction contribution rating IMO:-
1) Layout/construction/spelling/grammar.
2) Originality.
3) Content.
4) How well the story is told.
5) Dialog if any.
6) etc etc etc

All of these are subjective, except for grammar and grammar shouldn't be part of anyone rating a piece of fiction anyway! Many people thought Disturbia was original, when infact it was a remake of a Alfred Hitchcock film.

How well the story is told? Some people might like Memento's style, while I have to say that after watching it a couple of times there's quite a few plot holes in it.

Content? Again, subjective. Dialoge? Subjective. So I'm sorry, you STILL fail to realize that art is subjective and is beauty in the eyes of the beholder.

Art is not about measuring anything factual or objective. Art is about how it makes you feel. And that's the bottom line. And no matter how much money pumped into 300, it still bored me to tears and offended me. No matter how nicely constructed YOU think 300 was, it might have been nicely constructed by YOUR standards, not mine. So It's a piece of ****, despite it's high production values. You see where I'm going? Films with enough expertise and time to be able to churn out a product that was extensively worked on, for a great amount of time, can still turn into **** in the eyes of the beholder. Because, after all, art is an emotional experience. Even you must agree here, that Gigli, Battlefield Earth, Batman & Robin are hardly worth 4's, or even 3's.

Star Wars Episode 3 was the very worst cinema experience I've ever had, so it rightly earns it's 2/10 score. Same with Return of the King. And there are two films which I believe have super crappy scripts, pretty bad acting, are way too long, have nothing going for them whatsoever and simply bored me to tears. I've seen worse PRODUCED films, but they were also shorter!

I don't agree to disagree because I can't see any logic in what you're saying at all. I can stop arguing if you like, but I still won't have been made any wiser or see where you're coming from.

AcesandEights

24-Jul-2008, 02:03 PM

Ok, 300 sucked, but does anyone want to talk about the Watchmen Trailer? :)

Neil

24-Jul-2008, 02:47 PM

All of these are subjective, except for grammar and grammar shouldn't be part of anyone rating a piece of fiction anyway! Many people thought Disturbia was original, when infact it was a remake of a Alfred Hitchcock film.

How well the story is told? Some people might like Memento's style, while I have to say that after watching it a couple of times there's quite a few plot holes in it.

Content? Again, subjective. Dialoge? Subjective. So I'm sorry, you STILL fail to realize that art is subjective and is beauty in the eyes of the beholder.

Art is not about measuring anything factual or objective. Art is about how it makes you feel.
Maybe this is where we totally differ then...

Using the Fiction Section example again - In your don't-give-a-damn-about-anything-other-than-if-I-enjoyed-it-because-it's-all-an-artistic-experience, you rate a contribution you really just didn't enjoy the story of, say 1/10. As you said, grammar, spelling and dialog mean nothing to you... It's all an 'artistic' experience isn't it darling! :)

You now read the exact same contribution, but with loads of gramatical errors in it, paragraphs fifteen pages long, bucket load of spelling mistakes, and generally everything that makes it a real pain to even just read. Characters now also have crummy unbelievable dialog. What the hell, even the lead character (who's an alien from planet Xifos) now talks with a Cockney London accent for the first half of the story, and a Russian accent for the second half...

What score you going to give it now? 1/10 still? How is that fair? How is that objective? Or would (or should) your score infact be different?

And yes, you can be objective - We're not talking about splogges of paint on a canvas here, which can be considered very subjective. We're talking about many different things, many of which are far more objective.

Of course some of it is subjective, but how much varies. If we consider the Fiction example, spelling is almost totally objective. As is grammar. Dialog far less so.

It's the same with films... ie: There's many aspects of a film, some ranging from almost totally objective, some ranging to almost totally subjective...

But to declare a film is comprise solely of some totally subjective magical artistic experience seems unfair.

I'd imagine the only time you get into this sort of territory is when you get in films more truly akin to art (eg: art house)... ie: Not stuff in mainstream cinema...

Ok, 300 sucked, but does anyone want to talk about the Watchmen Trailer? :)

*smack* :D

But OK... I think that trailer was extremely artistic, and it gave me a nice etherial aura...

I of course can't comment on specific qualities of the trailer, as that would be far too subjective. So here's my aural field...

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/1018/aurafull.gif

EvilNed

24-Jul-2008, 06:12 PM

Maybe this is where we totally differ then...

Using the Fiction Section example again - In your don't-give-a-damn-about-anything-other-than-if-I-enjoyed-it-because-it's-all-an-artistic-experience, you rate a contribution you really just didn't enjoy the story of, say 1/10. As you said, grammar, spelling and dialog mean nothing to you... It's all an 'artistic' experience isn't it darling! :)

You now read the exact same contribution, but with loads of gramatical errors in it, paragraphs fifteen pages long, bucket load of spelling mistakes, and generally everything that makes it a real pain to even just read. Characters now also have crummy unbelievable dialog. What the hell, even the lead character (who's an alien from planet Xifos) now talks with a Cockney London accent for the first half of the story, and a Russian accent for the second half...

I wouldn't rate that at all, because when I'm going to rate something written, I'm just going to assume it's all properly edited and typed out. A typo here and there isn't going to either raise or lower a score. What you're saying is basicly that a piece of fiction that enjoy immensly, but has some typos, should recieve about the same score on a scale as a story that is perfectly edited but with a much less exciting story. No thanks.

If I can't see pass the bad writing (spelling wise, that is) I'll just put the text aside and forget about it and not rate it at all.

What score you going to give it now? 1/10 still? How is that fair? How is that objective? Or would (or should) your score infact be different?

I give the story with the more enjoying story the higher score. Grammatical stuff doesn't even come into it! Why should it? I don't read a story for it's good grammar. :lol: I don't think anyone does, and when I rate something I'm about to give a low score, I will certainly not be swayed to give it a higher score because the grammar was good. That's just... crazy.

And yes, you can be objective - We're not talking about splogges of paint on a canvas here, which can be considered very subjective. We're talking about many different things, many of which are far more objective.

Such ass? Provide examples. The quality of the script is subjective. The visuals are subjective. The only thing that's not subjective is the money that was poured into it, but that never comes into the equation unless the producers actually did something good with that money. In 300, they didn't. See? There's no objectivity when rating films.

It's the same with films... ie: There's many aspects of a film, some ranging from almost totally objective, some ranging to almost totally subjective...

And what objective qualities do YOU take into account when rating a film? And don't tell me script, story, acting, directing, cinematography or anything else that is a creative thinking, because that's not objective. That's totally subjective.

But to declare a film is comprise solely of some totally subjective magical artistic experience seems unfair.

For me, that seems the only fair way to rate films. I'd never give a film a higher rating because of something that doesn't even show on screen. Like the money.

AcesandEights

24-Jul-2008, 07:28 PM

I of course can't comment on specific qualities of the trailer, as that would be far too subjective. So here's my aural field...

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/1018/aurafull.gif

Well, sir, your 'aura' looks like it's running a bit deep into the red in the region of your lower chakkras. So I assume you liked something about the film.

Pervy Rorschach lover :p

clanglee

24-Jul-2008, 07:42 PM

Pervy Rorschach lover :p

Nope, that's me. :p

AcesandEights

24-Jul-2008, 07:55 PM

Nope, that's me. :p

I always liked your avatar, actually, Clang. On a different message board I used to use a very cool black & white pic of Rorschach, in which the 'spots' on his mask were actually a reflected and contorted image of Alan Moore's own face.

I miss that pic...

Anywho, rock on :)

clanglee

24-Jul-2008, 07:59 PM

Very cool. You need to find that pic. And now!!! :D

AcesandEights

24-Jul-2008, 11:03 PM

Very cool. You need to find that pic. And now!!! :D

Bing!

http://www.ultrazine.org/ultraspeciali/RORSCHACH.gif

clanglee

24-Jul-2008, 11:05 PM

Bing!

http://www.ultrazine.org/ultraspeciali/RORSCHACH.gif

ARRHHHHHGGHH!!!

can't see it from work. :(

:) never mind. . it came up.

THAT IS AWESOME!!

bassman

22-Oct-2008, 01:47 PM

I was watching the Spike Scream Awards(Where TDK took home 12 awards.:)) last night and they premiered a new "trailer" for Watchmen. It's got most of the footage from the original trailer, but some pretty kickass new stuff too.

X4ML33ScVBM&hl=en&fs=1

This flick is looking pretty bad ass. Then again, if past experience is to be taken into consideration, Snyder is a better director of trailers than he his films. Watchmen will still get a ticket purchase from me, though.

Oh, and another thing. Apparently Snyder has changed the ending.:eek:

AcesandEights

22-Oct-2008, 04:11 PM

Oh, and another thing. Apparently Snyder has changed the ending.:eek:

Well, within reason that might be very acceptable depending on whether the main backdrop of the film is to be the cold war or not.

As far as the updated trailer looking good, I'm happy about that. I don't have the vitriol for Snyder that some others do, but I agree that he is probably at his best in formulating tightly packaged pieces, by that I mean he would probably be great at directing car commercials, working in short formats and handling slick, short, fast paced films. I do think 300 was drek, not to revisit that sad, sad way too long conversation, but I do have to admit that Snyder achieved his stated (albeit limited) aims fairly well with regards to that film.

I'm crossing my fingers, but not getting my hopes too sky high. And, yes, I'll be there opening weekend.

bassman

22-Oct-2008, 04:17 PM

Well, within reason that might be very acceptable depending on whether the main backdrop of the film is to be the cold war or not.

It is. I imagine by that statement you've read the novel, so this is reportedly what the new ending is....

"There was no squid... He and Dr Manhattan built a machine to mimic the powers of Dr Manhattan, under the guise of "free energy" to solve the energy crisis. Unbeknown to Manhattan, he used the machine to set off an atomic bomb like thing in various large cities around the world."

There have been several rumors like this, but it could all be BS. Apparently there has been one test screening and even then, Snyder could have made a fake ending to throw people off. I just hope he doesn't change something huge. Like Rorshach's destiny or something...

AcesandEights

22-Oct-2008, 06:37 PM

I was scared to click on the link, but did in the end. Sounds interesting and makes me sketpical, but I'll probably just let it lie till opening night and then go all crazy if I don't like it ;)

I just hope he doesn't change something huge. Like Rorshach's destiny or something...

Yup, that'd be a horrible disservice and completely undercut the underlying tenets of how the character was originally written.

Danny

22-Oct-2008, 09:53 PM

It is. I imagine by that statement you've read the novel, so this is reportedly what the new ending is....

"There was no squid... He and Dr Manhattan built a machine to mimic the powers of Dr Manhattan, under the guise of "free energy" to solve the energy crisis. Unbeknown to Manhattan, he used the machine to set off an atomic bomb like thing in various large cities around the world."

There have been several rumors like this, but it could all be BS. Apparently there has been one test screening and even then, Snyder could have made a fake ending to throw people off. I just hope he doesn't change something huge. Like Rorshach's destiny or something...

to be honest i prefer the origional but i had to read it 3 times in a row beforei "got it" comepltely, i dont think many people would be happy with that sor tof an ending.

unless every person is sat down before they go in and told " alan moore is a ****ing genius, and 10 foot tall, so just run with it";)

clanglee

22-Oct-2008, 10:42 PM

And if Alan Moore were here, he would consume the English with fire from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse!!

MoonSylver

22-Oct-2008, 10:55 PM

Oh, and another thing. Apparently Snyder has changed the ending.:eek:

:mad::annoyed::mad::annoyed::mad::annoyed:

I've got REALLY high hopes for this one & yet am still skeptical at the same time. I've never been able to wrap my head around how you can translate the graphic novel & still do it justice. There's just so much crammed into the magazine &newspaper clippings, journal excerpts, excerpts from "Under The Hood", the case files, "Tales from the Black Freighter" etc. Even the panels of artwork are crammed full of little details. Plus a lot of the story doesn't even revolve around the main characters, but all the little subplot characters.

I fear what we'll end up with is just the main story with no frills, which will be like a hollow shell w/ no heart (to me).

JMO, YMMV.;)

bassman

23-Oct-2008, 12:00 PM

And if Alan Moore were here, he would consume the English with fire from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse!!

Are you saying he's dead? Moore is still alive, dude....

Danny

23-Oct-2008, 12:28 PM

Are you saying he's dead? Moore is still alive, dude....

he can die?, i thought he was indestructible, he could outstare chuck norris like a pink bitch.

and outbeard him.

bassman

23-Oct-2008, 12:30 PM

he can die?, i thought he was indestructible, he could outstare chuck norris like a pink bitch.

and outbeard him.

:lol:

I bet he has things living in his beard. Maybe a birds nest like Peter Griffin had?

Danny

23-Oct-2008, 01:51 PM

:lol:

I bet he has things living in his beard. Maybe a birds nest like Peter Griffin had?

i thought wed already cleared up tat its a snake god that will sing the worlds end, GAH!, your note taking abilities leave a lot to be desired my good sir!

bassman

23-Oct-2008, 02:01 PM

I believe the key to finding the meaning of life is hidden somewhere deep within the darkness of Alan Moore's beard.

But back to topic...

In the original trailer when Night Owl is screaming in the snow....I don't remember that. Maybe that's at the end when Manhatan takes care of Rorshach?:rockbrow:

Or maybe Snyder is throwing in another zombie baby to make it "cool".:p

clanglee

24-Oct-2008, 01:22 AM

Are you saying he's dead? Moore is still alive, dude....

Nope, not saying that at all.

Besides. .if he were to die, we would all soon follow, as the destruction of his physical form would cause the breakdown of our reality!!

AcesandEights

24-Oct-2008, 01:33 PM

...if he were to die, we would all soon follow, as the destruction of his physical form would cause the breakdown of our reality!!

Really? Wasn't aware of that one, but I have always suspected A. Moore of being one of the many masks of Nyarlathotep.

And at the last from inner Egypt came
The strange dark one to whom the fellahs bowed;
Silent and lean and cryptically proud,
And wrapped in fabrics red as sunset flame.
Throngs pressed around, frantic for his commands,
But leaving, could not say what they had heard;
While through the nations spread the awestruck word
That wild beasts followed him and licked his hands.

Soon from the sea a noxious birth began:
Forgotten lands with weedy spires of gold;
The ground was cleft, and mad auroras rolled
Down on the quaking citadels of man.
Then, crushing what he chanced to mould in play,
The idiot Chaos blew Earth's dust away.

clanglee

24-Oct-2008, 11:15 PM

You are just too awesome for words Aces.:cool:

bassman

14-Nov-2008, 12:51 PM

Latest Trailer:

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808406490/video/10658091

I gotta say....I'm getting more and more hyped about this flick. Maybe Snyder did something right.:p

AcesandEights

14-Nov-2008, 02:01 PM

Maybe Snyder did something right.:p

*Holds breath, waits 10 seconds for the world to end.*

I hope he did...

Danny

14-Nov-2008, 02:25 PM

i cannot wait for this movie, im actually off to read it again i lvoe this book so much, hard to believe whos directing it. that trailer was nice but the previous one with the smashing pumpkins just sold it for me.

bassman

23-Feb-2009, 08:33 PM

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x135/symbiote24/AlanfrackingMoore.jpg

AcesandEights

23-Feb-2009, 09:07 PM

Well, that's a more exciting take than what actually will happen en suite at the Moore residence. If the room were bugged, it would almost certainly pick up the sounds of grumbling, the signing of checks and moths fluttering out of unkempt whiskers.

MoonSylver

23-Feb-2009, 10:37 PM

I don't know that I've ever been so nervous about a beloved property & how it's going to turn out. Saw a long trailer w/ Snyder the other night doing his typical fan boy raving "This movie is going to be unlike any thing you've ever seen before visually" I believe was the quote (uh oh)....ok great Skippy, but did you get the story right, you tool.

I really wanna see it (w/ trepidation in heart). My thought is the BEST we can hope for is a straight, literal adaptation of the "A" story, which will be good, but only captures 1/2 of the awesomeness of the novel. There's just so much there that I don't know HOW you can translate to a film. If he does figure out some way to do it? Then the guy is much more of a frickin' genius than I've EVER given him credit for.

clanglee

23-Feb-2009, 10:59 PM

There are some movie clips on yahoo that are well worth watching. It's looking pretty tasty to me so far.

AcesandEights

23-Feb-2009, 11:05 PM

Sylver, I think you hit the nail on the head. Fingers crossed for the next...how long is it now? Two weeks?

MoonSylver

24-Feb-2009, 12:48 AM

Sylver, I think you hit the nail on the head. Fingers crossed for the next...how long is it now? Two weeks?

Yep. 3/6/09. Doing a little reading now...I'm thinking the DVD will be the way to see this bitch done up proper. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on the film

"A DVD based on elements of the Watchmen universe will be released; it will include an animated adaptation of the comic Tales of the Black Freighter within the story, starring Gerard Butler, and the documentary Under the Hood, detailing the older generation of superheroes from the film's back-story. An extended edition of the film, with Tales of the Black Freighter interspersed through the main storyline in a manner reminiscent of the comic, is forthcoming." (Two of the things I was really gonna miss from the "B" plotlines)

Tales of the Black Freighter, a comic within the Watchmen comic, will be adapted as a direct-to-video animated feature from Warner Premiere and Warner Bros. Animation, which will be released on March 24, 2009. It was originally included in the script, but was cut due to budget restrictions, as the segment would have added $20 million to the budget, because Snyder wanted to film it in a stylized manner reminiscent of 300. Snyder considered including the animated film in the final cut, but the film was already approaching a three hour running time. Gerard Butler, who starred in 300, voices the Captain in the film, having been promised a role in the film, which never materialized.

The Tales of the Black Freighter DVD will also include Under the Hood, a documentary detailing the characters' backstories, which takes its title from that of Hollis Mason's memoirs in the comic book. Under the Hood is rated PG because of the friendly public image of the characters. The actors were allowed to improvise during filming interviews in character. The film itself is scheduled to be released on DVD four months after Tales of the Black Freighter, and Warner Bros. will release a director's cut and the extended version in July 2009, with the animated film edited back into the main picture. Snyder said if the film does well enough, the director's cut will be simultaneously theatrically released in New York and Los Angeles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen_(film)

Here is a link to an article that reveals a pretty major change to the end (SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER-IFFIC!!!)

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1605542/story.jhtml

Here is an excerpt from an IMDB user who saw a sneak preview. Sounds like the best case scenario, so that's good:

"Watchmen, which is considered by many Moore's best work, might make a comic-book fan cringe at the thought of an adaptation. I know my first reaction at the thought of a Watchmen movie was "how are they going to fit everything?" It would be impossible. The film would have to be 12 hours long (Which is how Gilliam approached it; he wanted it to be a mini-series...then it was canned) and a scene-by-scene remake. Admittedly the film lacks the depth and weight that the graphic novel is famous for, but of course it does! One must understand that there is always going to be something lost in an adaptation. It's like when a band covers a song, it's going to be very different in it's new perspective.

With Watchmen, we have a bit of a watered-down storyline, which makes sense, as it's necessary for the story to play on the silver screen. I'm going to down-play that part of the experience, even though I know many won't, and talk about why I think this film is worth your ten dollars. This movie is beautiful. They have done a FANTASTIC job with the sets and costumes. It's amazing seeing the most memorable parts of the graphic novel come to life. It seemed for a lot of parts they used the original source as a storyboard, and I'm glad they did. I'll admit I got some chills of excitement every once in a while watching it.

Beautiful cinematography and effects put you right in the heart of New York City during this time period. There's a certain shine or flair that this movie has that makes it really worth checking out in the theater and will most likely make a lot of viewers come crawling back for more.

In conclusion I must say if you're a devoted fan of the graphic novel and expect something just as good... prepare to be disappointed! But, if you can separate yourself from the original medium and try to enjoy the movie, you will. There's a lot to like about this adaptation."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/

CoinReturn

24-Feb-2009, 02:21 AM

IGN posted their review, 5/5:

It's the Watchmen movie you always wanted to see but never expected to get. Snyder's Watchmen is a celebration of how films can add worthwhile dimensions to a beloved story – at all times reverent to the original, but careful to remind us that costumes and masks are never as colourful as the people underneath.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/956/956111p1.html

MinionZombie

24-Feb-2009, 09:59 AM

MoonSylver

24-Feb-2009, 12:16 PM

Not in the least bit bothered about this movie ... and I still highly object to the use of "visionary" in the trailer to describe Zack Snyder.

Copying panels out of a comic book isn't visionary.

Ridley Scott, and the concept artists who made Blade Runner - that's frickin' visionary. James Cameron, that's a visionary ... Zack sodding Snyder? It's like calling Schwarzenegger a beanpole skinny boy ... it's just not true.

...

Figured you'd all like some MZ-brand "annoyed rant" for your party up in here. :p

Yeah...visionary is a STRONG word..one that I would reserve for someone who's done something ORIGINAL. Just because a movie has stunning visuals does not mean the director is a "visonary"...just that he has an eye for VISUALS (these people DO know the difference...right? :confused: )

IF Snyder manages to translate the graphic novel faithfully and well (a TALL order TBS) I'll tip my hat to him. I might even call the guy a genius filmmaker. But a visionary? No...Allan Moore was a visionary for WRITING the goddamn thing in the 1st place.

bassman

24-Feb-2009, 12:28 PM

He's visionary because he's so good with slow motion and green screen:p

Danny

24-Feb-2009, 01:05 PM

Not in the least bit bothered about this movie ...

dude. tell em youve at least read watchmen. i read it again yesterday and its hands down my favourite graphic novel, with kingdom come being a close second.

you dont know watchmen then formally you must relinquish your nerd badge and leave the clubhouse.

and you better believe thats a paddlin'

bassman

24-Feb-2009, 02:15 PM

Two pretty damn cool clips with Rorshach...

pnyR10CIDW8&color1

MinionZombie

24-Feb-2009, 05:42 PM

genius filmmaker

Also too strong, and again - that's the likes of Scott and Cameron.

Snyder may be directing panels from the comic book, but did he adapt it all into script form?

Bassman - lollercopter @ the slow-mo-green-screen thing. :D There looks to be plenty of that mid-shot slow-mo bullshit getting used in Watchmen from the clips I've seen.

Hellsing - no, I've not read it - I don't really read much in the way of graphic novels, nor comics. Fair play to those who do, but I read Total Film and these things called "books" ... currently I'm reading "By Any Means" by Charley Boorman. And I'm keeping my nerd badge, and I busted your paddle ... ha! :D

AcesandEights

24-Feb-2009, 05:54 PM

its hands down my favourite graphic novel, with kingdom come being a close second.

Mmmm, now that's well said ;) Good picks!

MoonSylver

24-Feb-2009, 06:24 PM

Also too strong, and again - that's the likes of Scott and Cameron.

Snyder may be directing panels from the comic book, but did he adapt it all into script form?

Like I said that's IF he manages to do a 100% faithful adaptation of the graphic novel, which honestly I DON'T see happening. I don't know if ANY director could pull that one off. If you read the graphic novel, you'll understand. So IF he pulls that one off? Then genius might not be too strong a word. Damn impressive at the very least.

bassman

24-Feb-2009, 06:50 PM

Hellsing - no, I've not read it - I don't really read much in the way of graphic novels, nor comics. Fair play to those who do, but I read Total Film and these things called "books" ... currently I'm reading "By Any Means" by Charley Boorman. And I'm keeping my nerd badge, and I busted your paddle ... ha! :D

Hellsing's not kidding, man. You NEED to seek out Watchmen before you see this film. Even if this film didn't exist, you would still NEED to read this graphic novel.:p Seriously.... It's pure gold.

It's been quite a bit since I've read it so I need to seek it out for myself. If you want to find it....it can be *ahem* acquired, i'm sure.;)

Do yourself a favor and check it out.

Like I said that's IF he manages to do a 100% faithful adaptation of the graphic novel, which honestly I DON'T see happening. I don't know if ANY director could pull that one off. If you read the graphic novel, you'll understand. So IF he pulls that one off? Then genius might not be too strong a word. Damn impressive at the very least.

The novel is too big to fit into a two hour film. I'm sure he'll try to cram as much in there as possible, but he's said in interviews that in his opinion, the true adaptation will be on DVD. I think he said the cut he considers to be the most faithful(the one on the dvd) will be 3 1/2 - 4 hours.

MinionZombie

24-Feb-2009, 09:08 PM

Even still, he's not the one writing it, and as he himself said he was using the graphic novel itself to compose his shots - i.e. just filming what was in the book.

I duno about you lot, but is anyone else getting a kind of shoved-up-arsedness vibe from the makers about a film the public hasn't seen yet? All this talk of the running time being 161 minutes or whatever and such.

Interestingly, it's being released uncut 18 in the UK. I'm surprised the studio didn't try and cut it for a 15 - which was the rating 300 got, if memory serves, certainly no higher anyway.

Kubrick - that's another genius, and visionary to boot.

AcesandEights

24-Feb-2009, 09:19 PM

Ugggh, an Eagle from on high, pluck out these withering eyes of mine!

Are we still kvetching about adjectives :p

Yeah, visionary is cu-razy in Zack's case. Maybe it was a typo in the ad copy? Maybe they meant to call him a visual director ;)

"From dreamy director, Zack Snyder.

The man who brought you the Peachy Keen 300!"

MoonSylver

24-Feb-2009, 10:11 PM

Hellsing's not kidding, man. You NEED to seek out Watchmen before you see this film. Even if this film didn't exist, you would still NEED to read this graphic novel.:p Seriously.... It's pure gold.

It's been quite a bit since I've read it so I need to seek it out for myself. If you want to find it....it can be *ahem* acquired, i'm sure.;)

Do yourself a favor and check it out.

http://www.artoshirt.net/catalog/shizzup.jpg

The novel is too big to fit into a two hour film. I'm sure he'll try to cram as much in there as possible, but he's said in interviews that in his opinion, the true adaptation will be on DVD. I think he said the cut he considers to be the most faithful(the one on the dvd) will be 3 1/2 - 4 hours.

Understood. I may have been a bit harsh in my scoff-atude. I've been getting the vibe that, yeah, DVD all the way. Much like LotR, where you had the theatrical & the the extended (the better & more faithful version IMO, especially if you're a fan of the books). Seems like this one is going to be the same: ie I wanna see it in theaters but I REALLY wanna see the extended version!

MinionZombie

25-Feb-2009, 10:24 AM

Bassman - apparently the theatrical version is 161 minutes ... I'm amazed that the studio is having a shred of faith and actually releasing a superhero type movie that's that long ... I mean The Dark Knight was quite long, but not as long (and was honestly in a whole other league of filmmaking talent - as well as an established brand for decades).

Anyway ... ... I wonder how much OTT slow-mo will be chucked in?

You have to wonder, how long would 300 have ran for without all that slow-mo? :p

bassman

25-Feb-2009, 04:30 PM

Heres the ending paragraph from one of my favorite review sites, joblo.com...

The graphic novel was all about the story, not the action, and Snyder is an action man. Action was certainly there and really overdone. The attack on the Comedian in the beginning went on far too long and the fight at the end did as well. It made the rest of the film suffer. And for all that, I didn't hate it. In fact, I'm pretty sure I liked it. I was just disappointed. I'm absolutely seeing it again, but disappointed nonetheless.

SCORE: 6/10

Pretty much what I was expecting. "Pretty" action is more important than story when it's in the hands of Hack Snyder.:annoyed:

CoinReturn

25-Feb-2009, 04:42 PM

Currently sitting at 91% at Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/), a few quotes from different reviews:

Okay, it isn’t the graphic novel, but Zack Snyder clearly gives a toss, creating a smart, stylish, decent adaptation, if low on accessibility for the non-convert.

It's searing, spectacular and simply unmissable.

It's the Watchmen movie you always wanted to see but never expected to get.

A mesmerising and brutalising experience, and will be, for some at least, more than worth the wait.

Not just another superhero movie. Gripping onto sex, violence and angst, it’s hard to imagine anyone watching the Watchmen as faithfully as Zack Snyder’s heartfelt, stylised adap. Uncompromising, uncommercial and unique.

Decidedly not for kids, Snyder's Watchmen is the movie event of the season: Textually dense, visually rich, structurally complex, and a major contribution to neo-noir, conveying the culture of fear and paranoia like no other recent Hollywood movie.

a must-see movie..visually orgasmic..

Sounds good to me, hopefully I'll be going to the midnight showing.

MoonSylver

25-Feb-2009, 05:48 PM

Bassman - apparently the theatrical version is 161 minutes ... I'm amazed that the studio is having a shred of faith and actually releasing a superhero type movie that's that long

Watchmen is not a typical superhero story in any way, shape or form. Batman, Superman, Spiderman these guys AIN'T. Debase yourself of that notion ASAP. Anyone that goes in expecting "another" superhero movie is gonna be SEVERELY shocked.

bassman

25-Feb-2009, 06:05 PM

Watchmen is not a typical superhero story in any way, shape or form. Batman, Superman, Spiderman these guys AIN'T. Debase yourself of that notion ASAP. Anyone that goes in expecting "another" superhero movie is gonna be SEVERELY shocked.

Ease back on the preaching there, pal. I've read the novel several times. I'm quite familiar with it. Perhaps superhero is the wrong word seeing as how Manhattan is the only one with actual powers, BUT....in most people's eyes, the film will still be considered a superhero film just for the fact that there are people in costumes.

MoonSylver

25-Feb-2009, 09:00 PM

Ease back on the preaching there, pal. I've read the novel several times. I'm quite familiar with it. Perhaps superhero is the wrong word seeing as how Manhattan is the only one with actual powers, BUT....in most people's eyes, the film will still be considered a superhero film just for the fact that there are people in costumes.

Hey..ease back on the easing back!:lol: Sorry if it cam across that way. Totally unintended. I was just trying to point out to MZ since he hasn't read it that it is quite different from standard comic book stuff. I'm not sure how else to convey my point...I guess what I'm trying to say is that think about say Spider Man or Iron Man. Great films & no slam on them or saying one is better than the other, but don't you think Watchmen is much different from them? Don't you think if someone goes into this film with an expectation that it's going to be like The Hulk or X-Men or Fantastic Four that they're going to get something different?:confused:

Didn't mean to raise any ire...it just seems to me like Watchmen is almost the "anti-superhero" story given, as you said, not only the lack of powers, but how the characters (& superhero-dom itself) are viewed & portrayed, the moral ambiguity of the characters & their actions. The lack of black & white but many shades of gray. AND THE MOST GLARING ONE...

The fact that the "good guys" "win" by failing to stop the master plot, "save the world" by doing nothing & covering up a conspiracy, choose not to bring to justice someone responsible for the death of millions (albeit for what they perceive as the right reasons & for the greater good), & the "bad guy" wins!:p:lol:

MinionZombie

26-Feb-2009, 09:45 AM

Watchmen is not a typical superhero story in any way, shape or form. Batman, Superman, Spiderman these guys AIN'T. Debase yourself of that notion ASAP. Anyone that goes in expecting "another" superhero movie is gonna be SEVERELY shocked.
Hence why I said "type".

And it's just short-hand genre labelling really ... but the average punter out there, and indeed the average Snyder fan will call it a superhero movie I bet, and will mostly all go in expecting something like The Dark Knight or Spider-Man or something.

People dressed up in outfits and masks, kicking arse, flailing around - to the average punter that equals superhero movie.

bassman

26-Feb-2009, 03:25 PM

MoonSylver - I was just joshin around, man.:cool:

It's going to be really hard to describe this film to people without using the word "superhero" because that's what every movie-goer is going to call it. But you're right...it's not a typical superhero story at all.

Which is another reason why MZ MUST read the novel before seeing the film.;) At least watch the animated version of the novel that's being released...

AcesandEights

26-Feb-2009, 04:32 PM

Do eet, MZ! Do eeeeet!

/applies one more torque to the peer pressure

MinionZombie

26-Feb-2009, 05:37 PM

Do eet, MZ! Do eeeeet!

/applies one more torque to the peer pressure
Geez, it's like we're all at a summer camp lake and you're all goading me to skinny dip! :eek:

PERVERTS!

:lol:

MoonSylver

26-Feb-2009, 10:00 PM

Hence why I said "type".

And it's just short-hand genre labelling really ... but the average punter out there, and indeed the average Snyder fan will call it a superhero movie I bet, and will mostly all go in expecting something like The Dark Knight or Spider-Man or something.

People dressed up in outfits and masks, kicking arse, flailing around - to the average punter that equals superhero movie.

Yeah, you're right about that.

MoonSylver - I was just joshin around, man.:cool:

It all good.:D At this time I made to OP I was holding a squirming infant I was babysitting. Made it hard to type!:stunned: I was afraid my brevity was coming off as snarky-ness:lol:

It's going to be really hard to describe this film to people without using the word "superhero" because that's what every movie-goer is going to call it. But you're right...it's not a typical superhero story at all.

I've struggled many times over the years when recommending it to folks answering the simplest question: "What's it about" "uh...well..." it's so intricate & layered it's REALLY about a lot of things, so it's hard to wrap it up in a sound byte.

Which is another reason why MZ MUST read the novel before seeing the film.;) At least watch the animated version of the novel that's being released...

Hear, hear. Every time folks I recommend it to are a bit dubious about reading it I point out it's a pretty quick read. It was originally 12 issues, so really it's like reading 12 comic books. You can knock it out in one weekend of off & on reading or one long afternoon, etc. Well worth the minimal investment of time IMO.

Geez, it's like we're all at a summer camp lake and you're all goading me to skinny dip! :eek:

PERVERTS!

:lol:

You're just now figuring this out?:lol::moon:

CoinReturn

01-Mar-2009, 04:46 PM

My friend called late last night to inform me that he'd gotten a hold of 4 tickets to an early screening of Watchmen on Tuesday, awww yeah! Hopefully I'll be able to give some impressions later that night.

AcesandEights

02-Mar-2009, 01:59 PM

Enjoy, Coin Return. SOunds awesome.

Now, this is where I bow out of this thread till after I see the film. Good luck you all and let's keep our fingers crossed.

CoinReturn

02-Mar-2009, 10:04 PM

http://xs537.xs.to/xs537/09101/watchmenpass464.jpg

My friend just sent me this cell phone pic, this is gonna be a looong 24 hours.

Still can't get over that whole "visionary" label they've given Snyder...

MinionZombie

03-Mar-2009, 09:56 AM

Still can't get over that whole "visionary" label they've given Snyder...

Same here - it's simply and honestly, factually wrong. Maybe you can be visionary-by-proxy in Hollywood these days? :rolleyes:

CoinReturn

04-Mar-2009, 02:46 AM

Just got back, it was AWESOME. Technically, it's a hard movie to criticize. Beautiful cinematography and great pacing make up for a couple of hokey scenes of dialogue. Slo-mo is used sparingly, and the fight scenes are brutal. Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach is one of the most awesomely realized characters ever, and the rest of the cast does a great job, as well. Overall I'd give it an A-, it's not perfect, but it's definitely worth your money.

Danny

04-Mar-2009, 02:52 AM

MinionZombie

04-Mar-2009, 10:15 AM

TWO.FUCKING.DAYS.:skull:
I wonder if there'll be any 'few days down the line' re-examinations of people's opinions considering the flick, or second viewing reconsiderations?

I only say because there's so much hype around the movie.

Neil

04-Mar-2009, 11:22 AM

Mr.G

04-Mar-2009, 12:17 PM

I'm hoping it's a good flick. Rottentomatoes.com has it at 73% for good reviews....lower than I thought it would be. It might be too much for critics who have never read the book I guess?

bassman

04-Mar-2009, 12:19 PM

I just keep telling myself that it can't possibly be any worse than League of Extraordinary Gentlemen......

Neil

04-Mar-2009, 01:00 PM

I just keep telling myself that it can't possibly be any worse than League of Extraordinary Gentlemen......

I actually quite like that film :)

zombie04

05-Mar-2009, 01:16 AM

But what does Hitler think?

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vIhHema5PNg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vIhHema5PNg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

CoinReturn

05-Mar-2009, 01:24 AM

Roger Ebert's review is up, 4 stars:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997

The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again.

Absolutely agree with him.

Tricky

06-Mar-2009, 11:45 PM

MoonSylver

07-Mar-2009, 12:39 AM

Ive just got back from seeing it,its a good film,quite interesting,well shot & good how the alternate history part works!its arse numbingly long though,and i guess i was expecting a little more action!but its well worth seeing & i'd recommend it :)

The graphic novel is very light on action. Another reason among many to realize going in this is not a typical super hero movie. The graphic novel is very story/character driven.

As for the length, wait for the extended DVD where they put in all the stuff from the graphic novel the had to cut for the theatrical!:eek:

Danny

07-Mar-2009, 01:05 AM

Roger Ebert's review is up, 4 stars:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997

Absolutely agree with him.

actually i preferred watchman over the dark knight.

*world gasps, screeching halts occur*

MoonSylver

07-Mar-2009, 03:03 AM

actually i preferred watchman over the dark knight.

*world gasps, screeching halts occur*

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/60/awesome.jpg

MinionZombie

07-Mar-2009, 11:14 AM

actually i preferred watchman over the dark knight.

*world gasps, screeching halts occur*
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/3909/758660-lolcat_super.jpg

Go on, you, outside - flog yourself fifty times with this barbed wire and lemon juice whip.

_liam_

07-Mar-2009, 11:34 AM

Steroid pumped hollywood Watchmen!
I thought it was alright, not the real deal though was it?

Rorshach was well done though

MinionZombie

07-Mar-2009, 12:11 PM

Steroid pumped hollywood Watchmen!
I thought it was alright, not the real deal though was it?

Rorshach was well done though
There's all this talk about a "no squid ending", there's even been a Der Untergang YouTube video about that - having not read the graphic novel, nor having seen the film yet, what does not having the squid ending in the film mean in terms of how well it's been adapted, or how the over all property of Watchmen has been affected by changing the ending ... without giving away any actual spoilers mind you. :p

CoinReturn

07-Mar-2009, 02:16 PM

There's all this talk about a "no squid ending", there's even been a Der Untergang YouTube video about that - having not read the graphic novel, nor having seen the film yet, what does not having the squid ending in the film mean in terms of how well it's been adapted, or how the over all property of Watchmen has been affected by changing the ending ... without giving away any actual spoilers mind you. :p

Well, the fact that you even know about the squid is a huge spoiler in itself. The fanboy inside of me wanted to hate the new ending, but it works and melds completely with the rest of the story. All you need to know is that the road to the finale all leads to the same conclusion, both in the novel and the movie, it's just dressed differently in the latter.

The computer Veidt used to trigger the explosions in the movie is called S.Q.U.I.D.

Early Friday box office estimates are in, though they're subject to change:

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY FRIDAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW - Watchmen (Warner Bros) - $25M, $6,923 PTA, $25M cume
2. Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes To Jail (Lionsgate) - $2.43M, $1,130 PTA, $70.13M cume
3. Taken (Fox) - $2.21M, $733 PTA, $112.8M cume
4. Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) - $2.05M, $709 PTA, $120.56M cume
5. He’s Just Not That Into You (Warner Bros) - $1.3M, $532 PTA, $81.92M cume
6. Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience (Disney) - $1.27M, $995 PTA, $15.27M cume
7. Paul Blart: Mall Cop (Sony) - $995,000, $389 PTA, $130.43M cume
8. Confessions of a Shopaholic (Disney) - $865,000, $378 PTA, $36.1M cume
9. Coraline (Focus) - $725,000, $357 PTA, $63.07M cume
10. Fired Up (Sony) - $700,000, $389 PTA, $11.46M cume

The way things are looking, Watchmen will probably do 60-65 million this weekend.

MoonSylver

07-Mar-2009, 03:41 PM

There's all this talk about a "no squid ending", there's even been a Der Untergang YouTube video about that - having not read the graphic novel, nor having seen the film yet, what does not having the squid ending in the film mean in terms of how well it's been adapted, or how the over all property of Watchmen has been affected by changing the ending ... without giving away any actual spoilers mind you. :p

That's...hard. There's a whole subplot involving it (sort of), but really, it's a tool...a means to an end. With the subplot gone, you could replace it with some other "tool" & still pull it off I guess...Here is the short spoiler-ific explanation:

the "squid" is actually a genetically engineered "alien" monstrosity created to launch a staged "invasion from another dimension" - the plan being the whole world will unite together against a threat from beyond. SO...not sure what you replace THAT with...

Really the story is more about the characters, their journey, etc...hard to sum up...the book is really a whole bunch of intricately woven parts instead of "one big thing". But this one, while central to "the master plan", really isn't central to THE STORY...if that makes sense? (the fanboy in me is bummed it didn't get included. The pragmatist in me can probably live with it...)

major jay

07-Mar-2009, 10:34 PM

actually i preferred watchman over the dark knight.

*world gasps, screeching halts occur*

oh,no you didn't! :stunned:

Moon Knight

08-Mar-2009, 12:41 AM

Awesome movie and really faithful to the book.
Would have loved to see the squid but I can't complain.
I'm surprised they were able to fit that much into the movie.
You people who complain about stuff being left out, just wait for the DVD.
Expect at least an additional 40 minutes. :D

CoinReturn

08-Mar-2009, 01:27 AM

yU+Co (http://www.yuco.com/), the company who made the incredible opening sequence has put it online in it's entirety. Check it out if you've seen the movie and want to experience the first couple minutes again.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/the-watchmen-opening-credits-are-online

So awesome :D

MoonSylver

08-Mar-2009, 05:34 AM

Saw it earlier tonight. Solid. As well adapted as possible. Mostly faithful to the "A" story. A few little niggling dialog/scene changes, none TOO major, though some did grate on my purists nerves, as they weren't NECESSARY changes...

All of the sub plots & minor characters cut, but that was expected.

Ending didn't make as much sense to me with the change made, but ..eh...

Perfect casting for everyone (except Veidt...just didn't dig the guy in the part...).

Maybe a tad too much pop music?

Visually impressive, but didn't overwhelm the movie...after the first little bit the "flash" factor kinda fades into the background.

As a huge fan of the book I'd give it a 7-8, compared to the books 10.

(One minor quibble...one of THE BEST pieces of dialog ANYWHERE was changed...for NO reason I could ascertain...I quote THE ORIGINAL here...)

“Looked into the sky, heavy with smoke and human fat, and God was not there.

The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone.

Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later.

Born from oblivion, bear children as hellbound as ourselves, go into oblivion.

There is nothing else.

Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose.

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God that kills the children, not fate the butchers them, nor destiny that feeds them to the dogs.

It’s us.

Only us."

(actually, the whole scene was changed a tad for reasons I still can't fathom...)

DeadJonas190

08-Mar-2009, 06:16 AM

I wasn't too thrilled with Veidt either, he seemed to go in and out of having an accent mid sentance. It was very distracting. I pretty much agree with you on the other things.

_liam_

08-Mar-2009, 09:11 AM

MinionZombie

08-Mar-2009, 11:29 AM

For any US readers, Patrick Moore is this guy who looks like Kuato from Total Recall who has presented a late night astronomy show since the 50s or 60s. He's a legend, me and my flatmate Joe are painting the telescope black when he dies

Plus he was the Gamesmaster! :cool:

http://14sandwiches.com/images/blog/nov08/gamesmaster.jpg

Also - I've read reviewers giving Snyder praise for the opening sequence - but what's being said here is that actually, it was done by a whole separate company? Just like Yawn04 ... ... interesting. :sneaky::p

mista_mo

08-Mar-2009, 04:06 PM

so....

Is Batman in this movie?

CoinReturn

08-Mar-2009, 05:28 PM

so....

Is Batman in this movie?
Yep, look in the background:
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/Space_Pirate_Ridley1/Avatares/NightOwltitlesequence.jpg
Kinda looks like Mr. and Mrs. Wayne along with Alfred to the left there too...

Tricky

08-Mar-2009, 05:35 PM

One of my favourite scenes was the Vietnam war scene when ride of the valkyries is playing while the hueys fly over,and doctor manhatton is walking along vaporising vietcong soldiers :D

CoinReturn

08-Mar-2009, 05:47 PM

One of my favourite scenes was the Vietnam war scene when ride of the valkyries is playing while the hueys fly over,and doctor manhatton is walking along vaporising vietcong soldiers :DI like how Manhatten would be able to completely disintegrate his enemies, yet he chooses to go with a half vaporize, half chunky explosion instead :lol:

MinionZombie

08-Mar-2009, 10:11 PM

One of my favourite scenes was the Vietnam war scene when ride of the valkyries is playing while the hueys fly over,and doctor manhatton is walking along vaporising vietcong soldiers :D
Sounds interesting.

The lads and I will be off to see it next week - massive blue dong and all. :lol:

...

Just got back from seeing Gran Torino - it was fucking AWESOME. Clint FTW!

MoonSylver

08-Mar-2009, 10:18 PM

I like how Manhatten would be able to completely disintegrate his enemies, yet he chooses to go with a half vaporize, half chunky explosion instead :lol:

I think it says something about him that he COULD & doesn't even BOTHER too. A quote from the book: "The morality of my activities escapes me."

Sounds interesting.

The lads and I will be off to see it next week - massive blue dong and all. :lol:

Oddly, I didn't really notice it that much. I thought "THIS is what they're fussing about?". I was so focused on the guy & what we was saying most of the time, that it really didn't register.

AcesandEights

09-Mar-2009, 12:48 AM

Just saw it on Imax and I have to say...it was an awesomely realized adaptation. The ending, in my mind, fits better than the original. I just can't figure how the original material was ever going to be brought to the screen and done any better. A few foibles here and there, yes, but...shit, I have to digest it fully to formulate the words necessary ;)

/fanboy meltdown.

7734

09-Mar-2009, 05:26 AM

I like how Manhatten would be able to completely disintegrate his enemies, yet he chooses to go with a half vaporize, half chunky explosion instead :lol:

I think if he completely vaporizes them, he would be completely subtracting them from the intrinsic field thereby giving them a chance to rebuild themselves just as he did.

Tricky

09-Mar-2009, 10:32 AM

Sounds interesting.

The lads and I will be off to see it next week - massive blue dong and all. :lol:

:lol: aye he does swing his big blue cheb end around a bit!

MinionZombie

09-Mar-2009, 10:45 AM

:lol: aye he does swing his big blue cheb end around a bit!
lol - aye, we did have a fair few chuckles about the prospect of a blue wanger flapping around.

Speaking of genitalia - much camel toe on the go in the flick? :lol::p

bassman

09-Mar-2009, 12:16 PM

Tricky

09-Mar-2009, 01:00 PM

lol - aye, we did have a fair few chuckles about the prospect of a blue wanger flapping around.

Speaking of genitalia - much camel toe on the go in the flick? :lol::p

Manhattens girlfriend gets herself involved with a couple of steamy sex scenes,especially the second one!and she looks hot through the whole film,god dayum thats some fine ass milf action right there
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-12/44250887.jpg

MinionZombie

09-Mar-2009, 01:35 PM

Manhattens girlfriend gets herself involved with a couple of steamy sex scenes,especially the second one!and she looks hot through the whole film,god dayum thats some fine ass milf action right there
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-12/44250887.jpg
hehehe :evil:

...

Bassman - interested. I've not read the graphic novel, and I'm seeing the flick next week ... or rather, on Sunday (it being Monday now, I've just remembered) ... so I'll see what my reaction is.

I still think Snyder is a twat though. :lol:

MoonSylver

09-Mar-2009, 04:03 PM

I thought it was okay. I wasn't too excited after leaving the theater, tbh. It was pretty good for an "unfilmable" story. I still place Snyder in the music video and trailer director category rather than film director. It was entertaining, but I don't really see myself seeing it many more times.

Yeah, at times it came of a bit "music video"-ish. I've softened a tad on the use of pop music just because there WERE so many lyric references & instances of music included in the GN, so I could see some precedent. But it plays out differently live than on a printed page.

Good thing is, I didn't come away with a case of "buyers remorse" like I did after D'04. I enjoyed it & thought they did a fairly good job on the adaptation, even though I still wasn't thrilled with what was left out or changed. Looking forward to the extended version.

I don't think it's going to sit well with people that haven't read the novel, though. I took a friend that wasn't aware of the story and he HATED it. He compared it to Batman and Robin, if you can believe that. He has a laundry list of complaints and most of them I would understand if I had never read the novel.

My wife has never read the GN & she liked it quite well & was eager to discuss afterward. I have been lurking over at http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/forum/index.php & the reaction from non-GN readers that went with the OP's seems to be fairly mixed. Most seemed positive, some not, so...eh...we'll see.

Hurm. Must investigate further.

I still think Snyder is a twat though. :lol:

Yeah, it really did little to confirm nor deny my feelings for him. In the end I think it was great visuals carried on the strength of the original material.

Everything that was good about the movie (other than the visuals) came from the source material (IMO), & pretty much that didn't work (for me) was as a result of what was left out or changed.

A couple of the performances were very good (Nite Owl, Dr. Manhattan), one REALLY great (Rorschach), & one not so good (Ozymandias). I've heard some complaints about Silk Spectre, but I thought she was fine.

AcesandEights

09-Mar-2009, 04:17 PM

Wow, I still haven't had the time to process the whole of the film, compare it to the original material and sort my thoughts, but I had that happy after effect of seeing a great film this morning. You know, that feeling, quite like good sex, where the joy of what you experienced the night before all of a sudden comes back to you?

I can say I agree with Sylver about Rorschach being one of the best realized characters to ever transfer from comic to Silver Screen and I was most happy that his fate remained true to the source material. (EDIT: Reading back, now I'm not sure you said this. I thought I read it lastnight, but I may have misread. I'll have to re-read the thread later. Hrm...)

I thought it was okay. I wasn't too excited after leaving the theater, tbh. It was pretty good for an "unfilmable" story. I still place Snyder in the music video and trailer director category rather than film director. It was entertaining, but I don't really see myself seeing it many more times.

I don't think it's going to sit well with people that haven't read the novel, though. I took a friend that wasn't aware of the story and he HATED it.

That doesn't exactly surprise me, to be honest. Watchmen takes time to develop, isn't jam-packed with 'bam, pow, thwok' action and is pretty subtle at points. Even if someone can appreciate all of that (which is a tall order, given the current average of movie-going patience) and the viewer has the willingness to see a film about super heroes that is deeper than what they have been trained to expect, there still is that matter of individual taste.

I went with 7 others and I think we hit the spectrum pretty well. Two people didn't particularly 'get it' and didn't like it too much, though they didn't dislike the film ("Where were the bad guys?"); two thought it was okay to pretty good; 1 really liked it and wished she'd had more background on the story before hand and three of us really thought it was great. Of the three of us who thought the film was great, 1 had read the the original material multiple times before (yours truly), 1 had familiarity with the original material and 1 had a rough idea of what to expect going in.

I'll be back as more thoughts develop and time allows (been a busy morning at work, which is great too :) )

MoonSylver

09-Mar-2009, 04:28 PM

Wow, I still haven't had the time to process the whole of the film, compare it to the original material and sort my thoughts, but I had that happy after effect of seeing a great film this morning. You know, that feeling, quite like good sex, where the joy of what you experienced the night before all of a sudden comes back to you?

Sounds like your experience was not too unlike mine.

I can say I agree with Sylver about Rorschach being one of the best realized characters to ever transfer from comic to Silver Screen and I was most happy that his fate remained true to the source material.

Here's a question re; Rorschach: What do you think of Nite Owl having been present when he "gets it"? I prefer the book version, where no one ever knows what happens to him, it's just him & Jon. I'm thinking the movie version was done the way it was so that Nite Owl could exact SOME kind or retribution on Veidt, that he didn't get away completely unscathed.

That doesn't exactly surprise me, to be honest. Watchmen takes time to develop, isn't jam-packed with 'bam, pow, thwok' action and is pretty subtle at points. Even if someone can appreciate all of that (which is a tall order, given the current average of movie-going patience) and the viewer has the willingness to see a film about super heroes that is deeper than what they have been trained to expect, there still is that matter of individual taste.

Word. I was quite interested in my wife's reaction. That's why I've been trying to spread the word to anyone interested in seeing this movie: if you go in expecting X-Men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Iron Man, etc, you most likely will be disappointed.

I went with 7 others and I think we hit the spectrum pretty well. Two people didn't particularly 'get it' and didn't like it too much, though they didn't dislike the film ("Where were the bad guys?"); two thought it was okay to pretty good; 1 really liked it and wished she'd had more background on the story before hand and three of us really thought it was great. Of the three of us who thought the film was great, 1 had read the the original material multiple times before (yours truly), 1 had familiarity with the original material and 1 had a rough idea of what to expect going in.

That's about the spread I'm expecting.

I'll be back as more thoughts develop and time allows (been a busy morning at work, which is great too :) )

Look forward to it.

AcesandEights

09-Mar-2009, 06:25 PM

Here's a question re; Rorschach: What do you think of Nite Owl having been present when he "gets it"? I prefer the book version, where no one ever knows what happens to him, it's just him & Jon. I'm thinking the movie version was done the way it was so that Nite Owl could exact SOME kind or retribution on Veidt, that he didn't get away completely unscathed.

Yeah, that change definitely stood out to me, and I think you're on the money with what the intent was, however it seemed to have a slightly different effect.

First, I should say that I thought the actual death scene was great and Daniel/Nite Owl's reaction was well done, however...In a way, I felt it served to more heavily implicate Nite Owl and also made his gesture of anger towards Veidt seem pretty impotent, but that's a minor foible for me and perhaps not poorly thought out. I did always like that Rorschach left, pretty much knowing what would go down and faced up Dr. Manhattan alone, not budging an inch because he felt he had no choice but to be true to his beliefs. I was just so stoked that his fate was largely kept intact in that sense.

I was quite interested in my wife's reaction. That's why I've been trying to spread the word to anyone interested in seeing this movie: if you go in expecting X-Men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Iron Man, etc, you most likely will be disappointed.

Yup, I totally agree about fan expectations being an issue. My girlfriend had no clue what to expect and afterward just wished she had known more about the film going in. She was pleasantly surprised and into the film the whole way through so, as an old school comics nerd from way back, I was somehow--in some inexplicable manner of haughty geekitude--proud of her :p

Tricky

09-Mar-2009, 07:31 PM

AcesandEights

09-Mar-2009, 07:58 PM

Heres a question - how does Rorschach's mask do that fancy thing where it keeps changing when he actually doesnt have any superpowers?or is it one of those things that you just accept as the norm in the films world?

The cloth has a reactive dye in it that constantly changes shapes, iirc. It's just a special cloth he had picked up along his adventures. I have to, and plan to, re-read the Watchmen as soon as my GF gives me my copy back.

Holy crap, I've forgotten a lot of the details. From his Wikipedia entry:

After leaving school, Kovacs took a job as an unskilled tailor. The prospect of handling women's clothing caused him discomfort, and he later commented that the job was "bearable but unpleasant". A few weeks before her murder in front of an apartment, Kitty Genovese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese) ordered a dress from him, made of a fabric created by Doctor Manhattan that used two pressure and heat-sensitive liquids suspended between a layer of latex to create black-on-white shifting color patterns, "always changing, never mixing into grey". When the dress was completed, Genovese was unsatisfied with the design, and she refused to pay for it. Kovacs took it home for himself, fascinated with the fabric. Upon reading of Kitty's murder in the newspaper, he became disgusted with the amount of crime in New York City and, creating a mask from her dress, became the vigilante Rorschach.

Tricky

09-Mar-2009, 10:10 PM

Ahh right i get it now!cheers for that ace!:cool:

MoonSylver

10-Mar-2009, 12:08 AM

After leaving school, Kovacs took a job as an unskilled tailor. The prospect of handling women's clothing caused him discomfort, and he later commented that the job was "bearable but unpleasant". A few weeks before her murder in front of an apartment, Kitty Genovese ordered a dress from him, made of a fabric created by Doctor Manhattan that used two pressure and heat-sensitive liquids suspended between a layer of latex to create black-on-white shifting color patterns, "always changing, never mixing into grey". When the dress was completed, Genovese was unsatisfied with the design, and she refused to pay for it. Kovacs took it home for himself, fascinated with the fabric. Upon reading of Kitty's murder in the newspaper, he became disgusted with the amount of crime in New York City and, creating a mask from her dress, became the vigilante Rorschach.

Bingo. Only thing that I would add is that Kovacs taught himself how to cut & shape the material using heated implements (in case you were wondering how we has able to work with the special material)

I'm in the middle of a re-read myself.;)

Yeah, that change definitely stood out to me, and I think you're on the money with what the intent was, however it seemed to have a slightly different effect.

First, I should say that I thought the actual death scene was great and Daniel/Nite Owl's reaction was well done, however...In a way, I felt it served to more heavily implicate Nite Owl and also made his gesture of anger towards Veidt seem pretty impotent, but that's a minor foible for me and perhaps not poorly thought out. I did always like that Rorschach left, pretty much knowing what would go down and faced up Dr. Manhattan alone, not budging an inch because he felt he had no choice but to be true to his beliefs. I was just so stoked that his fate was largely kept intact in that sense.

Don't know if it IMPLICATES Nite Owl...nothing really he could have done about it...but yeah, impotent is a good choice of words (no pun intended!). That's part of the reason why (IMO0 Adrian let him beat the crap out of him...let the poor guy vent...let him have something. Could have dismantled him & didn't lift a finger. One of the few changes that I thought was a nice touch.

AcesandEights

10-Mar-2009, 01:10 AM

Steroid pumped hollywood Watchmen!

To be fair, with regards to one aspect, I was very impressed that, apparently, Wilson put on 25 lbs. of fat after shooting his earlier flashback scenes specifically to portray the softer, retired Nite Owl (II).

Bingo. Only thing that I would add is that Kovacs taught himself how to cut & shape the material using heated implements (in case you were wondering how we has able to work with the special material)

Ah, dude. 'Heated implements', I think that's almost the exact terminology they use in the original material...you are re-reading...and I'm jealous. I had my GF and one of my best friends ask to borrow my copy, so I think I might buy one tomorrow, re-read it and then give it to my friend. Hell, that's a gift that keeps on giving.

Don't know if it IMPLICATES Nite Owl...nothing really he could have done about it...but yeah, impotent is a good choice of words (no pun intended!). That's part of the reason why (IMO0 Adrian let him beat the crap out of him...let the poor guy vent...let him have something. Could have dismantled him & didn't lift a finger. One of the few changes that I thought was a nice touch.

Yes, to be sure, when I said it implicates him, I was trying to express that he's wholly privy to, and in some respects dirtier for it--the fact that he knows...

Not only did Ozymandias orchestrate a hoax killing millions of people (to save billions), but--on a more personal note--Rorscach, his old partner, was undeniably murdered to cover it up before his very eyes. And I just thought witnessing it and still taking part in a conspiracy-by-silence made Nite Owl a bit dirtier than he was at the end of the original material. I'm trying to remember how it left off after Rorschach left and the subsequent panels finishing off the story after Nite Owl and Silk Spectre return, but I think that would have been something suspected but not known for certain. I dunno.

:mad: Damn, I want my copy back from my GF :D

clanglee

10-Mar-2009, 03:09 AM

Saw it over the weekend. . loved it. Only a very few issues with it. One was indeed the music choices. Some of the music pics just took me out of a scene too much. Second was the end change. With the original event (the squid) there was good traceable evidence that Rorcharch was digging up and writing down (missing people, secret island, close Veidt connections) With the possiblility of R's journal getting out, it stood to bring the whole thing down. In the movie, the evidence is much less clear and blame is placed on Doc Manhattan, so even if the event is uncovered, Doc Manhattan just has to come back and claim responsiblity. . end of story, no more arguement. It just wasn't airtight enough for me.

Having said all that. I loved the movie, and Haley was WONDERFUL as big R!!!!!!!

Oh and I went to see the movie with my wife, parents and uncle. Parents really liked it and my dad now wants to read the GN, wife liked it alright, Uncle who DIDN"T LIKE THE GN, loved the movie. go figure

MoonSylver

10-Mar-2009, 04:44 AM

Ah, dude. 'Heated implements', I think that's almost the exact terminology they use in the original material...you are re-reading...and I'm jealous.

Hehe...that was always a term that stuck in my mind for some reason...a lot of the "Rorshcah-isms" really stuck w/ me...Almost added that Kovacks felt compelled to cut the dress "until it didn't look like a woman anymore"...another telling comment on his psyche.;)

I'm trying to remember how it left off after Rorschach left and the subsequent panels finishing off the story after Nite Owl and Silk Spectre return, but I think that would have been something suspected but not known for certain. I dunno.

Veidt casually mentions "he'll probably never make it back to civilization". Everyone is left with the implication that Rorschach, on foot, with no cold weather gear, in the middle of Antarctica, most likely perished. A reasonable enough assumption. I kinda wonder, did Adrian know that Jon would never allow this? I know if there's ONE guy I wouldn't feel comfortable not knowing for sure was 100% out of the picture it's Rorschach! The guy is a survivor. I always figured that Dan is thinking maybe, just MAYBE, he's still out there...somewhere...

AcesandEights

10-Mar-2009, 05:37 AM

Just an aside on Veidt's accent/no accent...

I wasn't too thrilled with Veidt either, he seemed to go in and out of having an accent mid sentance. It was very distracting.

It was reportedly intentional, for good or ill.

While the inclusion of such a background didn't change the story at all, it injected certain nuances into Goode's performance that meshed with the idea that Veidt is not all that he seems. "His public persona is incredibly American. He has the accent too, so everyone thinks they know Adrian," Goode points out. There is a subtle change in his voice, however, when he is speaking in private, particularly with old comrads-in-arms like Dan Dreiberg. "it's a mix of German and American, and that's who he really is," says Goode.

"It was funny because we shot without thinking about doing that part of the scene first, the Lee Iacocca scene. It was only after that, because it was six month job, it was only after we shot that that I came back to Zack and we both talked about the possibility of giving him that other sort of public persona and private persona," explained Goode. "I just came up with the idea and dealt with it. I just did it. I hope it worked."

I really didn't have a problem with the guy, but--admittedly--I really have to see the film again. Must...see it...on the big screen...again. :)

MoonSylver

10-Mar-2009, 05:57 AM

Just an aside on Veidt's accent/no accent...
It was reportedly intentional, for good or ill.

I really didn't have a problem with the guy, but--admittedly--I really have to see the film again. Must...see it...on the big screen...again. :)

Interesting on the accent. My biggest gripe w/ the casting choice is that Veidt is supposed to be the closest thing to a superhuman out side of Jon...the pinnacle of human perfection. The actor playing him was honestly a little scrawny for the part...everyone else was cast PERFECTLY & he just wasn't

As for the performance... he came across too "villain-y" when revealing the plan (IMO). In the GN he seemed a bit sad...wistful...he's the father patiently reasoning with the children who just...don't...understand (I see this as how he sees himself). I didn't get that 100% in the movie...he just seems kinda glassy-eyed, distant

Not a deal breaker, just a minor complaint.

AcesandEights

10-Mar-2009, 04:45 PM

Hey Clang. Glad you liked the film, too =) I was thinking about what you said:

Saw it over the weekend. . loved it. Only a very few issues with it...
Second was the end change. With the original event (the squid) there was good traceable evidence that Rorcharch was digging up and writing down (missing people, secret island, close Veidt connections) With the possibility of R's journal getting out, it stood to bring the whole thing down. In the movie, the evidence is much less clear and blame is placed on Doc Manhattan, so even if the event is uncovered, Doc Manhattan just has to come back and claim responsibility. . end of story, no more argument. It just wasn't airtight enough for me.

I think it's important to remember that some things do have to be adjusted in the transition from comic to film. Now, the faith with which the film has preserved a lot of the original material and the world of the Watchmen is really incredible, but think about it in this respect...The original 12 issue run of the Watchmen was a story that was meant to unfold over the course of a year of reading and was supposed to have been read 4 or 5 times (Moore's own words) to pick up on all the details.

Now, to lend some perspective, I was able to pick up the last three issues of The Walking Dead this weekend and read through them in one sitting in about 15 minutes (not including the letter columns, which I was not in the mood for at the time), and I wasn't rushing through them. Now, I don't know how long it took me the first time I read the first three issues of the Watchmen (in the collected graphic novel)--it was a long time ago, to be sure--but that sucker was so textually, texturally and thematically dense that I don't think I could have done an issue in anything close to 15 minutes and feel like I had scratched the surface. These suckers have a lot to them.

What's my long winded, overblown point here? Well, keeping the above in mind, the pacing the original worked with, I don't mind that some of the complexities of the 'plot' (as opposed to the movie's plot, though some may view it as one and the same) got trimmed down. I do think you're right, Clang, in that a little bit more in this area would have gone a lonnnng way, but the actual ending, sans tentacle, I preferred. I'll explain in spoiler tags:

To me, it seems much more elegant and believable (from a meta, as well as a practical storytelling perspective) to work within the context of what you already have on hand. Aliens? Sure, more believable in a world in which superhumans dwell, but why not raise up something to fear where the seeds have already been sewn, something people know to exist.

After all, the House Committee for Unamerican Affairs (? is that right? HUAC) taught the people that they couldn't trust some of their own neighbors, friends, co-workers, idols and heroes and the Keene Act--motivated by at least some popular radical 70s support (read: rioting unrest, 'Who watches the watchmen?' etc.)--went even further in that direction. Also, remember that Veidt had planned to have either Dr. Manhattan out of the picture due to the cancer gambit (a convenient guilt trip, which also helped to expose him as a danger to human health) and a dead Silk Spectre (who was on the Comedian's 'list')--two things that would have furthered the likelihood of Dr. M's estrangement) or dead (disassembled). A bit of a stretch? I don't know, really.

So, in summation, I agree with you, Clang. There was a lot more to Veidt's plot in the original material and this is a place where a little camera time and development could have paid huge dividends, however they had to make major cuts just to preserve what they did and what they were able to cram on the screen and into the movie's plot. Additionally, I'm happy with the way the plot did turn out and happy with the inclusion of Dr. Manhattan as the supposed cause, as opposed to some random alien, tentacular menace.

Of course, some of my thoughts might have gone down a bit choppily, as I have been typing this off and on at work over the course of the morning.

Having said all that. I loved the movie, and Haley was WONDERFUL as big R!!!!!!!

Oh and I went to see the movie with my wife, parents and uncle. Parents really liked it and my dad now wants to read the GN, wife liked it alright, Uncle who DIDN"T LIKE THE GN, loved the movie. go figure

Nice! Nothing like an outing to the movies that everyone enjoys :skull:

Also, with regards to the music, I will work up a whole other post, as I have been mulling some things over in that regard. ;)

clanglee

10-Mar-2009, 07:57 PM

I hear ya Aces. And I agree with you. It is VERY difficult to cram the stuff in that movie that was already in there, much less more. They did a great job. My point in reference to the destruction plot is that it takes away from Rorsharch's stand. Pointing at the Doc takes away from the whole "the world could go back to where it was before" thing. It makes R's refusal to help cover up kinda obsolete, because all the Doc has to do is threaten to do it again, and then even if it's proven he didn't do it before. . well. . he could STILL do it again. It's minor. . but I just really liked the open endedness of the GN, and while the movie tried to portray that. . it missed because of this one glaring problem. ahh well. . the rest of the movie rocked!!

MoonSylver

12-Mar-2009, 04:55 AM

Here's Watchmen...Saturday morning cartoon style (so wrong on so many levels!)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YDDHHrt6l4w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YDDHHrt6l4w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

AcesandEights

12-Mar-2009, 02:25 PM

Here's Watchmen...Saturday morning cartoon style (so wrong on so many levels!)

Hehe, I can't wait to see this when I get home. Yeah, Watchmen are so serious that they do readily lend themselves to parody.

Imagines....

*Sound of octogenarian shoplifter's head going through plateglass.

Watchmen Gang in Unison: "That's our Rorschach."

*Laugh track runs*

AcesandEights

16-Mar-2009, 08:28 PM

Also - I've read reviewers giving Snyder praise for the opening sequence - but what's being said here is that actually, it was done by a whole separate company? Just like Yawn04 ... ... interesting. :sneaky::p

I mentioned it in the shoutbox, but wanted to put it down here so that you saw it, MZ. As, I know you would certainly want as much information as possible for your fair and balanced review of Mr. Snyder's work :p

Source (http://motionographer.com/2009/03/06/yuco-the-watchmen-titles/)

From the yU+Co release:

The challenge for yU+co. was integrating titles into an already edited six-minute sequence that was built without the placement of titles in mind. In order to make the titles feel like an organic part of the sequence, Yu and his creative team wove meticulous detail into the type design. Rather then simply lay 2D type onto the foreground of the live action, it is incorporated in 3D into each scene.

According to Director Zach Snyder (via Fandango);

From the very beginning I wanted to do a cool title sequence for the movie and it was actually the thing that got me started drawing Watchmen because they were trying to figure out how much this movie was going to cost. I said it’s really impossible to say until I start drawing the movie and a get a sense of what the movie is…

So I literally went to the beginning of the movie and started drawing. It was funny because I had the music—I was pretty positive that it was going to be Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” Then it started to take shape for me as we really find out where we are in the world, and that’s how that sequence came about, tracing the alternate history.

The result is an imagined yet nostalgetic superhero landscape, setting up the film to be, hopefully, as inspired as the title sequence itself.

Damn, I hope that 'nostalgetic' remark was a typo. Maybe you can use that as ammo, though, MZ ;) Maybe Snyder uses other people's material because he's illiterate. Damn, this stuff writes itself. :lol:

MinionZombie

16-Mar-2009, 09:57 PM

lol - well you see this is interesting, because the impression I got from youze lot is that Snyder pawned the whole sequence off on another company (like with Yawn04, correct?)

Also, the company putting the sequence online gave me the impression they'd composed the whole thing, not just stuck some text on it. :p

...

Anyway, I'm still mulling it all over - and listened to the rather spiffing 1 hour 46 minute long review chat with Kevin Smith at "/Film" - and of course I'd be reviewing it from the perspective of having not read the book.

However, I do want to read the book at some point.

Anyway - is it Snyder's best film? Yes, undoubtedly.

However - the writers who adapted it into a script did a significant amount of the adapting I'd say - without a script, or without a good script, you've just got a turd to make look pretty (kinda like with Yawn04 then :p).

Also, the actors all did fantastic jobs (e.g. Haley and Crudup - both phenomenal I thought).

So I'm not bemoaning directors who don't write the shit they direct, I'm more saying "well calm down on the sheer volume of praise" because Snyder is directing a well written adaptation (written by two dudes - Hayter & Tse) of an absolutely sublime piece of original work (this is what I've constantly heard about the source material at least, as I've not personally read it yet) - Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons having done the actual hardcore leg work years ago.

Then factor in Snyder basically using the book for the story boards, and it really does - in sheer practical terms - diminish the role of the director as a creative entity. It's more about pointing people about, rather than anything else perhaps.

Yawn04 was fucking abominable, and 300 was the gayest movie homophobes have ever called their own (plus it was fucking stupid).

...

I certainly object to Snyder being labelled a "visionary" by the trailer - by definition, he just isn't. Pretty pictures and music videos isn't a visionary, that's a visual director.

Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott - to name but three - they are visionaries.

Citizen Kane - 2001 - Blade Runner ... ... Yawn04 (gash remake of a well, and long, established seminal horror classic) and 300 (history-raping pile of macho-pish created by Frank Miller, then adapted by someone else, then directed by a music video director) - not exactly the same league really is it?

I'm not a fan of Snyder the man, I think that's plain to see. He just annoys me when I see interviews with him, and Yawn04 and 300 were either god-awful or just plain pish.

Watchmen - the source material - is so considered, and out-right strong, that it shines through the skilled adaptation by Hayter and Tse.

This all said though - being such a literal translation, is it that creative? Does Snyder deserve the ball tickling he's been getting, really?

It's like with Sin City (a flick which I love) - as kick ass as it is, again it's a case of taking the panels and pretty much doing that but 24 times a second - it's not exactly the most creative thing really, is it? It's not like many of RR's other works where he's written the script ... ... mind you, RR also does his editing, scoring, does the effects "in house", shoots it in his town and so on - so even when doing Sin City, RR himself had a lot more input into it generally than I'd say Snyder did in Watchmen.

There's LOTS to mull over as I said before ... but as I said, out of the work Snyder has done, it's his best - but the strength of the work from the others involved (especially the source material), makes Watchmen far more a case of a collaborative effort, rather than the work of an auteur (which certainly isn't a label you could attach to Snyder, in all honesty).

The film itself - I can certainly see how a full cut will plug the various holes that the theatrical cut length forces upon it, and I look forward to seeing that, as well as of course reading the source material, which I must do sometime soon. I dug the flick.

There are plenty of little things to go "nuh" about, such as certain pieces of music (which in general flags up MUSIC VIDEO DIRECTOR quite a bit), and - during the action scenes (because it doesn't fit in dialogue scenes of course), that bloody mid-shot slow-mo/normal-mo/slow-mo crap.

300 totally ruined that trick, just do whole shots in slow-mo, for goodness sake!

Anyway - fully realised thoughts coming soon - even though, indeed, I've rambled on quite a bit here.

Neil

16-Mar-2009, 10:04 PM

Seeing it tomorrow night... And know nothing about it...

AcesandEights

16-Mar-2009, 10:24 PM

Seeing it tomorrow night... And know nothing about it...

Really? Look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

MoonSylver

17-Mar-2009, 12:41 AM

MZ - I'd say that was pretty well the impression I came away with as well. This movie gave me no strong feelings about Snyder one way or another as a director other than being strongly impressed by the visuals & giving him points for sticking as close to the book as he did. But it's really hard to pinpoint anything about his skills as a director out of this movie per se. As you say, he was already standing on the shoulders of giants w/ the original material, & then has a pretty great adaptation via the screenwriters, so...

MinionZombie

17-Mar-2009, 11:06 AM

bassman

17-Mar-2009, 02:40 PM

MZ - Was that a mini review or a bash snyder-a-thon?:p

I agree with you. I give the guy some points in some areas, but he's definitely no visionary. He has an eye for pretty images. Kinda like Michael Bay. But I would still say that Bay has the upper hand in other areas. Neither of them visionary, though.

As for Watchmen....I can't stop thinking about it, but I don't know why. There's something about it that I just can't put my finger on. I'm going to try and see it again in theater. This time I'm going to do my best to watch it as though I've never read the novel and see how it turns out. The first time around I was trying to see how close to the novel it was...

Danny

17-Mar-2009, 03:45 PM

As for Watchmen....I can't stop thinking about it, but I don't know why. There's something about it that I just can't put my finger on. I'm going to try and see it again in theater. This time I'm going to do my best to watch it as though I've never read the novel and see how it turns out. The first time around I was trying to see how close to the novel it was...

actually ive heard the film profs. at uni commenting on how they think students will be studying it in years to come.

make of that what you will.

AcesandEights

17-Mar-2009, 04:23 PM

MZ - Was that a mini review or a bash snyder-a-thon?:p

I agree with you. I give the guy some points in some areas, but he's definitely no visionary. He has an eye for pretty images. Kinda like Michael Bay.

Yeah, I totally agree. The visionary hype crap, I feel, most of us agree is way, waaaay over the top. I also agree with MZ that this is probably a high water mark for Snyder (at least currently)...and that "300 was the gayest movie homophobes have ever called their own (plus it was fucking stupid)." :lol:

I really did love Watchmen, though, and am anxiously awaiting an MZ review of the film (not just a Valentine's Day Massacre-style review of Z. Snyder :p).

bassman

17-Mar-2009, 04:54 PM

actually ive heard the film profs. at uni commenting on how they think students will be studying it in years to come.

make of that what you will.

The novel or the film? The novel is definitely worthy of study, but the film? Not so much. The film has a story and relevance because of the novel. Other than that the only thing to study in the film itself is the slow mo action sequences.

Another thing about the film: The gore and violence. Anybody else irritated by how it seemed as though Snyder would sort of zoom in and glorify the gore? Of course the source material is very adult-oriented, but it seemed as though Snyder turned it up for the film and put it in the front as though he was thinking "looky looky....I made an adult comic film. TWICE!":rolleyes: It just seemed like a cheap gimmick.

Minor complaint, I spose. I agree that this is Snyder's best work yet(which still isn't THAT great, imo), but I think I would have rather had Snyder's trademark slow mo and unnecessarily long sex sequences put to the back.

I don't hate the film, but I feel it could have been better. Maybe it will grow on me in time. Looking forward to the extended cut on dvd, as well.

MinionZombie

17-Mar-2009, 08:04 PM

lol, I guess I've got a reputation for Snyder-bitchin' eh? :p

I'm trying to balance out what did he really seem to do for the film.

Anyway - I'm still mulling over my thoughts, it'll be an epic rant about a variety of aspects as far as I can go without having yet read the graphic novel. My thought-age is coming soon. :)

Danny

17-Mar-2009, 08:20 PM

honestly i went in without having watched 300 and forgot he was the guy behind the dawn remake and didnt have any of these problems, any chance its the rapeing of the best zombie movie ever making your views slightly jarred?:sneaky: becuase the only slo-mo that i noticed was silk spectre 2 turning form the fire, uneeded and pointless, but the best par of 2 seconds in a 3 hour movie.

clanglee

17-Mar-2009, 09:20 PM

MoonSylver

17-Mar-2009, 10:43 PM

I give props to Snyder for translating the GN faithfully. It's not as easy as it seems. He was able to make the fans happy, something noone ever thought would happen with an adaption of this source material. Yeah he had help, yeah he didn't do it all himself. Of course. But NO movie is made just by one man. And there have been many movies that have been adapted from popular source material that have been great. Many many. But these directors still get some credit where credit is due in being able to translate their vision to the silver screen. Isn't it the director's job to find the best people and keep them working on a common goal to get the movie he wants made?

All good points. I think the main thing is, it's hard to gauge much if anything about Snyder the director from Watchmen.

Give the man some credit here. He made the "unmakeable" movie, and did it well. Whatever your feelings for his previous work. . . Snyder, IMHO is just getting better and better. While not the best director in the world, he is quite capable and I foresee great things in his future. He reminds me quite a bit of early Steven Speilburg. A mostly hack director with a great imagination, and some great promise, has popular support, and has been vaulted to Hollywood goldenboy after only a very few movies. Speilburg has grown into a really great director. Perhaps Snyder has that potential as well?

That might be a little strong. Even in Speilburg's early stuff, like Duel, you could see the glimmer of promise IMO. From Snyder's 3 outings so far...??? I dunno.

Really, since 300 & Watchmen are both adaptations, the closest we've seen to an original work from him has been Dawn '04. Other than the name it really is an original screenplay w/ no characters or situations, etc from the original. So...IMO, if you want to try & gauge Snyder as a director that's you're best bet, more or less. It'll be interesting to see what else he does...more adaptations or original material? If it is original stuff, then we have some basis for comparisons.

clanglee

17-Mar-2009, 11:10 PM

MoonSylver

18-Mar-2009, 04:34 AM

I agree to a point. Snyder has yet to direct something of his own. He may not be able to write. That's not something every director can do. But a lot of Spielburgs early work. . hell. . later work was also adapted. Duel was a Matheson story. Jaws was a novel. Color Purple, Twilight Zone, Jurassic part. I would hazzard to guess that most of his work is adapted.

Oh, absolutely...Many, many, MANY great directors didn't write their own stuff...I'm having trouble forming my point coherently...hmmm...I guess what I'm trying to get at is that with other directors, like a Spielburg, or a Hitchcock, Kubrick, Scorsese, whoever, you can see/feel their touch on their projects, their fingerprints are all over it.

With Watchmen, I get no clear sense of who he is a a director.

Not saying this in a bad way or as a criticism per se, but just the strength of the material, faithfully adapted as it was, kinda drowns everything else out for me. I can't get a clear image of who he is a a director from it.

All the visual stuff? I can't decide how much is him & how much is his DP, SPFX guys, etc. The great performances? I can't tell if it's the strength of the actors, the material, or if he has any ability to direct actors or not.

Plus his adapted work is all adapted from a VISUAL medium: comic books. So it's kinda different than taking a novel & adapting it.

I'll say again: 300 & Watchmen, both being literal adaptations of their source material make it hard to get a clear picture of him as a director. They show he's great at taking something & doing a faithful translation, but nothing else (just IMO)

Dawn '04 is the only movie that he's done so far that was an original screenplay, so that's the only one I can go to to try & figure him out as a director. Flashy, hyper kinetic, MTV music video-ish, long on style, short on substance. Decent action flick, not very deep. There WERE some good character moments & touching scenes (Jake Webber & Matt Frewer in particular.)

Now let me be clear. . I don't think that Snyder has Spielburg's ability per se. . but with practice he could. What I meant by the comparisson is that they both were/are Hollywood golden boys who seem to make hit after hit and get money thrown at them. Perhaps Snyder will have the pull soon to do something very personal and heartfelt and near to him (if Watchmen wasn't) and perhaps that movie he gets to make by himself will suck. Who knows. . that's when we will be able to tell wether or not the man has any real chops.

Agreed.

Neil

18-Mar-2009, 09:12 AM

My thoughts on 'Watchmen'...

What I liked:-

- Some of my friends complained it was long and felt slow, but generally I'm more than happy to invest time in a story/film. I never had the urge to look at my watch and enjoyed my travel through the story and characters.

- Visual and special effects were generally great.

- Music generally good. And any film that includes some of Philip Glass' score to Koyaanisqatsi can't be all bad :)

- General feel of the film was I like it's retro and quirky feel. It just felt a bit 'different'.

What I didn't like:-

- I felt on the whole the film just felt a little flat and soulless. Just a bit!

- Nixon's makeup was comical.

- Spoiler : Why did Ozymandias try to kill Dr Manhattan? What was the point? His plan had already been carried out? Did he think he actually was going to kill him? Or was he trying something else?

On the whole a great romp through a superhero world with a difference!

Now the ending... I've not read the comic book, but have looked up so am at least aware of how the film and comic differ. I'm happy with the film ending...

Can someone also explain to be Rorschach's inkblot mask? Huh?

EvilNed

18-Mar-2009, 12:03 PM

- Music generally good. And any film that includes some of Philip Glass' score to Koyaanisqatsi can't be all bad :)

Spot ON! Best part of the film. And it was a great film!

AcesandEights

18-Mar-2009, 01:52 PM

Can someone also explain to be Rorschach's inkblot mask? Huh?

This post (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showpost.php?p=181195&postcount=142) (the discussion about it starts further up that page) gives a pretty good rundown on Rorscach's mask.

axlish

18-May-2009, 01:13 AM

I saw it last Wednesday in IMAX, knew next to nothing going in, came out a bonafide Zack Snyder mark! Amazing film! I cannot wait for the Blu-ray.

MinionZombie

18-May-2009, 09:38 AM

I saw it last Wednesday in IMAX, knew next to nothing going in, came out a bonafide Zack Snyder mark! Amazing film! I cannot wait for the Blu-ray.
This movie is still in cinemas? :eek:

I thought this movie had come, gone and wiped it's end off on a pair of discarded panties. :lol:

axlish

18-May-2009, 11:25 AM

We have an IMAX theatre, but being a smaller market, we don't get the Hollywood IMAX films until they have gone through one, maybe two markets already.

capncnut

18-May-2009, 01:37 PM

This movie is still in cinemas? :eek:
It is also available from your local Chinese DVD retailer. ;)

DubiousComforts

24-Jul-2009, 06:23 PM

bassman

24-Jul-2009, 07:57 PM

I can only assume that the source material is responsible for such a poor, derivative story with hopelessly-dated political commentary.

Of couse everyone has their own opinion, but considering the fact that Watchmen is regarded as one of the greatest graphic novels ever written and literally changed how comics are approached, I think you would be in the minority with this opinion.:p

The film is good, definitely Snyder's best, but it doesn't come close to having the lasting power that the novel does. When you finish reading the novel it's like a religious experience. Almost like you've been changed. Snyder's film didn't accomplish this, but it is a wonderful companion piece for the novel.

Danny

24-Jul-2009, 08:07 PM

Saw this film about two weeks ago and it is just awful, yet I can't really blame Zack Snyder. I've never read anything by Moore and realize that he doesn't have anything to do with film adaptations of his work, but I can only assume that the source material is responsible for such a poor, derivative story with hopelessly-dated political commentary.

I mean, come on... hasn't anyone ever seen the original Outer Limits' Architects of Fear or read Fail Safe? God, I must be really old if I'm the only one that can remember this stuff.

I will say that the sequences with Rorschach were excellent, and I kept wishing there had been a better story and film built around just this character.

you owe it to yourself to go and read this right now, drop whatever you are doing and read one of the greatest graphic novels of all time.

AcesandEights

24-Jul-2009, 08:08 PM

This will certainly be my first Blu-ray purchase. :D

bassman

24-Jul-2009, 08:13 PM

This will certainly be my first Blu-ray purchase. :D

It does look GLORIOUS in BR. The special features are awesome, too.:D

This new commentary track where snyder kinda walks on screen and tells you about the film is pretty cool. The only problem is I've never liked Snyder's face or voice, so I want to punch him everytime I see him. He does have some interesting stuff to talk about, though.

Danny

24-Jul-2009, 08:14 PM

It does look GLORIOUS in BR. The special features are awesome, too.:D

This new commentary track where snyder kinda walks on screen and tells you about the film is pretty cool. The only problem is I've never liked Snyder's face or voice, so I want to punch him everytime I see him. He does have some interesting stuff to talk about, though.

is it because he looks like sylar?:lol:

bassman

24-Jul-2009, 08:15 PM

is it because he looks like sylar?:lol:

*quickly scans through nerd memory sector of brain*

Nope....don't know who that is...

AcesandEights

24-Jul-2009, 08:28 PM

*quickly scans through nerd memory sector of brain*

Nope....don't know who that is...

It's a shame, because you could have countered by saying:

"No, because Snyder is to other people's material, what Sylar is to other people's superpowers." Or something along those lines. Get MZ in here and I'm sure he'll be able to punch up this possible anti-ZS comment with some of his trade mark 'Ba-zing'.

DubiousComforts

24-Jul-2009, 08:32 PM

you owe it to yourself to go and read this right now, drop whatever you are doing and read one of the greatest graphic novels of all time.

but considering the fact that Watchmen is regarded as one of the greatest graphic novels ever written and literally changed how comics are approached, I think you would be in the minority with this opinion.:p
So I take this to mean that neither of you has ever read Fail Safe or watched/heard of The Outer Limits episode Architects of Fear? How about Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove?

Unless the graphic novel is radically different than the film, Watchmen is the same cheeseball Cold War-era story except with "superheroes." In 1963, this story would have been one thing, but even by the mid-80s, the topic was quickly becoming irrelevant. And people complain about the commentary in George Romero films...

By the way, I just have to ask since y'all seem to be Watchmen disciples:
What was the point of Rorschach being killed? Aren't we led to believe that nobody would ever take what this guy has to say seriously? Why didn't Dr. Manhattan just send him off to Mars or something?

Danny

24-Jul-2009, 09:54 PM

:facepalm:

if you dont get why rorschach had to die in terms of subtext but call watchmen a rip-off i can safely say its not for you.

DubiousComforts

24-Jul-2009, 10:19 PM

:facepalm:

if you dont get why rorschach had to die in terms of subtext but call watchmen a rip-off i can safely say its not for you.
Even though that's not the only problem with the story, help me to "get it." Or is this some type of "secret club" thing that only certain people are supposed to understand, like D&D?

Btw, I never said "rip-off," I said "derivative." Don't blame me that the same story has been told before 'cause I didn't write it.

Danny

24-Jul-2009, 10:43 PM

its easier just to say yes its a secret club thing then.:p

DubiousComforts

24-Jul-2009, 10:56 PM

its easier just to say yes its a secret club thing then.:p
Now I get it: 'complicated' means that it's 'good.' Okie dokie. Is the big revelation that Adrian Veidt murdered The Comedian supposed to be a "secret club" thing, too? 'Cause as soon as I saw Veidt about 15 minutes into the film, I thought "oh, there's the bad guy." You'd really have to be not paying any attention if you don't realize this by the time he takes out his would-be assassin in super slo-mo. Maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order.

clanglee

24-Jul-2009, 10:59 PM

Even though that's not the only problem with the story, help me to "get it." Or is this some type of "secret club" thing that only certain people are supposed to understand, like D&D?

Btw, I never said "rip-off," I said "derivative." Don't blame me that the same story has been told before 'cause I didn't write it.

Everything is derivative. Nothing new under the sun. But the combination of elements in the Watchmen was quite original.

As for Rorsh. . It was much easier to follow in the original plotline of the GN, but he had to die, because he would have told the world the truth. Matter of fact, he already did so it didn't matter that they killed him. .maybe. The journal he mailed?

Now I get it: 'complicated' means that it's 'good.' Okie dokie. Is the big revelation that Adrian Veidt murdered The Comedian supposed to be a "secret club" thing, too? 'Cause as soon as I saw Veidt about 15 minutes into the film, I thought "oh, there's the bad guy." You'd really have to be not paying any attention if you don't realize this by the time he takes out his would-be assassin in super slo-mo. Maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order.

Yeah, but is he really the "bad" guy?

MoonSylver

24-Jul-2009, 11:13 PM

Saw this film about two weeks ago and it is just awful, yet I can't really blame Zack Snyder. I've never read anything by Moore and realize that he doesn't have anything to do with film adaptations of his work, but I can only assume that the source material is responsible for such a poor, derivative story with hopelessly-dated political commentary.

I mean, come on... hasn't anyone ever seen the original Outer Limits' Architects of Fear or read Fail Safe? God, I must be really old if I'm the only one that can remember this stuff.

Moore has admitted that he was inspired by the Architects of Fear. It's even playing in the background on one of the characters TV's in the GN. There are a LOT of cultural references & symbolism woven into the GN, some overt, some covert.

As for the dated political commentary, it is now, but it wasn't when the GN was written in the 80's. , hence the decision to keep it set in the 80's. It really is a period piece & the era is pretty integral to the story.

Danny

24-Jul-2009, 11:14 PM

Now I get it: 'complicated' means that it's 'good.' Okie dokie. Is the big revelation that Adrian Veidt murdered The Comedian supposed to be a "secret club" thing, too? 'Cause as soon as I saw Veidt about 15 minutes into the film, I thought "oh, there's the bad guy." You'd really have to be not paying any attention if you don't realize this by the time he takes out his would-be assassin in super slo-mo. Maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order.

no, not complicated, but your forgetting youve seen a movie which altered the plot, theres way more stuff in there than just the squid ending that snyder felt he could drop out. and i just cant be arsed to type it all out, trust me, read the book, the story will make sense and its much better than the movie, though i love the movie too.

MoonSylver

24-Jul-2009, 11:18 PM

Now I get it: 'complicated' means that it's 'good.' Okie dokie. Is the big revelation that Adrian Veidt murdered The Comedian supposed to be a "secret club" thing, too? 'Cause as soon as I saw Veidt about 15 minutes into the film, I thought "oh, there's the bad guy." You'd really have to be not paying any attention if you don't realize this by the time he takes out his would-be assassin in super slo-mo. Maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order.

As someone who had read the GN, it was hard for me to judge this. Everyone I asked said they didn't see it coming, but I thought they telegraphed it. Now the 1st time I read the GN...never even remotely saw it coming.

DubiousComforts

24-Jul-2009, 11:21 PM

Everything is derivative.
This is no excuse for poor writing. Unless they completely botched the source material, 60s cold war/threat of nuclear war fiction is to the film Watchmen as the novel 1984 is to a movie like Brazil. Yet one can still be entertained by Brazil without having read Orwell's novel for explanation and its commentary is still entirely relevant today.

Perhaps Watchmen really needed to be directed by someone like Terry Gilliam. Is the film's overt Outer Limits reference also in the graphic novel?

As for Rorsh. . It was much easier to follow in the original plotline of the GN, but he had to die, because he would have told the world the truth.
Shouldn't we be using spoilers here?

Anyway, who exactly would Rorschach have told? Who would have listened? He certainly isn't portrayed to be a very media savvy character like Veidt. What would have been his proof -- the 'blue guy' didn't do it? Isn't he technically a wanted fugitive at the end of the story?

Matter of fact, he already did so it didn't matter that they killed him. .maybe. The journal he mailed?
Yes, I understood that much. His journal floating around out there means another conspiracy theory is born. It's called 'irony.'

Yeah, but is he really the "bad" guy?
I got that, too. It's called "ambiguity." The blue guy really is responsible, he just doesn't realize it.

The problem here is that for this concept to work, you need to buy the idea that the threat of nuclear war is imminent and the peace that follows is genuine, yet it was completely hokey in the film and I didn't buy any of it. Even Architects of Fear is more realistic in that the plan is hatched knowing that perhaps nobody will fall for it.

Maybe this a fault with Watchmen the film more than Watchmen the graphic novel?

Moore has admitted that he was inspired by the Architects of Fear. It's even playing in the background on one of the characters TV's in the GN.
That answers one of my questions, thanks. I was wondering who among modern audiences or even fans of graphic novels would understand reference to a 45-year old television series in the film.

As someone who had read the GN, it was hard for me to judge this. Everyone I asked said they didn't see it coming, but I thought they telegraphed it. Now the 1st time I read the GN...never even remotely saw it coming.
I entirely agree that it's telegraphed and should come as no great shock in the film. Veidt seems to be one step removed from Hitler youth in his superior attitude and arrogance. If that wasn't intentional, then then filmmakers are dummies for not realizing it.

MinionZombie

25-Jul-2009, 09:56 AM

Bassman:

The only problem is I've never liked Snyder's face or voice, so I want to punch him everytime I see him. He does have some interesting stuff to talk about, though.

:lol:

I feel the exact same way - every time I've seen his face, or heard his voice, I just want to grab him by the neck and jiggle his big-grinny-gobbed face into a muddy puddle until he stops taking other people's hard work and pooping out utter gash/meh versions.

Aces:

Get MZ in here and I'm sure he'll be able to punch up this possible anti-ZS comment with some of his trade mark 'Ba-zing'.

Snyder is to filmmaking, what herpes are to a person - really annoying, a real turn-off to an otherwise sexy situation, and they never go away. :elol:

Plus, the advertising department who labelled Snyder as a "visionary" are just plain factually wrong - epic fail - Snyder is as far from being a visionary as I am from flying under my own arm-flapping power. :D

axlish

25-Jul-2009, 01:17 PM

Snyder is every bit as "visionary" as Robert Rodriguez. I'm guessing (by guessing, I mean 100% sure) that all this Snyder nonsense is based around the Dawn remake? Move along folks, it was old in 2004 the second the sentiment was realized.

AcesandEights

25-Jul-2009, 02:46 PM

:facepalm:

if you dont get why rorschach had to die in terms of subtext but call watchmen a rip-off i can safely say its not for you.

Just tell him you gave at the office and leave it at that, Hells ;)

Yojimbo

27-Jul-2009, 05:08 PM

Just saw this film last night on satellite. Yeah, I meant to see it in the theaters in IMAX, but missed my opportunity.

I had read the GN years ago and enjoyed it tremendously, as did many, so I had been looking forward to seeing this on the screen for many years now, though I had done so with the fear that this would be turned into a less-than-faithful represenation. As much as I would like to punch Zack Snyder in the nose, I have to admit that I enjoyed the screen version, and felt that it was much more faithful to GN than I had thought it would be. I also felt the characters, particulary Rorschach, were fleshed out very well, though like some here I think the dude playing Veidt was miscast - a bit too wussy looking and Rob Lowe like for my tastes.

Criticisms and spoilers follow below:

In spite of what I thought worked in the film, I have to say that a lot of plot elements were needlessly telegraphed in a manner which did not appear in the GN. For instance, when reading the novel, I had no idea until later in the story that Veidt was a villian, however, my wife who knows nothing about the original novel sees Veidt the first time he appears on screen and points out that he is obviously the bad guy. Same thing with the Commedian being Silk Specter's father - had no idea in the novel until Manhattan reveals this to her on Mars, yet my wife comes to this conclusion early on. Talking to her later, she mentioned that these were not unique revelations, but something that was telegraphed so obviously to her by the filmmaker that she thought she was supposed to know these things at those points in the story. She did enjoy the movie, BTW, and now wants to read the GN, but she said that the assumes that the GN was superior in storytelling to the film because of the obvious plot elements.

As to how much of what worked on the screen can be attributed to Snyder, I can speculate here but since I really don't like this dude I think that this hatred of his punchable face makes it difficult for me to be fair and objective. I can say, though, that Snyder has yet to do a film that he personally wrote or came up with, and that - fair or not- I am assuming that a lot of the reason why the film worked was because it was based on good source material and followed that source material rather faithfully.

Zack Snyder has shown that he is capable of putting together a movie that works, I will admit, but I do stop short of referring to him a visionary. If I was, for example, to take Orson Welles' "CITZEN KANE" (Yojimbo presents, Orson Welles' CITZEN KANE, a graphic novel) and hire a good graphic artist and ink team to make a frame by frame GN version, would I then be lauded as a great visionary, or would I deserve praise from those who liked the story in my graphic novel? Being the systems manager guy on this Citizen Kane GN project, would I be deserving of any credit beyond just hiring the right staff and materials (the best artist and ink man that I can find, the best letterer, the best printing facility, the best legal representation, the best publisher, the best promo team, etc) and shouldn't then love of the story be attributed more to Orson's vision than my own. And what more "vision" could I lay claim to with the exception of having the vision to make the good film into a comic book with my name on it?

In this way, I am left wondering how much of what worked in Watchmen the film was due to Snyder, and whether or not he simply served as a "systems manager" to a very talented group of people - Director of Photography, costume designers, digital artists, set designers and dressers, soundtrack coordinator, composers. In fact, by what folks are saying here on this thread the sequence that worked best for me (title sequence montage) was actually outsourced.

Again, I fear that I cannot be fair to Zack Snyder, but as of yet he has not reached the level Speilburg, Truffaut, or Kurosawa, let alone George A Romero by a long shot. And though it may not be fair, I suspect that any film school graduate with proper funding and a good crew backing him or her up would have been able to pull off what Snyder did in this film - possibly without the heavy handedness that telegraphed those plot points prematurely.

darth los

27-Jul-2009, 05:21 PM

Just saw this film last night on satellite. Yeah, I meant to see it in the theaters in IMAX, but missed my opportunity.

I had read the GN years ago and enjoyed it tremendously, as did many, so I had been looking forward to seeing this on the screen for many years now, though I had done so with the fear that this would be turned into a less-than-faithful represenation. As much as I would like to punch Zack Snyder in the nose, I have to admit that I enjoyed the screen version, and felt that it was much more faithful to GN than I had thought it would be. I also felt the characters, particulary Rorschach, were fleshed out very well, though like some here I think the dude playing Veidt was miscast - a bit too wussy looking and Rob Lowe like for my tastes.

Criticisms and spoilers follow below:

In spite of what I thought worked in the film, I have to say that a lot of plot elements were needlessly telegraphed in a manner which did not appear in the GN. For instance, when reading the novel, I had no idea until later in the story that Veidt was a villian, however, my wife who knows nothing about the original novel sees Veidt the first time he appears on screen and points out that he is obviously the bad guy. Same thing with the Commedian being Silk Specter's father - had no idea in the novel until Manhattan reveals this to her on Mars, yet my wife comes to this conclusion early on. Talking to her later, she mentioned that these were not unique revelations, but something that was telegraphed so obviously to her by the filmmaker that she thought she was supposed to know these things at those points in the story. She did enjoy the movie, BTW, and now wants to read the GN, but she said that the assumes that the GN was superior in storytelling to the film because of the obvious plot elements.

As to how much of what worked on the screen can be attributed to Snyder, I can speculate here but since I really don't like this dude I think that this hatred of his punchable face makes it difficult for me to be fair and objective. I can say, though, that Snyder has yet to do a film that he personally wrote or came up with, and that - fair or not- I am assuming that a lot of the reason why the film worked was because it was based on good source material and followed that source material rather faithfully.

If I was, for example, to take Orson Welles' "CITZEN KANE" (Yojimbo presents, Orson Welles' CITZEN KANE, a graphic novel) and hire a good graphic artist and ink team to make a frame by frame GN version, would I then be lauded as a great visionary, or would I deserve praise from those who liked the story in the graphic novel? Being the systems manager guy on this project, would I be deserving of any credit beyond just hiring the right staff and materials (the best artist and ink man that I can find, the best letterer, the best printing facility, special heavy & slick cardstock media to print on, etc) and shouldn't then love of the story (remember, nearly visually identical to Orson's movie shot for shot, frame for frame) be attributed more to Orson's vision than my own. And what more "vision" could I lay claim to with the exception of having the vision to make the film into a comic book.

In this way, I am left wondering how much of what worked in Watchmen the film was due to Snyder, and whether or not he simply served as a "systems manager" to a very talented group of people - Director of Photography, Costume Design, digital artists, soundtrack coordinator, composers)

Again, I fear that I cannot be fair to Zack Snyder, but as of yet he has not reached the level Speilburg, Truffaut, or Kurosawa, let alone George A Romero by a long shot. And though it may not be fair, I suspect that any film school graduate with proper funding and a good crew backing him or her up would have been able to pull off what Snyder did in this film - possibly without the heavy handedness that telegraphed those plot points prematurely.

No, there's no doubt about it. You can't be fair to him. :p

:cool:

bassman

27-Jul-2009, 05:21 PM

MinionZombie

27-Jul-2009, 05:32 PM

I never really considered it because I had read the novel years before....but now that you mention it, those plot points are pretty obvious. I guess Snyder forgot to keep it sneaky for the people in the audience that weren't familiar with the GN.
Very good point actually.

I've still not read the GN (I will do one day - any thoughts on the version with the cleaned-up artwork?) ... but yeah, those elements were pretty damn obvious.

I saw the 'comedian is the dad' thing a mile off, and the 'Veidt is a bad dude' was pretty clear early on too - he just looked like a bad guy, he sounded like a bad guy, so when he was the bad guy I was so not surprised.

Yojimbo

27-Jul-2009, 05:36 PM

I saw the 'comedian is the dad' thing a mile off, and the 'Veidt is a bad dude' was pretty clear early on too - he just looked like a bad guy, he sounded like a bad guy, so when he was the bad guy I was so not surprised.
Almost like a comic book bad guy, right?

Except here the comic book villan wasn't as obvious as the movie villan. Funny thing, is it Zack or in spite of Zack?

Might as well have been directed by Tim Burton, but then he would have cast Helena Bonham Carter as the Silk Spectre and that would have been sad.

AcesandEights

27-Jul-2009, 06:37 PM

No, there's no doubt about it. You can't be fair to him. :p

There is, and has been for some long time now, a lot of that going around :shifty:

I still think we need an 'I Hate Zack Snyder' thread for people to blow some steam off in.

Yojimbo

27-Jul-2009, 07:26 PM

Was going to write that I enjoyed the film "in spite of" Zack Snyders direction, but realize that it would not be fair.

Don't really respect the man, but enjoyed the film. Whether or not he is a decent director or in any way a visionary, I need to be fair and acknowledge even though it pains me to say that I enjoyed the film and Snyder may have had something to do with it.

Hope that is fair enough for you all. For the record, I still think he is a pompous hack, and would still like to pop him in the nose on principal.

AcesandEights

27-Jul-2009, 08:07 PM

Hate?

:rolleyes:

EDIT: Ok, everybody's entitled to some internet hyperbole. I know :p

Yojimbo

27-Jul-2009, 08:18 PM

Ok maybe "hate" is going too far. Still think he is a hack, though I will edit my response since my language was a bit too strong.

AcesandEights

27-Jul-2009, 08:31 PM

Ok maybe "hate" is going too far. Still think he is a hack, though I will edit my response since my language was a bit too strong.

Oh, Yo, don't edit yourself for us, man. I know it's the internet exerting it's evil hyperbole effect to allow you to let the hate flow and not real hate.

Real Zack Snyder hate is reserved for MZ, who has a Zack Snyder voodoo doll under his bed and burns bits of Zack Snyder hair as an offering to Astarte to curse him and who punches Zack Snyder's kids in their noses--all six of them!

By the way, is Zack Snyder a Mormon or something? Six kids? Jesus.

bassman

27-Jul-2009, 08:44 PM

By the way, is Zack Snyder a Mormon or something? Six kids? Jesus.

I have a friend who is only 26 and has 5 kids!:stunned:

Like Snyder, I don't think he's mormon....he's just never heard of birth control or pulling out.:p

MinionZombie

28-Jul-2009, 09:18 AM

Might as well have been directed by Tim Burton, but then he would have cast Helena Bonham Carter as the Silk Spectre and that would have been sad.

:lol:

I just saw a screenshot from his new flick - and HBC is in that too! Still, better than being the face of Skynet...:rolleyes:

bassman

23-Sep-2009, 04:43 PM

MinionZombie

23-Sep-2009, 05:40 PM

The specs for the "Ultimate Cut" have been released. As rumored, this is just the extremely long cut of the movie with Tales of the Black Freighter edited in, so if you want the directors or theatrical cut it won't be there. This just seems like overkill to me...

Link (http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=8715)
Well, the theatrical cut is included as a "digital copy" :rolleyes:

Indeed, this package is wholly lame in general, in fact, the DVDs of Watchmen have been a bit of a bugger up in my view.

R1 2-disc - Theatrical & Director's Cut, few extras
R2 2-disc - Theatrical Cut ONLY, more extras
R1 5-disc - Big-ass cut, no real choice otherwise, cartoon version of the comic book (why do you need that when you've got the movie and/or the book in your possession already?), no director's cut, barely anymore extras at all (possibly nothing new either) and that's about it.

So you're screwed no matter which package you pick really.

When I get the DVD at some point, it'll be the R1 2-disc probably, but I object to losing out on extra features that are in the R2 disc, but with that one I object to not being able to have the two different cuts of the movie.

Nob'eds.

axlish

24-Sep-2009, 01:02 AM

I'm good with the Director's Cut Blu-ray.

Speaking of the Blu-ray, I finally got a chance to watch the film in Maxium Movie Mode, and it was a really great experience. It is kind of like Infinifilm on steroids. Anyone else check this out yet? I can't wait for more films to employ this.

MoonSylver

24-Sep-2009, 01:05 AM

Well, the theatrical cut is included as a "digital copy" :rolleyes:

Indeed, this package is wholly lame in general, in fact, the DVDs of Watchmen have been a bit of a bugger up in my view.

R1 2-disc - Theatrical & Director's Cut, few extras
R2 2-disc - Theatrical Cut ONLY, more extras
R1 5-disc - Big-ass cut, no real choice otherwise, cartoon version of the comic book (why do you need that when you've got the movie and/or the book in your possession already?), no director's cut, barely anymore extras at all (possibly nothing new either) and that's about it.

So you're screwed no matter which package you pick really.

When I get the DVD at some point, it'll be the R1 2-disc probably, but I object to losing out on extra features that are in the R2 disc, but with that one I object to not being able to have the two different cuts of the movie.

Nob'eds.

Agreed 100%. I've been waiting for the Ultimate, but after seeing how lame it's going to be, I think I'm just gonna go ahead & get the Directors Cut & say fuck it. I get the vibe they really want you to but ALL THREE cut in order to get the full monty instead of just being able to buy the so-called "Ultimate". Fuck you Warner Bros.