FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » So who's going to watch the Watchmen? (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: So who's going to watch the Watchmen?
jebus202
Member
Member # 2524

 - posted      Profile for jebus202   Email jebus202         Edit/Delete Post 
Don't tell me you only find porn erotic, Mr. Potato Head, that would be very sad.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nighthawk
Member
Member # 4176

 - posted      Profile for Nighthawk   Email Nighthawk         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leonide:
I think if one were to compare the scene in question to one from, say, your average soft-core porn sex scene, the differences would be obvious.

Yeah... Instead of doing it inside a flamethrowing hovercraft, they'd be doing it in a gymnasium or in a kitchen.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
OK, I know you've all moved on, but I just read Schlussel's review.

quote:
At the same time, the Soviets are about to nuke America. It's 1985 and Nixon is President. We've won in Vietnam. Oh, and Henry Kissinger has a Russian accent. And Ronald Reagan is thinking of running for President in 1988. Wow, isn't that cool that they got it wrong on purpose? I'm so amazed at this "high-brow art" of deliberately getting dates and timelines wrong, you know, just to be "artistic," and get the drooling of the critics. That is sooooo genius. Like way totally cool.

Maybe if I make a movie about how Eisenhower was President in 1972, we "lost" World War II, and Bin Laden was gonna bomb the World Trade Center then, I'll be cool, too. . . so long as it's "dark" and I include a bunch of rape, torture, explicit sex scenes, and extremely graphic killings, and oh, write a "graphic novel" a/k/a comic book about it, first.

Please, no one ever let this woman review the Ender's Game movie.

quote:
Oh, they think they're SOOOO clever, with their "Formic invasion" and the "molecular disruption device." I just bet they all just LOVE talking about how awesome they are because they thought of training military commanders in an orbiting "school." Maybe if I wrote a movie where we "land" on Mars, and make that planet more "Earth-like", then I will be the great author, just as long as I make sure the movie is about how cool it is to murder children!

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Thus, not everything erotic is porn, and that statement really shouldn't need defending.
That is exactly the statement that I was requesting an explanation for. While it may not need any defending, since it hasn't been attacked by anybody, it certainly does need explaining for full understanding.

The issue about what exactly the phrase meant was just a side issue that came up after my initial request.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
OK, I know you've all moved on, but I just read Schlussel's review.

quote:
At the same time, the Soviets are about to nuke America. It's 1985 and Nixon is President. We've won in Vietnam. Oh, and Henry Kissinger has a Russian accent. And Ronald Reagan is thinking of running for President in 1988. Wow, isn't that cool that they got it wrong on purpose? I'm so amazed at this "high-brow art" of deliberately getting dates and timelines wrong, you know, just to be "artistic," and get the drooling of the critics. That is sooooo genius. Like way totally cool.

Maybe if I make a movie about how Eisenhower was President in 1972, we "lost" World War II, and Bin Laden was gonna bomb the World Trade Center then, I'll be cool, too. . . so long as it's "dark" and I include a bunch of rape, torture, explicit sex scenes, and extremely graphic killings, and oh, write a "graphic novel" a/k/a comic book about it, first.

Please, no one ever let this woman review the Ender's Game movie.

quote:
Oh, they think they're SOOOO clever, with their "Formic invasion" and the "molecular disruption device." I just bet they all just LOVE talking about how awesome they are because they thought of training military commanders in an orbiting "school." Maybe if I wrote a movie where we "land" on Mars, and make that planet more "Earth-like", then I will be the great author, just as long as I make sure the movie is about how cool it is to murder children!

Or Homecoming, if there ever is a movie.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
neo-dragon
Member
Member # 7168

 - posted      Profile for neo-dragon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Thus, not everything erotic is porn, and that statement really shouldn't need defending.
That is exactly the statement that I was requesting an explanation for. While it may not need any defending, since it hasn't been attacked by anybody, it certainly does need explaining for full understanding.

The issue about what exactly the phrase meant was just a side issue that came up after my initial request.

I don't even understand why it needs explaining, to tell the truth. I've simply always understood "Erotic" and "pornographic" to mean different things. A dictionary can probably explain that difference better than I can, if an explanation really is wanted.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
I figured out out!

You see, the problem here is that I've been repeatedly misreading "erotic" as "erotica".

If I had realized that the word "erotica" wasn't being used, I never would have said anything.

[END OF LINE]

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yeah... Instead of doing it inside a flamethrowing hovercraft, they'd be doing it in a gymnasium or in a kitchen.
I think someone sitting down to watch the Watchman scene with hopes that it will deliver the same as a soft core porn would be severely disappointed.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Someone sitting down in hopes it would deliver the same level of violence as The Dark Knight was also very disappointed.

Noemon: Context, expectations, and, well, the difference between static and live. And, for me, being in English.

[ March 11, 2009, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Someone sitting down in hopes it would deliver the same level of violence as The Dark Knight was also very disappointed.

Don't the two movies have different ratings?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I thought they did. What was the superhero movie people were all excited about because it was the highest-grossing rated-R movie?

I tell you what, though, if Watchmen was a sample, I'm going back to the No-Rated-R movies stance. The good movies I'll miss aren't worth taking the chance they'll be like Watchmen, if that's the new standard for a R rating.

I mean, the movie has the same rating as The Matrix. That's crazy.

ETA: Oh, 300. Which I liked. Even keeping it to the (fantasy) violence and nudity levels of 300 would have been okay.

[ March 11, 2009, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corwin
Member
Member # 5705

 - posted      Profile for Corwin           Edit/Delete Post 
I've seen "Burn after Reading", "Body of Lies", "Appaloosa", "In Bruges", "Revolutionary Road" and probably many other R rated movies lately, and none of them had the extreme violence that was in "Watchmen". I doubt that it'll become the standard anytime soon. [Smile]
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
Why is 300 considered fantasy violence? Because they were on CGI sets?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
Here, The Dark Knight was 14A whereas Watchmen was 18A -- the same rating as the movies in the Saw franchise.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Because they were on CGI sets?
*puzzled* What? Why would that do it?

Fantasy setting, fantasy staging (choreography), fantasy fighting (swords don't do that) vs. miter saw in a modern prison.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm interested in the idea that something about the fantasy "nature" of the movie makes the violence okay, or somehow more acceptable, because it's fantastical. IIRC, 300 wasn't beyond believability, it just stretched it a bit and implied powers/forces beyong your normal mortal person's. By that logic, Watchmen is fantasy as well -- a man exploded into his consituent atoms reactualizes himself, etc...but also the fighting. No one as slight as Malin Akerman could kick a man's leg into bending the other way, or anyone as "out of shape" as Nite Owl/Patrick Wilson could inflict the level of damage he does. Do realistic elements in an alternate universe make it non-fantasy? I mean, Sparta really existed, right? Actually, Watchmen is more fantastical than 300 because it's not "incredibly, painfully Loosely based on actual events".
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:

Noemon: Context, expectations, and, well, the difference between static and live. And, for me, being in English.

I can understand that.

For what it's worth, I'd say that this movie was easily the most violent I've seen in a long time, and I'd guess that most of the movies I see are rated R. The actual sex scenes were fairly tame compared to what I've often seen in movies that I'd guess were rated R, but there was certainly much more non-sexual male nudity than I've seen in most movies.

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I tell you what, though, if Watchmen was a sample, I'm going back to the No-Rated-R movies stance. The good movies I'll miss aren't worth taking the chance they'll be like Watchmen, if that's the new standard for a R rating.
You could always read up on the content before seeing the R-rated movies. The level of nudity and violence in this film is pretty well-documented and there are sites out there that provide very detailed inventories of potentially objectionable content, down to the number of people that are smoking or being disrespectful to their parents.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
If I had kat's concerns, I'd be reluctant to go that route because I'd be concerned about spoilers. What would probably be ideal would be a friend who knew my tastes well, and who would be willing to vet R rated movies for me.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
If I had kat's concerns, I'd be reluctant to go that route because I'd be concerned about spoilers. What would probably be ideal would be a friend who knew my tastes well, and who would be willing to vet R rated movies for me.

The one site that I used to frequently refer to for screening out inappropriate stuff for my kids, screenit.com, was pretty good at breaking things down separate from the plot summary so you could get a good sense of the content without actually getting many spoilers.

We don't watch as many movies with the kids these days, so I'm not up on what's currently available. I think screenit.com went to a subscription model.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting. I'd never used a service like that, but was assuming that they probably summarized the plots in the course of their analysis. Sounds like something like that would be useful for a person with kat's concerns.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Achilles
Member
Member # 7741

 - posted      Profile for Achilles           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I figured out out!

You see, the problem here is that I've been repeatedly misreading "erotic" as "erotica".

If I had realized that the word "erotica" wasn't being used, I never would have said anything.

[END OF LINE]

I Missed it. Sorry Porter, you seemed to have worked it out.

My anecdote is this:

Long ago I went to a comic convention. At the time I was in my twenties and enjoyed Heavy Metal and underground comics. There is an artist by the name of Guido Crepax who produces wonderful erotic art, gorgeous fantasy black and white art, fabulously executed. I saw a rare portfolio of his work at a stand, and approached the vendor to purchase it.

He eyed me suspiciously, asking for ID. Whatever, I produced it. He asked me if I was familiar with the work, and I said yes, I considered it great art. He narrowed his eyes and, reluctantly, sold it to me, claiming it was porn.

I don't see erotic art as porn. My wife is surprised at such reactions when others comment to her about some of my artistic tastes. She says that she knows I'm just looking at the technique and composition, not to get aroused by it.

Many artists have made erotic art in a purely aesthetic fashion. The subject can be beautiful. Sometimes the subject is ugly. There are many shades between. This is one reason why it is so difficult to define what porn is, and what it is not.

Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Achilles:
I don't see erotic art as porn. My wife is surprised at such reactions when others comment to her about some of my artistic tastes. She says that she knows I'm just looking at the technique and composition, not to get aroused by it.

Many artists have made erotic art in a purely aesthetic fashion. The subject can be beautiful. Sometimes the subject is ugly. There are many shades between. This is one reason why it is so difficult to define what porn is, and what it is not.

I agree with all of this. I just have one comment:

quote:
She says that she knows I'm just looking at the technique and composition, not to get aroused by it.
My take on this in the general case (i.e. the royal "you") is: even if you were, so what? As long as the partner is aware and doesn't mind then it's no big deal. What's even better is if the partner shares the interest, because then you can talk about what you do and don't like, and why.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Achilles
Member
Member # 7741

 - posted      Profile for Achilles           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, I'm not saying I don't get aroused by it sometimes.

And she gets aroused by it more often than I. [Wink]

Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
[Smile]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
neo-dragon
Member
Member # 7168

 - posted      Profile for neo-dragon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:

I mean, the movie has the same rating as The Matrix. That's crazy.


I agree with you on that point. I can't think of a single reason why the Matrix shouldn't be rated PG-13. Our rating system makes more sense. Watchmen is rated 18A while The Matrix was 14A, I believe.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
It occurred to me today that I think I'd rather Watchmen have been filmed as a 12 part miniseries. I think it would be particularly neat if it had been filmed in such a way that on the DVD, you could do a sort of "build it yourself Watchmen."

Want the NC-17, full length 12 hour version complete with some random artsy take on the Black Freighter segments and documentary footage referencing the biography? Knock yourself out. (I don't know if you could film the Black Freighter segments the same way they were presented in the book, but I think

Want to see the more "typical rated R version?" Watch the version with the appropriate pieces clipped out.

Want to show the "PG-13 version" to your kids? Watch the version where Manhattan decides he has a little modesty left over and wheres the black shorts the whole time.

Want to see the blockbuster awesomeness section where they cut all the documentary and artsy-frieghter footage, leaving approximately the 2.5 hours we saw in theaters? You could do that to. (That version would probably also be released in theaters, to help recoup the cost of making such a lengthy production)

Not sure whether that would be economically viable, but it would've been cool.

Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post 
In a way, they've done that. They're releasing a "Black Freighter" dvd and a "motion comic" version of the original graphic novel (haven't seen it but it seems like the took the original comic added sounded and some motion to create a super long movie).

They just haven't edited it all together. But it seems like they've taken some extra steps to really please the fanboys. Atleast its more of an attempt than I've seen done with any other adaptation. And I'm sure the final dvd release of the movie will have a ton of extras.

Heck maybe they could throw in some "video editing made easy" software on a bonus disc. Then everyone could personalize the movie. I'd add in some Black Freighter, keep Dr. Manhattan's junk, remove the extra shots of Dan's booty, cut back on the gore, and use the "alternate/original" ending.

Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh. That's neat.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
I love the concept of the "Build Your Own Movie." In fact, I'm hoping some indie company releases something like this eventually -- although it might only work with something, like Watchmen, that has a presence outside of the film realm so viewers can access that (the novel, graphic novel, etc.) and decide for themselves what goes into the movie. Ooh, something like House of Leaves, maybe!

Of course, I think the vast majority of patrons would prefer the normal, pre-packaged cinematic epxerience [Smile]

Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't even know what to say about this open letter from one of the Watchmen screenwriters. Other than, well, ick.

Because telling your audience that watching your movie is like being raped is a great marketing tool. Yeah.

Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with a lot of what he said, but, yeah, the rape analogy really squicked me out. You're not supposed to celebrate the fact that Sally "went back," you're just supposed to vaguely understand it in a kind of dark way.

I'll be seeing the movie again this week, though not because this writer told me to [Smile]

Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd see it if he gave me the money for the movie matinee and some sushi. Like 20 bucks worth of the stuff because I love sushi and I can't ever get enough of it.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
Free sushi in exchange for seeing movies: the wave of the future!
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged
Member
Member # 7476

 - posted      Profile for Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged   Email Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged         Edit/Delete Post 
IMHO if they really wanted to do Watchmen right it should have been a 12 part HBO mini series.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
neo-dragon
Member
Member # 7168

 - posted      Profile for neo-dragon           Edit/Delete Post 
Exclusive: leaked dialogue from the extended director's cut!


GRAPHIC NOVEL SPOILERS


(Occurs right after Veidt describes his plan)

Dan: "Tell us, Adrian, what would you have done if you couldn't simulate Jon's power and have him take the blame?"

Veidt: "Well, I did have a back up plan..."

Dan: "Oh?"

Veidt: "Of course. I created a giant bio-engineered squid like monster possessing the cloned brain of a human psychic. I would have used it to fake an alien invasion."

Dan and Rorschach: (stare in disbelief)

Veidt: "Really! It's actually still down in my basement. I haven't got a clue what I'm going to do with it now... Want to see it? It enjoys having its tentacles tickled."

Dan and Rorschach: (continue to stare)

Veidt: (looks embarrassed) "Yeah... I'm glad I didn't have to resort to something that Bizarre.

Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
[ROFL]

That was beautiful, man.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
I just saw this. I will include spoilers below. (BTW...If you've read this thread and are still reading despite a desire not to be spoiled, you're craaay zee.)

Unlike (I gather) most of the people posting on this thread, I'm a Watchmen neophyte. I did read a lot of the spoilers in this thread before I went to see it, but that was like a month ago so I had forgotten most of them (I did remember there was supposed to be a blue penis - who could forget that?).

From someone who had few expectations, I thought the movie was pretty poorly done. Some impressions:

-Jeez, Dr. Manhattan's nudity was not a big deal. Do you want a character who is detached from petty human concerns or not? He was cartoony enough that it wasn't even distracting.

-Yes, the Archie sex scene was longer than it needed to be. (I wasn't complaining, but I can see why some people would.)

-The level of violence and sex and nudity is VERY similar to 300. Not sure why anyone would be OK with 300 and object to the content of this film. It's almost a 1:1 for rape and sex scenes (seriously), and both have gore end to end. I guess the color palette and implements of violence are sometimes more realistic in the Watchmen, but that's a minor difference.

-The hand to hand combat, I think, hurt the movie. If we're supposed to get an idea what it would be like if a bunch of ordinary humans decided to be vigilantes and went around in costumes perpetrating justice, don't give them superhuman kung fu. Same with Ozy catching a bullet in his hand. Please. If this is inherited from the graphic novel, then the movie gets a pass, I guess.

-On the other hand, if we let Dr. Manhattan's origin slide, then his portrayal is great. Why would he adopt a deep voice? Wouldn't care. If he's going to kill someone, why not make it like their arteries were high explosive? Works for him. Maybe he gets some minor entertainment from the blood scatter. Wasn't sure why he went with the super muscling, but for his own entertainment is a good enough reason, I think. (Perhaps he cannot alter the fundamentals of his own body image but *can* adopt an idealized version? That might fit with the demonstrated limits of his self-insight.)

-The soundtrack was incredibly jarring. The funeral scene almost made me laugh.

-Rorschach's mask was distracting, because it made no sense. It was supernatural when it shouldn't have been. If this is a bit of symbolic license, I think it'd have been better executed as a changing pattern that is still when observed. (ETA:But then, I guess he wasn't named "Heisenberg".)

-The acting was generally bad. Ozy seemed to slide in and out of some accent. Malin Ackerman can't seem to display emotion. Nite Owl 2 dude was stiff. Rorschach was OK but the artificial growl is unnecessary and distracting.

I think it still managed to provide a reasonably thoughtful treatment of comic book heroes vs. real life, and I thought I detected a lot of ways in which the visuals were inherited from the graphic novel (I haven't seen the GN, there were just a lot of times when the screen was just sort of starkly comic-like)...so I don't think it was done entirely without skill. It just could have been a lot better, IMO.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Read the GN....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Synesthesia:
Read the GN....

Yeah. It's worth a read, and I think a good introduction to how good a GN can be. I did after I watched the movie (per the suggestion of my friend) and was surprised how much the movie kept, and the things that were changed were improvements, IMO. Especially the giant squid alien.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
I might read the GN. Will it retroactively make me like the movie more?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe. It would explain stuff you were curious about without me having to answer and spoil everything.
Plus it's so good.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

-Rorschach's mask was distracting, because it made no sense. It was supernatural when it shouldn't have been.

His mask is made from materials developed by the Manhattan project. This wasn't discussed in the movie, but it's canon for the GN.

quote:
-The acting was generally bad. Ozy seemed to slide in and out of some accent.
This was a deliberate choice by the director, who decided Ozy would pretend to be more American in public to fit his image, and would revert back to his natural accent around his friends (i.e., in the scene with Night Owl, where his German accent is most pronounced.)

I can see how some of these things might be frustrating to a first-time viewer. I'm becoming more and more convinced that re-watching movies is a worthwhile, even a necessary experience to fully enjoying them. [Smile]

Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Rorschach was OK but the artificial growl is unnecessary and distracting.

It isn't quite as evident in the movie as in the GN just how much Rorschach is a character he has created and inhabits. There's some throw-away bit in the GN when he's captured about how had lifts in his shoes to make him appear taller.

I think part of the key to Rorshach's character is he acts and looks the way he does because he thinks that's how someone who does what he does should act and look (and talk), if that makes any sense.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Sounds like the movie's problem might have been trying to be faithful to a lot of details in the GN without being able to devote the time to explain them.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 8624

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte         Edit/Delete Post 
Indeed. That is a problem. I just saw the movie myself, and, well, I got a lot of things that weren't explained, because I'd already read the GN.

But a lot of it might not have made sense otherwise...

Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
I just remembered, I loved the part where Rorschach screams: "I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!" Great, great line.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Team 2012
Member
Member # 12025

 - posted      Profile for Team 2012   Email Team 2012         Edit/Delete Post 
A really excellent film.

If there hadn't been a GN out there to compare it to, it probably wouldn't be getting all the scrutiny and nitpicking it's getting.

(Note: it's superior to the comic in many ways. One example, Manhattan's wheely platform on Mars. The beauty and wonder of that movement can't be captured in graphics)

People should probably learn to accept films as their own medium, and in terms of their intended audience. Shrek is a far better script than Pirates of the Caribbean, but few recognize that.
Maybe this should be taught in school.

A great, amazing, intellectually interesting piece of work.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Team 2012
Member
Member # 12025

 - posted      Profile for Team 2012   Email Team 2012         Edit/Delete Post 
That said, they obviously tossed in things to keep the comic readers happy.
Walking out of the Gunga Diner at the end. No need to widen the shot and prepare the facade, but it was an Easter egg for GN readers. And why not?

But it wasn't an illustration of the comic and shouldn't have been. They did it their way and did a great job.

Anybody freaking out about Manhattan's shlong should have a long talk with their father or mother or bio teacher or something.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
"If there hadn't been a GN out there to compare it to, it probably wouldn't be getting all the scrutiny and nitpicking it's getting."

On the other hand, without a large fan base acquainted with the GN, I'm not sure people would understand or appreciate the movie nearly as much.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2