|
Post by tap on Mar 8, 2009 13:10:36 GMT -5
I wrote a very lengthy and complicated review of the film if anyone is interested in reading it. It's critical, but more than a "it's good" or "it's bad" sense. I make some contentions about the book (that I have NOT read) that may rankle some people... it's more a manner of "this is what I know about the book, this is what I've heard, this is what I think it means at this point in time."
Again, if people are interested, I'll post it.
|
|
|
Post by jfpierce on Mar 8, 2009 13:11:07 GMT -5
Fine if you want to be that way. I'm just saying. You are implying that pro-wrestling is cut and dry, and I'm stating that it isn't, by using the same reasons you say Watchmen isn't cut and dry. I don't mean to put words in someone else's mouth, but I think it had to do with likening what Moore did as a writer to a booker trying to get Rorschach over as a heel and failing at that. I think its fine to talk about what Moore failed at, but it has to be something he was attempting to do in the first place. I think the only character that has no redeeming qualities to him is the Comedian; everyone else is trying to do the right thing as they see it, but hampered by how their superhero identities have limited their ability to understand people. As for what Moore didn't succeed at there are two areas that in my opinion never really worked. The first is integrating Tales of the Black Freighter into the work as a whole. The connections only really come through in the end, and they aren't much. It's interesting in its own right, but dropping it for the film was a good decision. The other is the ridiculous original ending. The movie ending is actually a small improvement, but the problem remains that the idea that Veidt's plan could ever unite humanity is ridiculous. Veidt, as smart as he is, doesn'tunderstand people, so it almost makes sense that he would do it, but why would anyone go along with him? It's destined to fail with or without Rorschach's diary. Showing the opening sequence from The Outer Limits near the end of the film was a nice touch, as the original ending is the same as an episode of it.
|
|
|
Post by texaswhopper on Mar 8, 2009 14:26:17 GMT -5
I really liked this movie. Alot of people didn't and that is their right. I think you will either like it or you won't.
I thought the concept of heroes and villains trying to live normal lives after retiring was wild.
I like how the original Nite Owl talked about giving a hook to Captain Axis.
A former villain was living in some dump apartment trying to get some sleep.
I liked the part when Nite Owl II talked to Silk Spectre II over dinner about that guy who kept wanting to get his ass kicked. He kept claiming to be a villain.
On a plus not related to the concept I mentioned...
Mani or Pedi-Snorks rule. I want some woman to do that to my finger or toe. HOT
|
|
|
Post by salsashark on Mar 8, 2009 16:03:38 GMT -5
Mr Potato God is a person I often disagree with but here he's absolutely right. There is a ton of ridiculous misinformation out there about Moore. Why does everyone spit so much vitriol at him? The man wrote this work and he didn't want to see it bastardized. What's so wrong about that? He and Gibbons built this universe essentially on their own and he is 100% entitled to not go gaga over seeing the screen adaptation, especially after garbage like V for Vendetta and LXG has polluted theaters. Just because people (myself included) go into fanboy hysterics while seeing certain moments on screen doesn't mean that it will resonate with him. In fact, I think people like Moore and JD Salinger (who has notoriously never permitted The Catcher In The Rye to be put onto film because of a poor adaptation before) retain a hell of a lot of integrity. This is not a crack on comic book adaptations, comic book films, or film as a medium in general. The creator should be allowed to have a say in where his work ends up, and if he doesn't (as per a contract), why not afford him some respect as the guy that put this together?
On a peripheral note, creators like Alan Moore and Bill Watterson are a lot cooler than merchandise whores like George Lucas and Matt Groening. Of course, there can be a happy medium between the two, but when it's a dichtomy like that, the former win.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Mar 8, 2009 16:07:49 GMT -5
Except some of us didn't like it, and maybe he is in our camp. I never thought it was unfilmable, I always thought more along the lines of "why would you?" Everything is filmable, it just depends on if you want the final product to be good. This movie is so middle of the road to me it is kind of pathetic. I really don't understand why people are loving it so much.
AS for the wrestling analogy, I see it along the lines of Rorschach is is one of the dirty guys you love. DEspite the intentions, fans are drawn to the character.
Plus I truly feel he wasn't a good guy, he is a guy you rooted for, not because he was good, but because he was so singular in his vision, he saw everything in black and white, either I am right, or screw it, I am right.
And that is one reason I disliked the movie, they really made him feel like a crusader, not a guy out to do things for his own selfish reasons. And that is not at all in the spirit of the book.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 8, 2009 16:10:38 GMT -5
I don't think anyone who doesn't want to see a movie is on a high horse. Mr. Potato's reasons sound legitimate to me. In fact if he has as much reverance for the book as it sounds like you people that did like the movie should know he's not going to like it, then you will just be calling him an unsatisfiable fanboi when he states as much.
If anyone is on a high horse it was Snyder. He knew Moore didn't want it made into a movie, but still believes if he sees it he will like it. When Robert Rodriguez wanted to make Sin City he knew Frank Miller didn't want that made into a movie, so he shot one scene and hand delivered it to him. He said, "This is yours, all I ask is that you watch it." Miller did and loved it. As aloof as people think Moore is he does love to talk the arts with other people, and if shown a bit of reverance from the people whom he, imo rightfully believes crap on his work for profit he probably would have at least seen it and maybe even offered some feedback. Dave Gibbons did apparently.
As it is there are people who say Veidt was an assclown, or Rorschach was the only real hero. I went with three people who didn't read the book. The guy who like action movies liked it. The guy who I will lend the book to as soon as I get my copy back hated it, he said all the characters were just shallow. The girl thought it was a dumb action flick with a Shamalan twist. That's the legacy of this movie to me. They took a deep book that blurred lines between good and bad, and had a host of characters you could identify with and turned it into a shallow action flick with righteous goody-good Rorschach and sinister supervillain Ozymandias. Which is kind of what Moore said they would do. He said Hollywood buys an intellectual concept dumps millions into it than has to dumb it down for the masses to recoup their investment.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Potato God on Mar 8, 2009 16:25:34 GMT -5
Fine if you want to be that way. I'm just saying. You are implying that pro-wrestling is cut and dry, and I'm stating that it isn't, by using the same reasons you say Watchmen isn't cut and dry. I don't mean to put words in someone else's mouth, but I think it had to do with likening what Moore did as a writer to a booker trying to get Rorschach over as a heel and failing at that. I think its fine to talk about what Moore failed at, but it has to be something he was attempting to do in the first place. Bingo. 1000 points!
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Mar 8, 2009 17:03:25 GMT -5
Mr Potato God is a person I often disagree with but here he's absolutely right. There is a ton of ridiculous misinformation out there about Moore. Why does everyone spit so much vitriol at him? The man wrote this work and he didn't want to see it bastardized. What's so wrong about that? He and Gibbons built this universe essentially on their own and he is 100% entitled to not go gaga over seeing the screen adaptation, especially after garbage like V for Vendetta and LXG has polluted theaters. Just because people (myself included) go into fanboy hysterics while seeing certain moments on screen doesn't mean that it will resonate with him. In fact, I think people like Moore and JD Salinger (who has notoriously never permitted The Catcher In The Rye to be put onto film because of a poor adaptation before) retain a hell of a lot of integrity. This is not a crack on comic book adaptations, comic book films, or film as a medium in general. The creator should be allowed to have a say in where his work ends up, and if he doesn't (as per a contract), why not afford him some respect as the guy that put this together? On a peripheral note, creators like Alan Moore and Bill Watterson are a lot cooler than merchandise whores like George Lucas and Matt Groening. Of course, there can be a happy medium between the two, but when it's a dichtomy like that, the former win. if you read my post you'll see I never said anything bad about Moore. he's a brilliant writer, and if he doesn't like movies based on his work, that's his prerogative and it's fine that he feels that way. I was just saying that I doubt he'd like it, since he's known for having that attitude towards movies, even ones that are mostly faithful to the source material (though, to be fair, this is the first Moore book I've seen where the director actually made a faithful adaptation). what I was saying is that Alan Moore gets put on the pedestal by some people as some kind of eccentric wizard who can do no wrong ever, which, to be honest, is an attitude I think he himself would take issue with.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 8, 2009 17:22:30 GMT -5
I doubt Moore would like it because it's NOT a faithfull adaptation. Some scenes are directly from the book that is true but I think that just means he used the book as a storyboard.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Mar 8, 2009 17:47:59 GMT -5
I don't think anyone who doesn't want to see a movie is on a high horse. Mr. Potato's reasons sound legitimate to me. In fact if he has as much reverance for the book as it sounds like you people that did like the movie should know he's not going to like it, then you will just be calling him an unsatisfiable fanboi when he states as much. If anyone is on a high horse it was Snyder. He knew Moore didn't want it made into a movie, but still believes if he sees it he will like it. When Robert Rodriguez wanted to make Sin City he knew Frank Miller didn't want that made into a movie, so he shot one scene and hand delivered it to him. He said, "This is yours, all I ask is that you watch it." Miller did and loved it. As aloof as people think Moore is he does love to talk the arts with other people, and if shown a bit of reverance from the people whom he, imo rightfully believes crap on his work for profit he probably would have at least seen it and maybe even offered some feedback. Dave Gibbons did apparently. As it is there are people who say Veidt was an assclown, or Rorschach was the only real hero. I went with three people who didn't read the book. The guy who like action movies liked it. The guy who I will lend the book to as soon as I get my copy back hated it, he said all the characters were just shallow. The girl thought it was a dumb action flick with a Shamalan twist. That's the legacy of this movie to me. They took a deep book that blurred lines between good and bad, and had a host of characters you could identify with and turned it into a shallow action flick with righteous goody-good Rorschach and sinister supervillain Ozymandias. Which is kind of what Moore said they would do. He said Hollywood buys an intellectual concept dumps millions into it than has to dumb it down for the masses to recoup their investment. Shallow action flick? At nearly three hours long, and with so many intertwining threads, storylines, characters and events? I disagree most strongly. You want a shallow action flick? Go and watch INDY IV, TRANSFORMERS, GI JOE, THE TRANSPORTER, ect. This was nothing of the sort, even if it DID somehow, in your opinion, not live up to the book. I loved the book as much as anyone here....heck, I was championing the book back before ANY film was ever planned. But I can still sit here at the end of the day and say that I am satisfied with the job they did in translating this. Hate Snyder all you want, but this would have been MUCH worse with someone like Ratner at the helm. Hell, all HE would have cared about was getting into Silk Spectre's panties.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 8, 2009 18:07:16 GMT -5
But see those of us who already read the book had opinions on the characters. The people that had never read the book either didn't give a crap about anyone except maybe Rorschach or developed very off base ideas about them. Length does not equal character development. I don't hate Snyder. I really enjoyed 300. Watchmen probably is a better movie then Ratner would have made. Those shallow movies you did mention are also probably better then if they had been made by Uwe Boll. So, does knowing that make you think they are good now. Better then horrid can simply be bad. I thought Watchmen, the movie was simply subpar, which is sad because I thought the book was downright great.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Mar 8, 2009 18:19:02 GMT -5
I generally liked it. My main grievance was that there parts that felt too... dry, flat, going through the motions... I have yet to find the right words for it. It also played Rorshach's identity and Adrian too obviously, granted this might only be because I've read the GN a few times. Hopefully the Extended Cut will fix continuity problems like {Spoiler}the sudden appearance of Bubastis as well as showing more of the "bread and butter" scenes like the NYC news stand as well as hopefully having more of the scenes with Rorshach's psychiatrist. I'm on the fence as to whether to get the Curse of the Black Freighter DVD or not.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Mar 8, 2009 23:01:45 GMT -5
But see those of us who already read the book had opinions on the characters. The people that had never read the book either didn't give a crap about anyone except maybe Rorschach or developed very off base ideas about them. Length does not equal character development. I don't hate Snyder. I really enjoyed 300. Watchmen probably is a better movie then Ratner would have made. Those shallow movies you did mention are also probably better then if they had been made by Uwe Boll. So, does knowing that make you think they are good now. Better then horrid can simply be bad. I thought Watchmen, the movie was simply subpar, which is sad because I thought the book was downright great. Subpar as compared to WHAT? I mean, the hell did you want out of it? It's not like Hitchcock or Orson f***ing Welles was going to come back from the grave to bring it to life. My point is, this was going to happen EVENTUALLY. Once Hollywood got the ball rolling with Moore's stuff with LXG, FROM HELL, and V FOR VENDETTA, it was only a matter of time before they got around to his most sacred, and in my opinion, best work. And FYI, Hollywood has made bombs out of better, more highly respected work than WATCHMEN. Mellville's MOBY DICK, Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN, even Stoker's DRACULA and Tolkien's THE HOBBIT have withstood crapball renditions. If those literary lions are not considered sacred, how....self congratulatory would someone have to be to put Moore's WATCHMEN above them? I can accept that you didn't personally like it. Not everyone will. But to call it subpar or even BAD is doing it an injustice of major proportions. And honestly, I will go back to how I felt about GRAN TORINO with this movie too. How jaded are we that something this epic and grandiose fails to make an impression? What more did you want from this movie? Considering the hideousness that certain franchises, such as FANTASTIC FOUR, and even the XMEN under Brett Ratner have undergone, I think WATCHMEN came out all right. And if you're comparing it to the books...I can understand you saying that it pales. Honestly, I feel that way about damn near every Stephen King adaptation Hollywood butchers. The first King adaptation that I honestly thought was a home run all the way was THE MIST, and people STILL bitched about the ending being changed. I mean, yeah, I liked CARRIE, I liked CHRISTINE, and enjoyed CUJO for what it was. But so much of King's work has been just horribly mistranslated, that to me, his books will always be superior to whatever film is made out of them. So I can understand this film not living up to the book. There's no way it could have. My point is, Snyder took an impossible situation, and he made it work. He did what, in my mind, no one else could have. He didn't FAIL. He brought as goddamn much of this book to the screen as he could, and for that, he should be commended. No one got changed into a stormcloud, there was no Jessica Alba hogging f***ing camera time with her talentless, unable to emote ass, and no one got put into anyone else's storyline for the purpose of appeasing egos and selling more merchandise. Disaster was averted, and it's only those last few sticklers that cannot get past the idea that this is not an epic failure, and Snyder did not go down in flames. Not saying you have to love it....I feel I have to re-iterate that again. All I am saying is that to deny that this was indeed a good outcome is being very shortsighted.
|
|
King of Fighters
Unicron
Me and you, we get Superman, were from the streets
Posts: 3,418
|
Post by King of Fighters on Mar 8, 2009 23:07:38 GMT -5
Not saying you have to love it....I feel I have to re-iterate that again. All I am saying is that to deny that this was indeed a good outcome is being very shortsighted. While I feel the movie was good *Not for me but it was good* I wanna know how this was a good outcome for a adaptation when the ending was changed?
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Mar 8, 2009 23:19:44 GMT -5
I thought that it was a very well made, well thought out "Super Hero Movie".
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Mar 8, 2009 23:19:52 GMT -5
Fine if you want to be that way. I'm just saying. You are implying that pro-wrestling is cut and dry, and I'm stating that it isn't, by using the same reasons you say Watchmen isn't cut and dry. Difference is in the intention. Think about how wrestling bookers' work might differ from Alan Moore's. I don't want to derail the thread. In my opinion, wrestling works best when there are very clearly defined faces and heels. That is certainly an interesting perspective. I mean take for example how the 'E's bookers are using Kane, they can't even keep on a straight path to whether he is a face or heel. They use him in whatever slot they need. If they need a throwaway heel, Kane's that heel. Throwaway face? Kane. Moore does do an awesome thing by making all of his characters debateable.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Mar 8, 2009 23:22:57 GMT -5
Not saying you have to love it....I feel I have to re-iterate that again. All I am saying is that to deny that this was indeed a good outcome is being very shortsighted. While I feel the movie was good *Not for me but it was good* I wanna know how this was a good outcome for a adaptation when the ending was changed? Ok, I can justify that, as far as my own opinion goes. See, there are GOOD ending changes, there are BAD ending changes, and then there are those that, much like THE MIST and WATCHMEN, will be debated til the end of time by book loyalists and film fans alike. I feel that this particular ending change was justified due to the fact that as I stated earlier, this film WAS absolutely happening in one way, shape or form; therefore, the big hangup was the ending of the novel and how to pull it off. After exhausting every other option, Snyder and Co. decided to change it to something that, while not how the book ended, still keeps with that whole "threat from outside" motif, and could be realistically pulled off within their budget. Except instead of a psi-bomb ALIEN, it's the Doc himself that is portrayed as the threat. Kind of like telling all the world's nuclear Superpowers that there is indeed a God watching them, and he is indeed PISSED OFF at them for almost destroying the world. Pissed enough to level several cities and smite the citizens much like the stories of Soddom and Gomorrah in the Bible. Now, I can understand that people are picking this apart and saying that upon further examination, Ozymandias' plan doesn't work....it has flaws. The book plan had a huge flaw as well, not to mention that Rorschach's journal would have undone it, just like in this film. Anyway, long story short, I think that this ending...in my mind....doesn't piss all over anything, nor spit in the face of the source material. It's not as if, after all, Snyder had Ozymandias absorbing the powers of Manhattan, growing to 90 feet tall, and squishing Nixon between his toes. Or as if he had had Rorschach live, just because Rorschach sells more merchandise and "we want to send the kiddies home happy". Those would have been hateful, spiteful endings. And for the amount of stuff that Snyder got RIGHT, and goddamn DEAD ON....I personally can forgive the ending change. Much as I did with Darabont and THE MIST. Honestly, that ending was so f***ing SHOCKING that I applauded in the theater, because it had been so long since a film had really GOT me like that. Am I kind of making sense with what I'm saying?
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Mar 8, 2009 23:26:13 GMT -5
I just got back from seeing the film. While not overwhelming like I had hoped, I found that it was a very solid film which I really enjoyed. For every minor thing I disliked, like Vendt being behind it all (which my wife noticed and she's never read the book) there was something for me to love, like Jackie Earle Haley's performance of Rorshach. The man literally became the character I imagined when I first read the comic.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Mar 8, 2009 23:26:44 GMT -5
Except we never once get the feeling that Doc Man is watching over them, or that he did it to tell them to cool his heels. If I was a country in power I would think "oh crap, the United States super weapon just went rogue, we are all screwed, lets blow up the USA so they make no more of these things".
On the plus side, with the Mist, King was all for the filming, and he said the new ending was better than his own.
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Mar 8, 2009 23:27:35 GMT -5
Now, when I have some extra money (Merc work is light in this economy) I have to get the comic and read it for the first time!
|
|