Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Saturday Morning Watchmen (Spoilers)

1545557596063

Posts

  • GoatmonGoatmon Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    That's it. Really. I hope the movie inspires people to read the book. I haven't seen the movie but I know that it can't possibly offer the same experience as the graphic novel and it would be a real shame if people start identifying Watchmen with the movie instead of the book.

    4 words.


    Lord of the Rings.

    The LotR Movies are an upgrade.

    The books were too much description, not enough doing.

    Tolkien had a hardon for backstory, and loved writing page after page about shit that goes nowhere.

    You think an uncut Watchmen film would have been too long?

    aik7511.jpg
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Goatmon wrote: »
    That's it. Really. I hope the movie inspires people to read the book. I haven't seen the movie but I know that it can't possibly offer the same experience as the graphic novel and it would be a real shame if people start identifying Watchmen with the movie instead of the book.

    4 words.


    Lord of the Rings.

    The LotR Movies are an upgrade.

    The books were too much description, not enough doing.

    Tolkien had a hardon for backstory, and loved writing page after page about shit that goes nowhere.

    You think an uncut Watchmen film would have been too long?

    The ghost ship Deus ex machina and you can go fuck yourself sir. Right in the candy ass.

    Dumbest thing ever.

    LOL LIEK GOSTES KILL TEH ORCZ KK AND TEH MANS WINZ

  • OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? peach treesRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I like the books and the movies

    I prefer the movies to the books though

    (talkin' about the Lord of the Rings)

    7u0YG.gif
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | SCREENED | STEAM ID | BUY SOME STUFF!
  • GoatmonGoatmon Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    Goatmon wrote: »
    That's it. Really. I hope the movie inspires people to read the book. I haven't seen the movie but I know that it can't possibly offer the same experience as the graphic novel and it would be a real shame if people start identifying Watchmen with the movie instead of the book.

    4 words.


    Lord of the Rings.

    The LotR Movies are an upgrade.

    The books were too much description, not enough doing.

    Tolkien had a hardon for backstory, and loved writing page after page about shit that goes nowhere.

    You think an uncut Watchmen film would have been too long?

    The ghost ship Deus ex machina and you can go fuck yourself sir. Right in the candy ass.

    Dumbest thing ever.

    LOL LIEK GOSTES KILL TEH ORCZ KK AND TEH MANS WINZ

    Nevermind that a few eagles could have circumvented the entire fucking trilogy.

    aik7511.jpg
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    hey goatmon whatchoo get jailed fer

  • GoatmonGoatmon Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
  • The Black HunterThe Black Hunter Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Saw this movie

    "I'm not trapped in here with you, you're trapped in here with me" for best line ever

    sig-1.jpg
  • YorkerYorker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    YaYa wrote: »
    how old are you doublehawk

    sixteen

    like the cartoon network show

    so the movie got the R rating?

    i could swear it's rated 15 years and older over here.

    76561198037322631.png
  • el_vicioel_vicio Dog controls your destiny. Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I think it's possibly the best transition we could have hoped for -
    Spoiler:
    , but I loved every bit of it.

    9/10....even if Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah was off-putting ;)

  • DepressperadoDepressperado Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Can't a guy talk to his, you know, his old friend's daughter?

  • DarricDarric Santa MonicaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I thought the scene where
    Spoiler:

  • DepressperadoDepressperado Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    yeah,
    Spoiler:

    The movie was so good though, it's a shame Malin Ackerman can't act for shit.

  • DarricDarric Santa MonicaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    But even more specifically than that, I loved how in the comic that
    Spoiler:

    line is repeated over and over, until suddenly it becomes
    Spoiler:

    As I read that in the comic I kept thinking that, even transposed directly, it would make a great moment in the film. Then bleh.

  • el_vicioel_vicio Dog controls your destiny. Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Huh, I don't remember that specific scene, should look that up.


    That aside, isn't it confirmed that the bluray (and or dvd, whatever) will come with an extended cut, i.e. MOAR comic scenes ?

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    gonna go right ahead and say that adult Rorschach looked like he could've been Captain Cthulhu and Keith's lovechild

  • FortyTwoFortyTwo strongest man in the world The Land of Pleasant Living Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    You know why I am glad no one has tried to make a big budget "Catcher in the Rye", because that book will be very hard to translate to a visual medium.

    You know why there were a lot of people pissed off about the Two Towers? Because Helm's Deep is not the focus of that book, while it is the focus of the movie.

    You know why this was not a good "movie" because the directors were too chickenshit to try to interpret the material. They basically used the comic and regurgitated it on the screen. Now if that is what you were hoping for, as I know many fans were - fine.

    I'm not saying they should have changed a ton of shit - but the pacing was terrible, it was way too long and the original plot gets left behind like a small child for a solid half an hour so Silk Spectre and Nite Owl can fuck in a really gratuitous scene that seemed very out of place.

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    the film was incredibly terrible

    Angels and Demons does looks promising though...

    I liked Angels and Demons the book far far far better than The Da Vinci Code

    I could not finish watching the movie of the latter, and I am as yet undecided on how curious I am to see a film version of the former

    as Angels and Demons came before The Da Vinci Code, I read it first and liked it more... The Da Vinci Code was nowhere near as good

    makes me wonder why TDVC was so much more popular

    probably cuz it pissed more people off

  • DarricDarric Santa MonicaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I pretty much agree with you completely. I thought the plot - that is to say, the narrative - translated well, but even Alan Moore said that the narrative is completely secondary to the comic's intentions. All of the insights into the character backgrounds, the little details about why they are like they are, their motivations for putting on costumes and fighting crimes... all of that was lost in the film. All of the best moments in the comic were rendered inert in the film, and all of the worst moments in the film didn't even have the fall-back of having been necessitated by the comic.

    What annoys me the most is everyone saying "it's the best adaptation we could have hoped for" as if that's the same thing as saying "this was a good film".

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    trentsteel wrote: »
    Also is Satansfingers saying that the pacing of the movie is off because it tries to mimic the book too much but if they changed that it would ruin the movie for casual viewers but it ruined the movie the way they did it too but they should have had more backstory in it to lengthen the movie but also not lengthen it because then it drags too much so they should never have made the movie?

    i don't even know where you're getting half of this

    they simplified the book a lot, but they definitely had to because there's way too much in the book to make it into a movie. by doing that they necessarily had to remove most of what i think makes it interesting. i don't believe a good movie could've been made with the source material.

    I'm kinda with you on this

    they did as good a job as they could've done, which results in a decent movie

    I liked it, don't get me wrong, but it's nothing mind-blowing... it's a fantastic adaptation (insofar as it was as good a translation into the new medium as they could've hoped for), but only a fair movie

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Darric wrote: »
    What annoys me the most is everyone saying "it's the best adaptation we could have hoped for" as if that's the same thing as saying "this was a good film".

    if it helps, I'm pretty set on highlighting the distinction between the two

    they are not the same thing, and it bugs me that people don't seem willing to recognize that

  • FortyTwoFortyTwo strongest man in the world The Land of Pleasant Living Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Graves wrote: »
    FortyTwo wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    In a comic book, you don't have to be explicit, because the reader can stare at the panel as long as they like, and even come back to it later on, if they think they missed something. A movie doesn't have that luxury. Sometimes a movie has to spell things out.

    this couldn't really be more ridiculous

    of course you don't have to be explicit in a movie

    you're misreading me.

    There is an intrinsic difference in the mediums we are talking about.

    With a comic, you can open to any page at any time.

    With a movie, especially in a theater, you are forced to sit through it sequentially, and as such you are able to afford a little bit less subtlety when it comes to key plot points.

    EXACTLY.

    That is my problem with this movie.

    The director tries to make the book come to life, but he does this by cramming every scene with so much shit that the actors don't act. I didn't care about any of these people. They were meandering through so much backstory that the overall film gets lost.

    But... the comic was also a whole lot of backstory.

    Jon has his own issue of backstory, Rorschach's past is drawn out much longer in his sessions with Malcolm, Laurie's life is laid out, as well as her relation with the Comedian.

    That's where a lot of the story is.

    The whole of the main plot isn't significant without any past.

    It's all "just like the old times" and "things used to be better" and "there were terrible things that happened back then"

    The comic was engineered in that manner on purpose. The entire story of The Watchmen is, after all, one big joke.

    The set up is that something bad is going to happen. Then you are distracted with tales of how everything got to be this way, occasionally interspersed with little scenes showing things getting worse, but not necessarily the right things. Finally, you arrive at the end, only to discover that
    Spoiler:

    Yes, but I don't feel this movie did an effective job of that. It took so long to get through the backstories the climax just seemed hollow to me, on film.

    That is my criticism here I don't feel that this book worked well as a movie. Were they faithful? Yes? Did I like the fact that it was
    Spoiler:
    yes. But, to me, it did not play well on the big screen.

    Also, the fighting seemed really hackneyed to me. There was really nothing unique going on there. I think everyone's backbone was slammed against some sort of concrete corner at least once.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    i liked it, but i considered it only an okay movie

    as an adaptation i thought it was actually really poor, because a good adaptation makes the source material work for the new medium.

    it wasn't some kind of mind-blowing piece of film-making or whatever.

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    trentsteel wrote: »
    Also I've written down the names of the people who's reviews I read before going in that I ended up totally agreeing with and the ones that were so, so wrong.

    I mean it's all subjective but I can tell a few people in here enjoy the same stuff I do so I'm going with their reviews on the next movie.

    The rest of you are dead to me, nothing but fancy words and phrases that don't amount to shit to me anymore (movie wise).

    you have a serious illness

    like

    a serious illness

    look I'm not gonna kick up a lot of shit here, but seriously, get over the fanboyness already

    you were going to like the movie no matter what, and you were going to find things to like about it no matter what, or you were going to help make excuses for the things that others didn't like

    and choosing who to listen to because "they like the same stuff I like" is pretty stupid, all told, particularly in the case of THIS movie and given the ridiculous build-up you've generated for yourself over it

  • FortyTwoFortyTwo strongest man in the world The Land of Pleasant Living Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    trentsteel wrote: »
    Also I've written down the names of the people who's reviews I read before going in that I ended up totally agreeing with and the ones that were so, so wrong.

    I mean it's all subjective but I can tell a few people in here enjoy the same stuff I do so I'm going with their reviews on the next movie.

    The rest of you are dead to me, nothing but fancy words and phrases that don't amount to shit to me anymore (movie wise).

    you have a serious illness

    like

    a serious illness

    look I'm not gonna kick up a lot of shit here, but seriously, get over the fanboyness already

    you were going to like the movie no matter what, and you were going to find things to like about it no matter what, or you were going to help make excuses for the things that others didn't like

    and choosing who to listen to because "they like the same stuff I like" is pretty stupid, all told, particularly in the case of THIS movie and given the ridiculous build-up you've generated for yourself over it

    Just want to say, I was looking forward to this movie a lot. I REALLY wanted to like this movie. I was sitting in the theater WANTING to like it. It has its moments - that is as best I cuold get.

  • DarricDarric Santa MonicaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    Darric wrote: »
    What annoys me the most is everyone saying "it's the best adaptation we could have hoped for" as if that's the same thing as saying "this was a good film".

    if it helps, I'm pretty set on highlighting the distinction between the two

    they are not the same thing, and it bugs me that people don't seem willing to recognize that

    Yeah, we implied pretty much the same thing in our simultaneous posts.

    But really, I'm not convinced this is the best adaptation we could have hoped for.

    Also, I really wish they had saved some of that excessive violence for the one scene that needed it most, and oddly, didn't feature any:
    Spoiler:

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    FortyTwo wrote: »
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    trentsteel wrote: »
    Also I've written down the names of the people who's reviews I read before going in that I ended up totally agreeing with and the ones that were so, so wrong.

    I mean it's all subjective but I can tell a few people in here enjoy the same stuff I do so I'm going with their reviews on the next movie.

    The rest of you are dead to me, nothing but fancy words and phrases that don't amount to shit to me anymore (movie wise).

    you have a serious illness

    like

    a serious illness

    look I'm not gonna kick up a lot of shit here, but seriously, get over the fanboyness already

    you were going to like the movie no matter what, and you were going to find things to like about it no matter what, or you were going to help make excuses for the things that others didn't like

    and choosing who to listen to because "they like the same stuff I like" is pretty stupid, all told, particularly in the case of THIS movie and given the ridiculous build-up you've generated for yourself over it

    Just want to say, I was looking forward to this movie a lot. I REALLY wanted to like this movie. I was sitting in the theater WANTING to like it. It has its moments - that is as best I cuold get.

    oh hell yeah, I desperately wanted to love this movie, I wanted everyone to love it, I wanted it to be a masterpiece of cinema, and I wanted all of that even as the movie unfolded

    it was none of that... I liked it, it was decent, and out of loyalty to the source material I am sated, but beyond that?

    meh

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    well uh

    about that
    Spoiler:

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    you know my main problem with the new ending is that in the book, the city still standing, buildings totally intact, with everyone dead inside it really struck me as a stark message
    Spoiler:

    I actually found that the new ending worked pretty well, but it lacked that one minor detail that, to me personally, really caught me when I read the book

  • DarricDarric Santa MonicaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    That's not an excuse?
    Spoiler:

  • DarricDarric Santa MonicaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Vivixenne wrote: »
    you know my main problem with the new ending is that in the book, the city still standing with everyone dead inside it really struck me as a stark message

    Absolutely.
    Spoiler:

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    you folks needed to see bodies to feel the weight of human death?

    seeing the buildings implode and collapse en masse wasn't sufficient to carry the idea that millions of people died?

    okay, fair enough

    not something i understand, but okay

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
  • ButlerButler 89 episodes or bust Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I said this earlier in the thread, but in my head I'm thinking of the upcoming extended version on disc as the "real" movie and the cinematic release as a super-long trailer for it.

    I have to admit, I really enjoyed it when I was in the theater, but the film has soured a little in retrospect. Mentally framing it this way makes me happier.

    The Genius of the Daleks

    Latest upload: Chapter Five on 13th of March, 2014
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    i don't think i would enjoy an extended cut of this film

    it's already bloated and wandering

    adding more running time to that doesn't seem to helpful

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I'm saying that in the book, everyone is DEAD, and yet the city is still there

    the buildings, the cars, what humans BUILT, remains

    and life goes on in that exact same city—in those original buildings that stood to witness, coldly and detachedly, the massacre of millions—which looks almost exactly the same except for Burgers 'n Borscht and all that

    I loved that detail in the book
    Spoiler:

  • DarricDarric Santa MonicaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    you folks needed to see bodies to feel the weight of human death?

    seeing the buildings implode and collapse en masse wasn't sufficient to carry the idea that millions of people died?

    No, I'm not saying that. I don't think there's any doubt that in either presentation, the message is conveyed.

    I just feel that the emotional resonance of that sequence was heightened by its presentation in the comic, and I felt that was lost in the film.

    And yeah, if anything the film needs trimming, not extending.

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    i don't think i would enjoy an extended cut of this film

    it's already bloated and wandering

    adding more running time to that doesn't seem to helpful

    I'm curious to see if it does add anything at all, but I get the sense that it would mostly be more material for fans of the book to jerk off to

    who knows, we'll just have to see

  • BedlamBedlam Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Im pretty sure most of you dont know what you want.

  • VivixenneVivixenne aDAWRable! Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    that's a lie

    I want snuggles

    I am now going to collect them

    GOOD DAY SIR

  • BedlamBedlam Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    ACK! Foiled again!

    But know this vivienne. Beyond the innocence of your evening lies a cold shadow in wait. The loneliness and despair have taken a physical form and will reach beyond your immagination to pluck at your heartstrings. Like a bizarrely good bowl of gustpatcho my revenge will be served cold....

    AND SOUPY!

This discussion has been closed.