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!

A Thread About Movies

1232426282999

Posts

  • DeaderinredDeaderinred Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    i thought it was terrible, the only good moments were the bromance between fassbender and mcavoy (pretty much everything fassbender did) and that was about it, the story was bad, the cgi and make up were bad, the costumes were bad, jennifer lawrence turned into plastic after winters bone and is only now just shaking that off it seems.

    i mean, im all for adaptation and shit and changing things for a better cinematic flow but when you change a character from the comics so much that she isnt even the same character anymore, just make her a different goddamn character. (moria now an american cia agent and not a scottish doctor.) oh and please follow your own internal film lore ok, it just throws you out of the loop when you ignore what you've established already in the film series.

    Deaderinred on
  • YogoYogo Registered User regular
    Well, I liked the whole of First Class.

  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    For a film with a budget somewhere around 150 million, it really was a bit off-putting how chintzy much of the big final confrontation looked.

    And every moment the beastified Beast was onscreen was tragic. Never thought I'd miss Kelsey Grammar.

    On the whole, it was a solid flick (particularly in the quieter moments), but there was some truly wild oscillation between wonderful period production design and gaudy, cut-rate execution.

    Edit: I'd like to imagine at least 25 million went to Michael Ironside just because everyone opposite his side of the table was terrified to say "no."

    Edd on
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Scorsese's Christ isn't perfect. But he is righteous, and he is unquestionably divine, and Scorsese rightly brings up the point that Jesus' martyrdom would be fairly meaningless without any sense of sacrifice on his part, which is what the Bible would imply (likely by accident). A martyr who knows he is going to die and has no other purpose and feels no loss in his own death is a poor martyr. An the titular "Last Temptation?" Wow. What a mindfuck.
    Scorsese makes a couple of weird choices that shouldn't work - but damn if he doesn't pull it off. I wonder how many of the foaming-at-the-mouth Christians actually saw the film... but I'm also curious how it plays to atheists who don't like the idea of Christ to begin with.

    And at some point I definitely have to check out Pasolini's Gospel According to St. Matthew. I love the idea of a gay lapsed Catholic turned Marxist doing the other spiritual, respectful Jesus movie.

    Eagles on Pogo Sticks: Musings of a Goofy Beast
    http://goofybeast.wordpress.com
  • SarcasmoBlasterSarcasmoBlaster Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I liked the first half of First Class.

    Everything involving Erik's Inglourious Basterd murder-sweep through former Nazi torturers was aces. Much of Raven and Charles' relationship was solid. Even the subplot with Moira McTaggart wasn't awful.


    And then the rest of the movie happened. :cry:


    This is pretty much how I feel about it. It's like two different movies smushed together. Chuck and Eric in the swinging 60s ? Awesome. We need to form a team of teenagers with attitude to fight bad dudes whose plan makes no sense? Not so much.

    SarcasmoBlaster on
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Thirith wrote: »
    Scorsese's Christ isn't perfect. But he is righteous, and he is unquestionably divine, and Scorsese rightly brings up the point that Jesus' martyrdom would be fairly meaningless without any sense of sacrifice on his part, which is what the Bible would imply (likely by accident). A martyr who knows he is going to die and has no other purpose and feels no loss in his own death is a poor martyr. An the titular "Last Temptation?" Wow. What a mindfuck.
    Scorsese makes a couple of weird choices that shouldn't work - but damn if he doesn't pull it off. I wonder how many of the foaming-at-the-mouth Christians actually saw the film... but I'm also curious how it plays to atheists who don't like the idea of Christ to begin with.

    And at some point I definitely have to check out Pasolini's Gospel According to St. Matthew. I love the idea of a gay lapsed Catholic turned Marxist doing the other spiritual, respectful Jesus movie.

    I'm an atheist, and I thought it was an amazing film. But it's precisely because Jesus is portrayed as a fallible and imperfect human that it works so well; it's a powerful and human story. Note that I'm an atheist that has long held that the universe is far more miraculous as a stand-alone system without the guidance of a creator than it is with; when you remove the supernatural explanations from phenomena and behavior, they are far more astounding and amazing and wonderful. A man named Jesus that suffers these trials is a tragic hero, one I may not entirely agree with on all things, but one that I can empathize with and respect deeply. This kind of movie is right up my alley.

    Houn on
    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Scorsese's Christ isn't perfect. But he is righteous, and he is unquestionably divine, and Scorsese rightly brings up the point that Jesus' martyrdom would be fairly meaningless without any sense of sacrifice on his part, which is what the Bible would imply (likely by accident). A martyr who knows he is going to die and has no other purpose and feels no loss in his own death is a poor martyr. An the titular "Last Temptation?" Wow. What a mindfuck.
    Scorsese makes a couple of weird choices that shouldn't work - but damn if he doesn't pull it off. I wonder how many of the foaming-at-the-mouth Christians actually saw the film... but I'm also curious how it plays to atheists who don't like the idea of Christ to begin with.

    And at some point I definitely have to check out Pasolini's Gospel According to St. Matthew. I love the idea of a gay lapsed Catholic turned Marxist doing the other spiritual, respectful Jesus movie.

    I'm an atheist, and I thought it was an amazing film. But it's precisely because Jesus is portrayed as a fallible and imperfect human that it works so well; it's a powerful and human story. Note that I'm an atheist that has long held that the universe is far more miraculous as a stand-alone system without the guidance of a creator than it is with; when you remove the supernatural explanations from phenomena and behavior, they are far more astounding and amazing and wonderful. A man named Jesus that suffers these trials is a tragic hero, one I may not entirely agree with on all things, but one that I can empathize with and respect deeply. This kind of movie is right up my alley.

    This is among the reasons I'm really disappointed the Paradise Lost film collapsed. I would have loved to see how a variety of audiences, secular and religious, responded to it.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Robert Price has the exact same things to say as you regarding the theological and Christological implications. So you're in good company Ross.

    That's nice to hear.

    I think what really gets fundamentalists in a rile about the film is that way that Jesus is presented as being a very human individual, complete with all the desires and insecurities that implies. Which I feel is a strange and myopic criticism, but so many people wish to ascribe to a version of Christ that is an absolutely perfect individual, and will passionately and even angrily defend this idea, yet the Bible itself does little to establish such a notion. The scriptures make many clear references to Jesus' divine origins and the veracity of his word, but it never argues that he is a literal "perfect" human being, whatever that even means. For some Christians, it's not good enough that Jesus is awesome and divine and full of magic; he has to be omnipotent and infallible and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

    Scorsese's Christ isn't perfect. But he is righteous, and he is unquestionably divine, and Scorsese rightly brings up the point that Jesus' martyrdom would be fairly meaningless without any sense of sacrifice on his part, which is what the Bible would imply (likely by accident). A martyr who knows he is going to die and has no other purpose and feels no loss in his own death is a poor martyr. An the titular "Last Temptation?" Wow. What a mindfuck.

    Haven't seen the movie, but at least from the Catholic perspective Jesus being ... maybe not fallible, but certainly emotional and human is what's taught.

    Considering Scorcese is/was Catholic, I'd bet whatever view is expressed in the film is influenced by that.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    You should watch it, it's a good flick.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Robert Price has the exact same things to say as you regarding the theological and Christological implications. So you're in good company Ross.

    That's nice to hear.

    I think what really gets fundamentalists in a rile about the film is that way that Jesus is presented as being a very human individual, complete with all the desires and insecurities that implies. Which I feel is a strange and myopic criticism, but so many people wish to ascribe to a version of Christ that is an absolutely perfect individual, and will passionately and even angrily defend this idea, yet the Bible itself does little to establish such a notion. The scriptures make many clear references to Jesus' divine origins and the veracity of his word, but it never argues that he is a literal "perfect" human being, whatever that even means. For some Christians, it's not good enough that Jesus is awesome and divine and full of magic; he has to be omnipotent and infallible and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

    Scorsese's Christ isn't perfect. But he is righteous, and he is unquestionably divine, and Scorsese rightly brings up the point that Jesus' martyrdom would be fairly meaningless without any sense of sacrifice on his part, which is what the Bible would imply (likely by accident). A martyr who knows he is going to die and has no other purpose and feels no loss in his own death is a poor martyr. An the titular "Last Temptation?" Wow. What a mindfuck.

    Haven't seen the movie, but at least from the Catholic perspective Jesus being ... maybe not fallible, but certainly emotional and human is what's taught.

    Considering Scorcese is/was Catholic, I'd bet whatever view is expressed in the film is influenced by that.

    Spoilers for the movie:

    Spoiler:


    There are several things about the Gospels that don't add up, but the biggie is how all of these villains line up against Jesus to conspire and bring him down (the Pharisees, the Romans, Pilate, Judas, Satan) when the actual goal all along was for Jesus to meet the fate they brought down upon him. It's something that even major religious sects do a poor job of reconciling, and they almost uniformly continue to cast players like Judas and Pilate in a negative light even though those players are instrumental in the entire purpose of Jesus' existence, his martyrdom.

    I felt that The Last Temptation of Christ was really the only work that successfully(ish) strove to put those pieces in a narrative order that make some kind of workable logic.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I finally got around to watching The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo last night. It was... good? I liked it, I guess. But it felt like a really mediocre story that somehow got a five star treatment. It was like going to a fancy restaurant and getting meatloaf served on a gilded platter.
    Spoiler:

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • LordSolarMachariusLordSolarMacharius Registered User regular
    edited April 2012

    I felt that The Last Temptation of Christ was really the only work that successfully(ish) strove to put those pieces in a narrative order that make some kind of workable logic.

    Jesus Christ Superstar?

    What. There was a movie.

    LordSolarMacharius on
    15wxzkn.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I finally got around to watching The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo last night. It was... good? I liked it, I guess. But it felt like a really mediocre story that somehow got a five star treatment. It was like going to a fancy restaurant and getting meatloaf served on a gilded platter.
    Spoiler:

    That would be about correct.

    The books are utterly mediocre-at-best novels that randomly became a huge phenomenon. Like so many other shit books before them.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I finally got around to watching The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo last night. It was... good? I liked it, I guess. But it felt like a really mediocre story that somehow got a five star treatment. It was like going to a fancy restaurant and getting meatloaf served on a gilded platter.
    Spoiler:

    Yep. You've summed it up pretty accurately.

    It's a gilded turd.



    Also, some blackhearted part of me revels a bit in the fact that allegedly Rooney Mara had a complete freakout at the Academy Awards when she didn't win.

    I mean, I liked her in that movie, but her role was almost entirely performed by her physical appearance and script exposition. She definitely didn't deserve a spot on the list.

  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    I liked First Class. It wasn't amazing, and the first half was clearly way better than the first, but honestly it may be the best or second best X-Men movie.

  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    I wonder what it would cost Marvel to wrestle Spider-Man away from Sony and X-Men away from Fox.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    I wonder what it would cost Marvel to wrestle Spider-Man away from Sony and X-Men away from Fox.

    Lots, I imagine.

    Fox doesn't even want their third-tier properties to revert, which is why we're going to keep seeing reboots of Daredevil and Fantastic Four until people stop watching them.

    Marvel still gets a pretty substantial cut on the licensing, and their agreements are pretty limited as far as how they can be used. Like, Sony just can't up and diversify their Spider-Man portfolio by creating new characters owned by Sony; likewise, Marvel can continue to license Spidey merch outside the scope of whatever Sony is doing and not have to give Sony a cut.

    It's not really in Marvel's financial interest to remove viable, profitable properties away from other studios. They're getting a lot of money for very little work. The only person with a horse in that race would be Disney, and that's only if they're wanting to make a Cosmic Wars or Civil War-type movie.


    Honestly, the only other Marvel property I'd like to see cross over into the Disneyverse is the FF, as I think they'd fit in perfectly with what they're doing already.


    But I'd love to see a Marvel Knights movie, though. Blade, Punisher, AND Ghost Rider in the same flick? Fuckin' A.

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    The main reason I wish Marvel had all their properties in-house is because the rogues gallery gets tied up as well. So Spider-Man can't go up against Kingpin, and Nick Fury can't conduct a secret war in Latveria against Dr. Doom. Not that there aren't enough characters and ideas to go around, so I'm patient enough. Eventually they will get them back.

    (the other reason is I think Marvel has a better handle on their characters than the studios that current have them, and have less incentive to start over every six years. I wish I could say the same about WB and their DC properties).

    camo_sig2.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote: »
    I wish I could say the same about WB and their DC properties.

    Well, that's just because the DC division at Warners has its head completely up its ass.

    It's not like Marvel's formula is mystical or inscrutable.

    "Talent" + "Budget" + "People who give a shit" + "Respect for the property" = McDuck's Silo of Gold

  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Hipstah Kitteh Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote: »
    I wish I could say the same about WB and their DC properties.

    Well, that's just because the DC division at Warners has its head completely up its ass.

    It's not like Marvel's formula is mystical or inscrutable.

    "Talent" + "Budget" + "People who give a shit" + "Respect for the property" = McDuck's Silo of Gold

    Bravo, Ross. You win at forums.

    // PSN: wyrd_warrior //
    Astro Girl, Paragon of Titan - "And Justice for All" M&M3e
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Mikey CTS wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    I wish I could say the same about WB and their DC properties.

    Well, that's just because the DC division at Warners has its head completely up its ass.

    It's not like Marvel's formula is mystical or inscrutable.

    "Talent" + "Budget" + "People who give a shit" + "Respect for the property" = McDuck's Silo of Gold

    Bravo, Ross. You win at forums.

    It's weird to me, because Warners definitely understood that formula with the Harry Potter series. Those books (and the scripts that were generated from them) are, to say politely, not so good. At least not from a narrative or cohesive standpoint.

    But Warners said, "Like I fucking care," and spent $200 million on each film and filled them with 2 dozen BAFTA winners each and every time, and proceeded to make enough money to buy Nicaragua.

    You don't need "talent" talent at every post (hello, David Yates and Mike Newell), but you need enough of it to cover your bases, and you certainly can't have big gaping gaps of it in key positions.

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    "Respect for the property" goes a long way (and it comes from/leads to the "people who give a shit"). Talent and Budget are important, but not 'hard' to come by.

    A lack of respect for the property leads to Catwoman.

    camo_sig2.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Just in:

    Gary Ross, who many assumed would be directing the Hunger Games sequel, Catching Fire, has now officially quit the project, leveraging his success with the film into a undisclosed passion project with a different studio. This will leave Lionsgate with about 4 months to put the project through turnaround before production starts at the end of this summer.


    I say, good riddance. I was not terribly impressed with the direction of that film.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote: »
    A lack of respect for the property leads to Catwoman.

    And largely, Green Lantern.

    They went to production with a lousy script and a director who just didn't give much of a crap. It was a shame, too, because it's a franchise with a ton of potential, and if I were Warners I'd be looking at trying to turn it around by half-way rebooting the franchise with Will Smith as John Stewart or Justin Timberlake as Guy Gardner.

    It was yet another victim of the WB hierarchy's mentality of comic properties as "those things that we do to make the money." I don't know how you don't learn your lesson with The Dark Knight showing you how to do it right, but damned if they aren't stubborn.

  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Hipstah Kitteh Registered User regular
    Well come on, it can't be that surprising. Any system as entrenched as the studio system is isn't likely to change even given a body of evidence that it needs to. Even if that evidence is Texas $$$, though you think that would at least give them pause.

    // PSN: wyrd_warrior //
    Astro Girl, Paragon of Titan - "And Justice for All" M&M3e
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Tomanta wrote: »
    A lack of respect for the property leads to Catwoman.

    And largely, Green Lantern.

    They went to production with a lousy script and a director who just didn't give much of a crap. It was a shame, too, because it's a franchise with a ton of potential, and if I were Warners I'd be looking at trying to turn it around by half-way rebooting the franchise with Will Smith as John Stewart or Justin Timberlake as Guy Gardner.

    It was yet another victim of the WB hierarchy's mentality of comic properties as "those things that we do to make the money." I don't know how you don't learn your lesson with The Dark Knight showing you how to do it right, but damned if they aren't stubborn.

    With respect to their future properties, the chatter from WB immediately following The Dark Knight's success was largely to the effect of "Man, people really love this dark, gritty stuff. We're gonna make Superman more like that."

    They've only ever known how to chase the market appeal of their last success, often with profound disinterest for the content of their IPs. WB isn't exactly unique in this respect, but it's not like many other studios let Batman become Batman and Robin in a mad dash to make the franchise more accessible to younger audiences. In that case, chasing the audiences led to a public backlash so bad that we needed to invent a new term for the storytelling maneuver necessary to bring Batman back from the dead.

    Edd on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Tomanta wrote: »
    I wish I could say the same about WB and their DC properties.

    Well, that's just because the DC division at Warners has its head completely up its ass.

    It's not like Marvel's formula is mystical or inscrutable.

    "Talent" + "Budget" + "People who give a shit" + "Respect for the property" = McDuck's Silo of Gold

    And "vision". Without a guy like Fiege in charge they'd have been more likely to fail with a combined universe.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Mikey CTS wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    I wish I could say the same about WB and their DC properties.

    Well, that's just because the DC division at Warners has its head completely up its ass.

    It's not like Marvel's formula is mystical or inscrutable.

    "Talent" + "Budget" + "People who give a shit" + "Respect for the property" = McDuck's Silo of Gold

    Bravo, Ross. You win at forums.

    It's weird to me, because Warners definitely understood that formula with the Harry Potter series. Those books (and the scripts that were generated from them) are, to say politely, not so good. At least not from a narrative or cohesive standpoint.

    But Warners said, "Like I fucking care," and spent $200 million on each film and filled them with 2 dozen BAFTA winners each and every time, and proceeded to make enough money to buy Nicaragua.

    You don't need "talent" talent at every post (hello, David Yates and Mike Newell), but you need enough of it to cover your bases, and you certainly can't have big gaping gaps of it in key positions.

    IIRC J.K. Rowling had enormous control on what happened behind the scenes. DCE does not have that power.

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    Green Lantern at least had some relationship with the license. I guess Ryan Reynolds may have helped keep it from completely derailing. That one Batman film I refuse to name, it was still Batman.

    Catwoman... there is no relationship at all. I mean, fuck, they even changed Catwoman's name. (I do admire Halle Berry accepting the Razzie, though).

    And speaking of Razzies, Adam Sandler won both the Worst Actor and Worst Actress razzies. And Jack & Jill won every other razzie, too.

    camo_sig2.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    A lack of respect for the property leads to Catwoman.

    And largely, Green Lantern.

    They went to production with a lousy script and a director who just didn't give much of a crap. It was a shame, too, because it's a franchise with a ton of potential, and if I were Warners I'd be looking at trying to turn it around by half-way rebooting the franchise with Will Smith as John Stewart or Justin Timberlake as Guy Gardner.

    It was yet another victim of the WB hierarchy's mentality of comic properties as "those things that we do to make the money." I don't know how you don't learn your lesson with The Dark Knight showing you how to do it right, but damned if they aren't stubborn.

    With respect to their future properties, the chatter from WB immediately following The Dark Knight's success was largely to the effect of "Man, people really love this dark, gritty stuff. We're gonna make Superman more like that."

    While completely ignoring that Marvel has been knocking it out with happy, fun, clever superhero movies like Iron Man and whatnot.

    With each inevitable failure, Warners always reminds me of the TV programming robots from Futurama.

    "Will this get those oily nerds off their calculators? If not, add more grimdark. They love the grimdark. Oh, and the edginess. Make with the edginess."

  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Ascension. Ascension. Hallelujah. Registered User regular
    The trouble with Marvel is that their movies just don't feel like events anymore. They don't feel like big, epic adventures. The Batman films do.

    Also, I think this is easily one of the best credits sequences. Ever. Say what you will about the quality of the film itself, this bit is fucking gold.

    Raoul Duke wrote:
    There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

    I have a tumblr.
    Check it out.
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The trouble with Marvel is that their movies just don't feel like events anymore. They don't feel like big, epic adventures. The Batman films do.

    The same can be said for the Marvel Events in the comics.

    "Oh, there's a huge crossover. Is it spring again already? *yawn*".

    I don't really need Marvel films to feel like an event. I'm perfectly happy getting 1-3 films a year if they keep up with their current quality.

    But I'm also a huge Marvel fan and am therefore biased.

    Also: the Watchmen intro is the best.

    Tomanta on
    camo_sig2.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    I don't know if you'll find anyone who doesn't put the Watchmen credits on the list of best opening sequences of all time.

    All time.[/kanye]


    But for realsy, the sheer volume of narrative information that is exchanged there is almost overwhelming, but handled so deftly and artfully.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Plus it's about the only part of the film (other than the absence of squiditude) that doesn't follow the comic so closely it feels stifled by it. I thought Watchmen was one of the best Moore adaptations, but it is almost slavishly devoted to the original, at least on a surface level.

    Eagles on Pogo Sticks: Musings of a Goofy Beast
    http://goofybeast.wordpress.com
  • quantumcat42quantumcat42 Registered User regular
    The trouble with Marvel is that their movies just don't feel like events anymore. They don't feel like big, epic adventures. The Batman films do.

    Also, I think this is easily one of the best credits sequences. Ever. Say what you will about the quality of the film itself, this bit is fucking gold.


    Oh, fuck yes. Somehow, the full genius of the song pick didn't hit me until watching it again now -- obviously I got before that it was referencing the changing times from the Minutemen to the Watchmen and on, but somehow I missed that it could also be talking about the "changed times" of the alternate history established in the sequence as well.

    I really want to go read the book again now.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    Plus it's about the only part of the film (other than the absence of squiditude) that doesn't follow the comic so closely it feels stifled by it. I thought Watchmen was one of the best Moore adaptations, but it is almost slavishly devoted to the original, at least on a surface level.

    I still don't know how I feel about the film. I think part of that has to do with the fact that I knew the source material so well prior to seeing the film that it's the kind of thing that really distorts your perception of how successful the film actually was. Much the same way fans of the books endlessly defend the not-so-good cinematic versions of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, I'm not sure my objectivity is 100% intact, thanks to the film being so slavishly devoted to the material.


    My favorite cut of the film is indeed the Ultimate Cut, which clocks in at almost 4 hours, and it's such an engaging and fascinating experience, but I'm so close to it I don't know if it's "good" or not anymore. It's definitely unlike just about anything else out there, and it's always gorgeous to look at.

  • PsychoLarry1PsychoLarry1 Registered User regular
    I love the Watchmen intro, but it reminds me that I would be fine with never seeing another film's/show's take on the Last Supper.

    Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places.
    Theoretically Evil
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    There are several things about the Gospels that don't add up, but the biggie is how all of these villains line up against Jesus to conspire and bring him down (the Pharisees, the Romans, Pilate, Judas, Satan) when the actual goal all along was for Jesus to meet the fate they brought down upon him. It's something that even major religious sects do a poor job of reconciling, and they almost uniformly continue to cast players like Judas and Pilate in a negative light even though those players are instrumental in the entire purpose of Jesus' existence, his martyrdom.

    I felt that The Last Temptation of Christ was really the only work that successfully(ish) strove to put those pieces in a narrative order that make some kind of workable logic.

    I'm an atheist but in church today (I work there), gospel of john reading, it is said that pilot isn't to be faulted as he was fulfilling a prophecy... but that judas is the real one to blame.

    I started saying this as though I was disagreeing with you but I just realized it only emphasizes your point. especially since I believe it's only said in the one gospel.

    Thirith wrote: »
    Plus it's about the only part of the film (other than the absence of squiditude) that doesn't follow the comic so closely it feels stifled by it. I thought Watchmen was one of the best Moore adaptations, but it is almost slavishly devoted to the original, at least on a surface level.

    I still don't know how I feel about the film. I think part of that has to do with the fact that I knew the source material so well prior to seeing the film that it's the kind of thing that really distorts your perception of how successful the film actually was. Much the same way fans of the books endlessly defend the not-so-good cinematic versions of the Harry Potter series and The Hunger Games, I'm not sure my objectivity is 100% intact, thanks to the film being so slavishly devoted to the material.


    My favorite cut of the film is indeed the Ultimate Cut, which clocks in at almost 4 hours, and it's such an engaging and fascinating experience, but I'm so close to it I don't know if it's "good" or not anymore. It's definitely unlike just about anything else out there, and it's always gorgeous to look at.

    I wasn't even a fan of the book until the movie was coming out and I sort of feel this way. I think it's phenomenal and I have watched it a lot. but when people ask me if it's good I find it really hard to reply.

    Variable on
    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Godfather wrote: »
    So I finally got around to seeing Akira for the first time. I want opinions on the flick from seasoned film board critics like Atomic Toss and so forth.

    I thought it was a somewhat nonsensical plot...
    You say that like it's a bad thing.

    wandering on
    jBEKRTH.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    There are several things about the Gospels that don't add up, but the biggie is how all of these villains line up against Jesus to conspire and bring him down (the Pharisees, the Romans, Pilate, Judas, Satan) when the actual goal all along was for Jesus to meet the fate they brought down upon him. It's something that even major religious sects do a poor job of reconciling, and they almost uniformly continue to cast players like Judas and Pilate in a negative light even though those players are instrumental in the entire purpose of Jesus' existence, his martyrdom.

    I felt that The Last Temptation of Christ was really the only work that successfully(ish) strove to put those pieces in a narrative order that make some kind of workable logic.

    I'm an atheist but in church today (I work there), gospel of john reading, it is said that pilot isn't to be faulted as he was fulfilling a prophecy... but that judas is the real one to blame.

    I started saying this as though I was disagreeing with you but I just realized it only emphasizes your point. especially since I believe it's only said in the one gospel.

    Does your church use the Apostles' Creed? (aside: that would be an awesome/weird video game)
    I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended to the dead.* On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

    It's clear that on some level, Pilate has been vilified by the confederacy of Christians, which is so odd to me, considering how little a role Pilate had to play in any of it. He didn't give two shits about Jesus, it was much more a political conflict between the presiding Jewish leaders and the fracturing of their base.

    Regardless, even if Judas gets most of the blame (and he does, as does Peter the Denying), none of that fits the narrative of Jesus dying for our collective sin as a predetermined act of martyrdom laid down by God Himself years before. If a martyr's whole purpose was being martyred (and divinely so), then how can we blame anyone for that result? Do we wish for some reason that Jesus had not been made to suffer and die? Without Judas (and Pilate, and Peter, and the Pharisees), Jesus is basically just a Ghandi beta model, and kind of a dick at that.

This discussion has been closed.