Maybe it would have worked better split into two or three movies
then they could have made editing decisions based on what worked instead of what there was time for.
This would not have worked. Seeing it split up would be awful. I don't even think I would bother until the dvds were out and I could watch them back to back.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but I constantly felt like it was moving around all over the place and was hard to keep focus of. I think that is primarily because the novel is the same way but has all the extra material in it.
no, i don't think that would've been necessary either
watchmen's story isn't a big one. moore is right when he says the narrative itself isn't the most important part of the book
the characters, the side details, the other stories going on within the story make watchmen what it is
the movie tries hard to do that, and ends up a bit of a bloated mess because of it
i still liked the movie, don't get me wrong, but it's a messy film that, as an adaptation, is pretty poorly executed
this is exactly why it's only a decent movie at best
the book's overarching story isn't told through narrative nor even chronological progression
it's really a culmination of all the other, smaller stories and all the little details buried in the background that tell the "main" story, so to speak
a movie, in that respect, is a very poor choice of medium for it, and I honestly don't think any adaptation would've worked "better" than the one we got
it's true that the movie followed the book "too closely" and that made it lose viability as a strong movie, but at the same time if it followed it any less faithfully it may have lost most of its impact
this is why i've been saying that it's the best adaptation that we could have hoped for - not because it's the best adaptation possible, but because the limitations of the cinematic form means that there's no hope that you'd get the same impact/effect as the book has.
Dude, you teased me earlier with the claim that this adaptation served as a pretty good deconstruction of comic book movies, then you left without explaining. One of the things I didn't like about this movie is that it seemed to entirely lose the critical edge that the comic had -- it didn't seem to be a movie about comic book movies, it just is a comic book movie. But maybe if you explain this to me, I'll be able to talk myself into giving it a second viewing.
scarlet ave. on
0
Options
DislexicCreepy Uncle Bad TouchYour local playgroundRegistered Userregular
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.
in all fairness, the LOTR movies were based off of SIX full-blooded novels written like the history of a world. Reading the LOTR books is a bit more of a challenge than reading just over 600 pages of a graphic novel.
Dislexic on
0
Options
DislexicCreepy Uncle Bad TouchYour local playgroundRegistered Userregular
Goddammit, I want to love the motion comic but I can't get over the fact that they used one damn voice actor for everyone. I listen to audiobooks, so I should be used to it, but in this case it feels so wrong. They should have hired everyone from the movie to do voice acting (especially Rorschach).
Hell, Id settle for soundalikes if the females were actually voiced by a female.
Goddammit, I want to love the motion comic but I can't get over the fact that they used one damn voice actor for everyone. I listen to audiobooks, so I should be used to it, but in this case it feels so wrong. They should have hired everyone from the movie to do voice acting (especially Rorschach).
Hell, Id settle for soundalikes if the females were actually voiced by a female.
that's because most audiobooks are read by classically trained stage actors, the motion comic was probably done using someone from Accounting.
Goddammit, I want to love the motion comic but I can't get over the fact that they used one damn voice actor for everyone. I listen to audiobooks, so I should be used to it, but in this case it feels so wrong. They should have hired everyone from the movie to do voice acting (especially Rorschach).
Hell, Id settle for soundalikes if the females were actually voiced by a female.
that's because most audiobooks are read by classically trained stage actors, the motion comic was probably done using someone from Accounting.
that reminds me of the best audiobook I ever heard, Make Love! The Bruce Campbell Way! which was read by Bruce Campbell and an assortment of actors.
if I had some mystical computer program which read text to me in his voice it would be astounding.
Goddammit, I want to love the motion comic but I can't get over the fact that they used one damn voice actor for everyone. I listen to audiobooks, so I should be used to it, but in this case it feels so wrong. They should have hired everyone from the movie to do voice acting (especially Rorschach).
Hell, Id settle for soundalikes if the females were actually voiced by a female.
that's because most audiobooks are read by classically trained stage actors, the motion comic was probably done using someone from Accounting.
that reminds me of the best audiobook I ever heard, Make Love! The Bruce Campbell Way! which was read by Bruce Campbell and an assortment of actors.
if I had some mystical computer program which read text to me in his voice it would be astounding.
I keep hearing The Bro Code was a great as an audiobook.
Goddammit, I want to love the motion comic but I can't get over the fact that they used one damn voice actor for everyone. I listen to audiobooks, so I should be used to it, but in this case it feels so wrong. They should have hired everyone from the movie to do voice acting (especially Rorschach).
Hell, Id settle for soundalikes if the females were actually voiced by a female.
that's because most audiobooks are read by classically trained stage actors, the motion comic was probably done using someone from Accounting.
that reminds me of the best audiobook I ever heard, Make Love! The Bruce Campbell Way! which was read by Bruce Campbell and an assortment of actors.
if I had some mystical computer program which read text to me in his voice it would be astounding.
I keep hearing The Bro Code was a great as an audiobook.
it's read by Neil Patrick Harris, so while I'm interested in hearing it I'm not really interested in the subject matter.
mostly because even hearing his debonair voice saying "bro" is like having a mini-aneurysm.
But even more specifically than that, I loved how in the comic that
Can't a guy talk to his, you know, his old friend's daughter?
line is repeated over and over, until suddenly it becomes
Can't a guy talk to his... daughter?
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.
The issue with subtlety on major plot points is that if you don't make them entirely clear, then the folks who missed that little bit will be horribly confused for the rest of the movie.
no, i don't think that would've been necessary either
watchmen's story isn't a big one. moore is right when he says the narrative itself isn't the most important part of the book
the characters, the side details, the other stories going on within the story make watchmen what it is
the movie tries hard to do that, and ends up a bit of a bloated mess because of it
i still liked the movie, don't get me wrong, but it's a messy film that, as an adaptation, is pretty poorly executed
this is exactly why it's only a decent movie at best
the book's overarching story isn't told through narrative nor even chronological progression
it's really a culmination of all the other, smaller stories and all the little details buried in the background that tell the "main" story, so to speak
a movie, in that respect, is a very poor choice of medium for it, and I honestly don't think any adaptation would've worked "better" than the one we got
it's true that the movie followed the book "too closely" and that made it lose viability as a strong movie, but at the same time if it followed it any less faithfully it may have lost most of its impact
this is why i've been saying that it's the best adaptation that we could have hoped for - not because it's the best adaptation possible, but because the limitations of the cinematic form means that there's no hope that you'd get the same impact/effect as the book has.
Dude, you teased me earlier with the claim that this adaptation served as a pretty good deconstruction of comic book movies, then you left without explaining. One of the things I didn't like about this movie is that it seemed to entirely lose the critical edge that the comic had -- it didn't seem to be a movie about comic book movies, it just is a comic book movie. But maybe if you explain this to me, I'll be able to talk myself into giving it a second viewing.
well, basically watchmen functions by critiquing superhero tropes - superman's connection to humanity, batman's basic insanity - and deconstructing them by calling to attention the weirdness of their basic character binaries. so silk spectre still shows the wierdness of wonder woman (and wonder woman's basic sexuality), nite owl is still a fat millionaire dilettante, and ozymandias isn't really a comic book villain.. there is no bad guy in watchmen, it's absolutely a piece about moral relativitism as opposed to the black-and-whtie world of comics.
it's not as big of a formal deconstruction as the comic is, because then it'd be like la chien andalou and nobody wants to see that again.
basically, because comic book movies carry over the same basic superhero cliches as 80s comics had, and watchmen's adaptation updates the criticism and characters in the same way, then it still functions as a valid critique - but it's not as obvious as it is in the comics, because comics lends itsellf better to that kind of analysis - you can't turn back the pages in a movie.
because of that, i'm gonna have to see it again.. but there's my english major opinion for you.
Did Dotrice do all of the ASoIaF books? I've only heard bits and pieces of the first one (it has different actors for different characters), but that sounds interesting as well.
Ness445 on
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
Did Dotrice do all of the ASoIaF books? I've only heard bits and pieces of the first one (it has different actors for different characters), but that sounds interesting as well.
He does, and the voices are actually all him, which sounds like it should be bad but works amazingly... he actually comes up with different accents for characters based on where they're supposed to be from in Westeros.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited March 2009
The movie was great. I saw it with one friend who had read the book and one who had not. Both loved it.
Critics who say "It's too close to the comic!" are stupid. The movie is a great introduction to the comic or a great companion piece. It is entertaining in its own right. The fact that the director decided against changing key points of the movie to "make it his" is a good thing.
Also, the action sequences were awesome. The only time the slo-to-fast-mo felt awkward was in the fire scene.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
no, i don't think that would've been necessary either
watchmen's story isn't a big one. moore is right when he says the narrative itself isn't the most important part of the book
the characters, the side details, the other stories going on within the story make watchmen what it is
the movie tries hard to do that, and ends up a bit of a bloated mess because of it
i still liked the movie, don't get me wrong, but it's a messy film that, as an adaptation, is pretty poorly executed
this is exactly why it's only a decent movie at best
the book's overarching story isn't told through narrative nor even chronological progression
it's really a culmination of all the other, smaller stories and all the little details buried in the background that tell the "main" story, so to speak
a movie, in that respect, is a very poor choice of medium for it, and I honestly don't think any adaptation would've worked "better" than the one we got
it's true that the movie followed the book "too closely" and that made it lose viability as a strong movie, but at the same time if it followed it any less faithfully it may have lost most of its impact
this is why i've been saying that it's the best adaptation that we could have hoped for - not because it's the best adaptation possible, but because the limitations of the cinematic form means that there's no hope that you'd get the same impact/effect as the book has.
It is the best "Commercially released in theaters adaptation possible."
The director's cut should be better, but there is no way there were letting a 4 hour movie fly in the theaters.
I think that the most important bits to the general public are the action sequences (which were done well), Rorscach's Performance (the best ever), and the shock of the ending (Just did it, Just do it)
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Also, the action sequences were awesome. The only time the slo-to-fast-mo felt awkward was in the fire scene.
I'm glad this was one of the few 30 second clips I watched before the movie. I thought all of the action scenes were gonna be like that, and I was happy they were mostly not.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited March 2009
When put into context with everything else that is happening, it isn't that jarring, it's just a little awkward, like a fat kid doing jumping jacks.
Things like
The prison fight
The fight against ozy
The fight against the knot-heads
Rorscach vs. the cops
Were all fantastically done.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
But even more specifically than that, I loved how in the comic that
Can't a guy talk to his, you know, his old friend's daughter?
line is repeated over and over, until suddenly it becomes
Can't a guy talk to his... daughter?
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.
The issue with subtlety on major plot points is that if you don't make them entirely clear, then the folks who missed that little bit will be horribly confused for the rest of the movie.
I'm not saying it had to be more subtle, just that it could have been more poignant. I just felt that it was very ineffectively handled cinematically.
The movie was great. I saw it with one friend who had read the book and one who had not. Both loved it.
Critics who say "It's too close to the comic!" are stupid. The movie is a great introduction to the comic or a great companion piece. It is entertaining in its own right. The fact that the director decided against changing key points of the movie to "make it his" is a good thing.
Also, the action sequences were awesome. The only time the slo-to-fast-mo felt awkward was in the fire scene.
Most of the action scenes seemed really old hat to me.
I mean, yeah he was thrown so hard into that marble it CRACK IN THE SHAPE OF HIS HEAD!! There was nary a sharp corner of stone that did not have a spine slammed into it. Grown people getting thrown around like rag-dolls.
Sure, it was pretty, but it is something that has been done in every superhero movie for the last 10 years. Much of the action sequences, to me, looked like they could have easily been in other movies, but these just happened to be the Watchmen involved.
All in all it seemed very generic. There was nothing that set this apart from other action movies. The psychological commentary got overshadowed and it was paced terribly.
But even more specifically than that, I loved how in the comic that
Can't a guy talk to his, you know, his old friend's daughter?
line is repeated over and over, until suddenly it becomes
Can't a guy talk to his... daughter?
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.
The issue with subtlety on major plot points is that if you don't make them entirely clear, then the folks who missed that little bit will be horribly confused for the rest of the movie.
I'm not saying it had to be more subtle, just that it could have been more poignant. I just felt that it was very ineffectively handled cinematically.
what would you have wanted differently?
I thought that they handled it perfectly fine with the flashback, and then had Doc confirm it explicitly, for the sake of folks who weren't getting it.
Then, just as Laurie's entire world is being shattered, she shatters the structure behind her.
But even more specifically than that, I loved how in the comic that
Can't a guy talk to his, you know, his old friend's daughter?
line is repeated over and over, until suddenly it becomes
Can't a guy talk to his... daughter?
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.
The issue with subtlety on major plot points is that if you don't make them entirely clear, then the folks who missed that little bit will be horribly confused for the rest of the movie.
I'm not saying it had to be more subtle, just that it could have been more poignant. I just felt that it was very ineffectively handled cinematically.
The Comedian's line being repeated over and over again would've been retarded in the film.
I think if the flashback montage had included Laurie getting drunk and telling off the Comedian it would've been fine.
I've yet to read the book (shut up I'll get around to it sometime)
One question:
The fuck was with the horned tiger?
Bubastis is a genetically engineered lynx.
It's just another one of the things that are weird in the comic without clear explanation. It's an affectation of Ozymandias is the best that you'll get.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited March 2009
I think that a lot of things that feel out of place right now were included because there will be more to it in the director's cut.
One thing I noticed:
When Rorscach is crushing the man's hand on the highball glass to get information. Very briefly, the camera pans to Dan, who turns around. As he turns, the camera zooms out and you can, for a split second, see a knot-head in focus and Dan taking a step toward him.
I think that this means that
Night Owl I gets murdered hardcore in the director's cut.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I think that a lot of things that feel out of place right now were included because there will be more to it in the director's cut.
One thing I noticed:
When Rorscach is crushing the man's hand on the highball glass to get information. Very briefly, the camera pans to Dan, who turns around. As he turns, the camera zooms out and you can, for a split second, see a knot-head in focus and Dan taking a step toward him.
I think that this means that
Night Owl I gets murdered hardcore in the director's cut.
Well yea they've already said they filmed this scene.
Posts
This would not have worked. Seeing it split up would be awful. I don't even think I would bother until the dvds were out and I could watch them back to back.
Very good, this is how I feel.
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
Dude, you teased me earlier with the claim that this adaptation served as a pretty good deconstruction of comic book movies, then you left without explaining. One of the things I didn't like about this movie is that it seemed to entirely lose the critical edge that the comic had -- it didn't seem to be a movie about comic book movies, it just is a comic book movie. But maybe if you explain this to me, I'll be able to talk myself into giving it a second viewing.
in all fairness, the LOTR movies were based off of SIX full-blooded novels written like the history of a world. Reading the LOTR books is a bit more of a challenge than reading just over 600 pages of a graphic novel.
OK, SERIOUSLY THIS FUCKING FILM WORLD AND IT'S LOSE-LOSE SITUATION IS STARTING TO PISS ME OFF.
You make a film for the fans, and the critics say it's too much like the comic, you make a film for the critics and you piss off all the fans
It's almost like you can't please everyone
Challenge accepted, this sounds like a job for Doctor Gigolo
Hell, Id settle for soundalikes if the females were actually voiced by a female.
After the fisting orgy, he realised what his calling was
that's because most audiobooks are read by classically trained stage actors, the motion comic was probably done using someone from Accounting.
if I had some mystical computer program which read text to me in his voice it would be astounding.
I keep hearing The Bro Code was a great as an audiobook.
mostly because even hearing his debonair voice saying "bro" is like having a mini-aneurysm.
edit: duh, apparently I don't know words!
The issue with subtlety on major plot points is that if you don't make them entirely clear, then the folks who missed that little bit will be horribly confused for the rest of the movie.
The motion comic and the movie are blurring together for me, so I remember the explanation, but can't remember if which it was in.
http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/enSearch/searchResults.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&N=0&Ntx=mode%2Bmatchallpartial&D=storm+of+swords&Dx=mode%2Bmatchallpartial&Ntk=S_Keywords&Ntt=storm+of+swords&x=0&y=0
well, basically watchmen functions by critiquing superhero tropes - superman's connection to humanity, batman's basic insanity - and deconstructing them by calling to attention the weirdness of their basic character binaries. so silk spectre still shows the wierdness of wonder woman (and wonder woman's basic sexuality), nite owl is still a fat millionaire dilettante, and ozymandias isn't really a comic book villain.. there is no bad guy in watchmen, it's absolutely a piece about moral relativitism as opposed to the black-and-whtie world of comics.
it's not as big of a formal deconstruction as the comic is, because then it'd be like la chien andalou and nobody wants to see that again.
basically, because comic book movies carry over the same basic superhero cliches as 80s comics had, and watchmen's adaptation updates the criticism and characters in the same way, then it still functions as a valid critique - but it's not as obvious as it is in the comics, because comics lends itsellf better to that kind of analysis - you can't turn back the pages in a movie.
because of that, i'm gonna have to see it again.. but there's my english major opinion for you.
Did Dotrice do all of the ASoIaF books? I've only heard bits and pieces of the first one (it has different actors for different characters), but that sounds interesting as well.
He does, and the voices are actually all him, which sounds like it should be bad but works amazingly... he actually comes up with different accents for characters based on where they're supposed to be from in Westeros.
Critics who say "It's too close to the comic!" are stupid. The movie is a great introduction to the comic or a great companion piece. It is entertaining in its own right. The fact that the director decided against changing key points of the movie to "make it his" is a good thing.
Also, the action sequences were awesome. The only time the slo-to-fast-mo felt awkward was in the fire scene.
It is the best "Commercially released in theaters adaptation possible."
The director's cut should be better, but there is no way there were letting a 4 hour movie fly in the theaters.
I think that the most important bits to the general public are the action sequences (which were done well), Rorscach's Performance (the best ever), and the shock of the ending (Just did it, Just do it)
I'm glad this was one of the few 30 second clips I watched before the movie. I thought all of the action scenes were gonna be like that, and I was happy they were mostly not.
Things like
The fight against ozy
The fight against the knot-heads
Rorscach vs. the cops
Were all fantastically done.
I'm not saying it had to be more subtle, just that it could have been more poignant. I just felt that it was very ineffectively handled cinematically.
Most of the action scenes seemed really old hat to me.
I mean, yeah he was thrown so hard into that marble it CRACK IN THE SHAPE OF HIS HEAD!! There was nary a sharp corner of stone that did not have a spine slammed into it. Grown people getting thrown around like rag-dolls.
Sure, it was pretty, but it is something that has been done in every superhero movie for the last 10 years. Much of the action sequences, to me, looked like they could have easily been in other movies, but these just happened to be the Watchmen involved.
All in all it seemed very generic. There was nothing that set this apart from other action movies. The psychological commentary got overshadowed and it was paced terribly.
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
One question:
The fuck was with the horned tiger?
what would you have wanted differently?
I thought that they handled it perfectly fine with the flashback, and then had Doc confirm it explicitly, for the sake of folks who weren't getting it.
Then, just as Laurie's entire world is being shattered, she shatters the structure behind her.
The Comedian's line being repeated over and over again would've been retarded in the film.
I think if the flashback montage had included Laurie getting drunk and telling off the Comedian it would've been fine.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Bubastis is a genetically engineered lynx.
It's just another one of the things that are weird in the comic without clear explanation. It's an affectation of Ozymandias is the best that you'll get.
works fine
Since that plotline's not in the movie though, Bubastis really needed to get cut.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I'll spoiler that for good measure i guess
One thing I noticed:
I think that this means that
Well yea they've already said they filmed this scene.