FortyTwostrongest man in the world The Land of Pleasant Living Registered Userregular
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.
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".
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
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
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
you're 35 minutes late, and the disaster is the opposite of what you were being set up to expect the entire time
WHAT A TWIST!
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
Dr. Manhattan at the end and not aliens?
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.
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
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.
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:
The post explosion scene. Where was the shot after shot of broken and maimed bodies? Man, how could a faithful adaptation skimp on some of the most powerful panels in the comic?
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?
the nature of the explosion itself seemed to sort of atomize any bodies
Pony on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
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
the total destruction of the city in the movie took that away from me
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
They changed the nature of the explosion from the comic, so they should have changed it to something that allowed them to convey the weight of the human sacrifice. You know, the point of the story's climax?
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.
It's seeing the city as dead and lifeless, bodies and blood strewn across the streets that really makes the moment sink in.
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.
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
Pony on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
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
for that reason alone I didn't like that the city got totally blown to smithereens in the movie, but I can understand that that was a necessary change, and like I said the new ending worked just fine, so whatever
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....
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....
the largest criticism i would have of the movie is it is massively bloated by trying too hard to remain faithful to the comic, but missing the elements of the comic that made those scenes necessary
perfect example: rorschach in prison
in the comic, the entire section about rorschach in prison serves as his backstory. we get to understand him, where he comes from, why he's like the way he is today, where he changed
the interviews with the psychiatrist, and the notes from the psychiatrist about him, give us a lot of insight into the character
in the movie, it doesn't serve much. it gives us two small rorschach flashbacks (while exempting the one that actually shows the creation of his mask and his decision to become a superhero in the first place) that, ultimately, don't tell us much about the character other than "his life sucked as a kid and one day he fucking snapped"
those two flashbacks, in the hands of a better adaptation, could've been inserted into the movie more naturally without the un-necessary segue of putting rorschach in prison
it's one of those things they did in them movie because that's how the book did it, not because it made a better narrative
Pony on
0
Options
FortyTwostrongest man in the world The Land of Pleasant Living Registered Userregular
the largest criticism i would have of the movie is it is massively bloated by trying too hard to remain faithful to the comic, but missing the elements of the comic that made those scenes necessary
perfect example: rorschach in prison
in the comic, the entire section about rorschach in prison serves as his backstory. we get to understand him, where he comes from, why he's like the way he is today, where he changed
the interviews with the psychiatrist, and the notes from the psychiatrist about him, give us a lot of insight into the character
in the movie, it doesn't serve much. it gives us two small rorschach flashbacks (while exempting the one that actually shows the creation of his mask and his decision to become a superhero in the first place) that, ultimately, don't tell us much about the character other than "his life sucked as a kid and one day he fucking snapped"
those two flashbacks, in the hands of a better adaptation, could've been inserted into the movie more naturally without the un-necessary segue of putting rorschach in prison
it's one of those things they did in them movie because that's how the book did it, not because it made a better narrative
Nah, Rorschach needs to go to jail in the movie. but I think more could have been done with the psychiatrist scenes as well. They should have been the primary focus instead of thunderchubs getting his arms sawed off. Again, more needless gore.
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.
Bingo, that was the first thing my girlfriend said on the way home. Although we both hate the new trend of making a "trilogy" when one movie would be fine - here it would have been better. We could have let the psychology stand on its own for a little bit.
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
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.
Posts
line is repeated over and over, until suddenly it becomes
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.
That aside, isn't it confirmed that the bluray (and or dvd, whatever) will come with an extended cut, i.e. MOAR comic scenes ?
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.
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
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
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".
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
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
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
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.
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
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.
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.
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
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:
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
about that
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
Absolutely.
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
I didn't say that
I was making an aside
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.
it's already bloated and wandering
adding more running time to that doesn't seem to helpful
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
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.
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
I want snuggles
I am now going to collect them
GOOD DAY SIR
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!
None for me thanks, it gives me terrible wind.
the largest criticism i would have of the movie is it is massively bloated by trying too hard to remain faithful to the comic, but missing the elements of the comic that made those scenes necessary
perfect example: rorschach in prison
in the comic, the entire section about rorschach in prison serves as his backstory. we get to understand him, where he comes from, why he's like the way he is today, where he changed
the interviews with the psychiatrist, and the notes from the psychiatrist about him, give us a lot of insight into the character
in the movie, it doesn't serve much. it gives us two small rorschach flashbacks (while exempting the one that actually shows the creation of his mask and his decision to become a superhero in the first place) that, ultimately, don't tell us much about the character other than "his life sucked as a kid and one day he fucking snapped"
those two flashbacks, in the hands of a better adaptation, could've been inserted into the movie more naturally without the un-necessary segue of putting rorschach in prison
it's one of those things they did in them movie because that's how the book did it, not because it made a better narrative
Nah, Rorschach needs to go to jail in the movie. but I think more could have been done with the psychiatrist scenes as well. They should have been the primary focus instead of thunderchubs getting his arms sawed off. Again, more needless gore.
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
then they could have made editing decisions based on what worked instead of what there was time for.
Bingo, that was the first thing my girlfriend said on the way home. Although we both hate the new trend of making a "trilogy" when one movie would be fine - here it would have been better. We could have let the psychology stand on its own for a little bit.
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
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.