Watchmen

[EvilNed]

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]

Way to go binary rating man... God, opinions like that, well, they just suck 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.

[Trencher]

Looks good exept for emo Ozymidiaz 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]

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...

[EvilNed]

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]

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

[Neil]

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* 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...

[EvilNed]

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. 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]

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... 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

[clanglee]

Pervy Rorschach lover Nope, that's me.

[AcesandEights]

Nope, that's me. 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]

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

[AcesandEights]

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

[clanglee]

Bing! ARRHHHHHGGHH!!! can't see it from work. never mind. . it came up. THAT IS AWESOME!!

[bassman]

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. 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.