Orik, I like your explanation of how this film can be seen as taking to the extreme all the comic-book-movie tropes that we have come to know and love. I just don't think that's enough to make up for how bad the structure and pacing of the movie turned out.
Backwards has been criticizing the source material for having such a heavy emphasis on the characters' histories, and saying that the movie just preserved the same story-to-exposition ratio. But this ratio isn't the key to understanding the structure of the comic: the key is how each thread of character history is tightly separated by, e.g., correspondence relevant to that history, or an interview with one of the characters, or a long quote from Under the Hood. Even though the narrative didn't follow a very standard map through its many conflicts and resolutions, it had a clear structure that allowed those threads to be woven together in a compelling way. The movie totally eschewed that structure, except for the brilliant introductory montage. Even if the content is in some sense critical of the standard comic book movie, the form is entirely unremarkable, or even just plain bad.
I guess the point is that the comic played with the standard narrative structure by introducing these faux extradiegetic documents that added depth to the characters and the world. Snyder instead uses the standard comic book movie technique for introducing character history: the flashback. Ok, that's alright, I can imagine a way to use that technique in an interesting way -- say, by giving a character untrustworthy flashbacks, or by having the flashbacks occur in a Memento-style reverse order to complement the progression of the narrative. I don't know. Something, anyway. Snyder did nothing like that, he just used the standard technique as such. And because of this, it's difficult for me to read the movie as anything but a standard comic book movie, because that is exactly the form that it takes.
My brother said he realized who the bad guy was when he saw a shot of Ozy with his laurels, he said, "I knew that he was the bad guy because only a egomaniacal nut would wear one of those things." I thought that was funny.
Man, ya'll keep getting hung up on the soundtrack. It was fine.
And Johnny Greenwood needs to do every movie gonsarnit!
These are music sophisticates, Cristoval. Their pallette is far advanced from ours and as such it was the equivalent of master food tasters having to endure a double cheeseburger. It is beneath them. Our musical taste buds have not developed as their's have so we found the musical choices to be satisfactory.
That's my theory anyway because if I had not read these forums before going in I would have loved the soundtrack and not even questioned it.
Trent the difference between you and everyone else is that you wandered into the movie already loving it.
Every bad review you yelled about how they didn't get it.
You came in heavily bias toward the movie and every single thing in the movie that wasn't very well done you have chosen to overlook it.
The movie could have been just Dr Manhattan jizzing over an old watch or something and you would have said how accurately it captured the feel of it.
My brother said he realized who the bad guy was when he saw a shot of Ozy with his laurels, he said, "I knew that he was the bad guy because only a egomaniacal nut would wear one of those things." I thought that was funny.
They telegraphed the ending so hard I couldn't believe it. I mean, sure, foreshadowing or whatever. But the scene where the Comedian burns the map? They have Ozy staring at him with this look of intense hatred and ominous music in the background. That scene worked so much better in the book because Ozy was just sort of out of the way, you could almost forget he was there.
My brother said he realized who the bad guy was when he saw a shot of Ozy with his laurels, he said, "I knew that he was the bad guy because only a egomaniacal nut would wear one of those things." I thought that was funny.
They telegraphed the ending so hard I couldn't believe it. I mean, sure, foreshadowing or whatever. But the scene where the Comedian burns the map? They have Ozy staring at him with this look of intense hatred and ominous music in the background. That scene worked so much better in the book because Ozy was just sort of out of the way, you could almost forget he was there.
Yeah, it seemed like he killed Comedian because he torched his chart, rather than listen to what he had to say and expand upon it.
McCly on
0
RobchamThe Rabbit Kingof your pantsRegistered Userregular
Man, ya'll keep getting hung up on the soundtrack. It was fine.
And Johnny Greenwood needs to do every movie gonsarnit!
These are music sophisticates, Cristoval. Their pallette is far advanced from ours and as such it was the equivalent of master food tasters having to endure a double cheeseburger. It is beneath them. Our musical taste buds have not developed as their's have so we found the musical choices to be satisfactory.
That's my theory anyway because if I had not read these forums before going in I would have loved the soundtrack and not even questioned it.
Trent the difference between you and everyone else is that you wandered into the movie already loving it.
Every bad review you yelled about how they didn't get it.
You came in heavily bias toward the movie and every single thing in the movie that wasn't very well done you have chosen to overlook it.
The movie could have been just Dr Manhattan jizzing over an old watch or something and you would have said how accurately it captured the feel of it.
No I wouldn't.
I did have problems with the movie and I listed them before, but the things everyone in here were bitching about were greatly exaggerated. There was nothing in it that prevented me from enjoying the hell out of the movie.
I didn't overlook shit, and if you think I'm overlooking the music find some OBJECTIVE way to tell me that they were bad choices because I loved the soundtrack.
My brother said he realized who the bad guy was when he saw a shot of Ozy with his laurels, he said, "I knew that he was the bad guy because only a egomaniacal nut would wear one of those things." I thought that was funny.
They telegraphed the ending so hard I couldn't believe it. I mean, sure, foreshadowing or whatever. But the scene where the Comedian burns the map? They have Ozy staring at him with this look of intense hatred and ominous music in the background. That scene worked so much better in the book because Ozy was just sort of out of the way, you could almost forget he was there.
Yeah, it seemed like he killed Comedian because he torched his chart, rather than listen to what he had to say and expand upon it.
You just don't fuck with another man's carefully planned chart.
My brother said he realized who the bad guy was when he saw a shot of Ozy with his laurels, he said, "I knew that he was the bad guy because only a egomaniacal nut would wear one of those things." I thought that was funny.
They telegraphed the ending so hard I couldn't believe it. I mean, sure, foreshadowing or whatever. But the scene where the Comedian burns the map? They have Ozy staring at him with this look of intense hatred and ominous music in the background. That scene worked so much better in the book because Ozy was just sort of out of the way, you could almost forget he was there.
I saw that a bit differently, because he got a lot of those looks. This was still in the part of the movie where his death was being actively investigated and was the central mystery, so it didn't seem out of place.
EDIT - This also when he was doing a lot of other prickish things, like the whole
My brother said he realized who the bad guy was when he saw a shot of Ozy with his laurels, he said, "I knew that he was the bad guy because only a egomaniacal nut would wear one of those things." I thought that was funny.
They telegraphed the ending so hard I couldn't believe it. I mean, sure, foreshadowing or whatever. But the scene where the Comedian burns the map? They have Ozy staring at him with this look of intense hatred and ominous music in the background. That scene worked so much better in the book because Ozy was just sort of out of the way, you could almost forget he was there.
Yeah, it seemed like he killed Comedian because he torched his chart, rather than listen to what he had to say and expand upon it.
You just don't fuck with another man's carefully planned chart.
Scarlet really? You think they should have made the story even more confusing by using Memento-style flashbacks in addition to everything else?
The story is not a very interesting one, dude. Sorry. It's the structure and characters that make the comic good.
I thought they captured the characters very well if not perfectly. The structure could never be like the comic book because it's not a comic book but I agree with you that it was sort of lacking.
Once again though, nothing to even remotely prevent me from watching this movie another 30-50 times before I die.
Orik, I like your explanation of how this film can be seen as taking to the extreme all the comic-book-movie tropes that we have come to know and love. I just don't think that's enough to make up for how bad the structure and pacing of the movie turned out.
Backwards has been criticizing the source material for having such a heavy emphasis on the characters' histories, and saying that the movie just preserved the same story-to-exposition ratio. But this ratio isn't the key to understanding the structure of the comic: the key is how each thread of character history is tightly separated by, e.g., correspondence relevant to that history, or an interview with one of the characters, or a long quote from Under the Hood. Even though the narrative didn't follow a very standard map through its many conflicts and resolutions, it had a clear structure that allowed those threads to be woven together in a compelling way. The movie totally eschewed that structure, except for the brilliant introductory montage. Even if the content is in some sense critical of the standard comic book movie, the form is entirely unremarkable, or even just plain bad.
I guess the point is that the comic played with the standard narrative structure by introducing these faux extradiegetic documents that added depth to the characters and the world. Snyder instead uses the standard comic book movie technique for introducing character history: the flashback. Ok, that's alright, I can imagine a way to use that technique in an interesting way -- say, by giving a character untrustworthy flashbacks, or by having the flashbacks occur in a Memento-style reverse order to complement the progression of the narrative. I don't know. Something, anyway. Snyder did nothing like that, he just used the standard technique as such. And because of this, it's difficult for me to read the movie as anything but a standard comic book movie, because that is exactly the form that it takes.
You make some good points, but I think it isn't so much what techniques Snyder used for this film so much as how he used them. I would say the fact that he didn't do it all that well is more important than the means he used to tell the story. The execution is what matters.
And really, no one benefits from comparing the source material to the comic book.
I actually had to look away when the guys arms were being cut off
Also when Rorschach chopped the shit out of that guy's head
I thought it was pretty neat they used that line when he was killing the guy rather than one of the dogs.
What line? I can't seem to remember.
"the shock of the knife ran through my arm, something blood something something, and I opened my eyes and was Rorschach"
I completely butchered the line but whatever.
McCly on
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited March 2009
Some people here didn't like the movie because they had a hard time watching it with their noses stuck up in the air.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I actually had to look away when the guys arms were being cut off
Also when Rorschach chopped the shit out of that guy's head
I thought it was pretty neat they used that line when he was killing the guy rather than one of the dogs.
What line? I can't seem to remember.
"the shock of the knife ran through my arm, something blood something something, and I opened my eyes and was Rorschach"
I completely butchered the line but whatever.
Shock of impact ran along my arm. Jet of warmth spattered on chest, like hot faucet. It was Kovacs who said "Mother" then, muffled under latex. It was Kovacs who closed his eyes. It was Rorschach who opened them again.
Mr. G on
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Some people here didn't like the movie because they had a hard time watching it with their noses stuck up in the air.
seriously people who completely could not enjoy this movie are dumb
and need to get their heads out of their asses
hard to see a movie with your innards blocking your view
My head was neither up my ass nor my nose in the air and I did not like this movie.
I wanted to LOVE this movie, but it felt disjointed and dragged to hell and back. The pacing was bad and the needless gore and sex was just that, needless. The battles were the same thing we have been seeing in almost every superhero movie for the last decade at least.
There are somethings that work as a comic, but not as a movie. This movie did not work because it relied too much on things that worked in the book.
And people are going to say that it is "a companion to the book" bollocks on that. It is a major motion picture that should be able to stand on its own. It should not have to be a companion to anything.
I didn't mind the slow motion in this, and I'm not sure why, because it bothered me a bit in 300. I think partially because it wasn't all the time.
A duck! on
0
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 had its flaws, plenty of em. But they were outweighed by the merits. The movie was entertaining to watch, it was captivating.
It is probably one of the best adaptation works I have ever seen, much better than Jurassic Park even.
Why? Because Synder acted more as an translator and an adapter. He translated the comic into a movie and did a fantastic job in the process.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Sars_BoyRest, You Are The Lightning.Registered Userregular
Some people here didn't like the movie because they had a hard time watching it with their noses stuck up in the air.
seriously people who completely could not enjoy this movie are dumb
and need to get their heads out of their asses
hard to see a movie with your innards blocking your view
My head was neither up my ass nor my nose in the air and I did not like this movie.
I wanted to LOVE this movie, but it felt disjointed and dragged to hell and back. The pacing was bad and the needless gore and sex was just that, needless. The battles were the same thing we have been seeing in almost every superhero movie for the last decade at least.
There are somethings that work as a comic, but not as a movie. This movie did not work because it relied too much on things that worked in the book.
And people are going to say that it is "a companion to the book" bollocks on that. It is a major motion picture that should be able to stand on its own. It should not have to be a companion to anything.
It was not very good at all.
no you are a fag because you dont like action and entertainment
Posts
Orik, I like your explanation of how this film can be seen as taking to the extreme all the comic-book-movie tropes that we have come to know and love. I just don't think that's enough to make up for how bad the structure and pacing of the movie turned out.
Backwards has been criticizing the source material for having such a heavy emphasis on the characters' histories, and saying that the movie just preserved the same story-to-exposition ratio. But this ratio isn't the key to understanding the structure of the comic: the key is how each thread of character history is tightly separated by, e.g., correspondence relevant to that history, or an interview with one of the characters, or a long quote from Under the Hood. Even though the narrative didn't follow a very standard map through its many conflicts and resolutions, it had a clear structure that allowed those threads to be woven together in a compelling way. The movie totally eschewed that structure, except for the brilliant introductory montage. Even if the content is in some sense critical of the standard comic book movie, the form is entirely unremarkable, or even just plain bad.
I guess the point is that the comic played with the standard narrative structure by introducing these faux extradiegetic documents that added depth to the characters and the world. Snyder instead uses the standard comic book movie technique for introducing character history: the flashback. Ok, that's alright, I can imagine a way to use that technique in an interesting way -- say, by giving a character untrustworthy flashbacks, or by having the flashbacks occur in a Memento-style reverse order to complement the progression of the narrative. I don't know. Something, anyway. Snyder did nothing like that, he just used the standard technique as such. And because of this, it's difficult for me to read the movie as anything but a standard comic book movie, because that is exactly the form that it takes.
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
I still haven't seen this yet
Trent the difference between you and everyone else is that you wandered into the movie already loving it.
Every bad review you yelled about how they didn't get it.
You came in heavily bias toward the movie and every single thing in the movie that wasn't very well done you have chosen to overlook it.
The movie could have been just Dr Manhattan jizzing over an old watch or something and you would have said how accurately it captured the feel of it.
Satans..... hints.....
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
Are we really thinking that Dr. M's dick was that big?
:^:
It is very much ON. Grey Ghost and Cristoval still in as far as I know.
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
They telegraphed the ending so hard I couldn't believe it. I mean, sure, foreshadowing or whatever. But the scene where the Comedian burns the map? They have Ozy staring at him with this look of intense hatred and ominous music in the background. That scene worked so much better in the book because Ozy was just sort of out of the way, you could almost forget he was there.
The story is not a very interesting one, dude. Sorry. It's the structure and characters that make the comic good.
Neat
I'll talk to vsove and Vorus to see if they remember, haha
Yeah, it seemed like he killed Comedian because he torched his chart, rather than listen to what he had to say and expand upon it.
Tumblr blargh
Also when Rorschach chopped the shit out of that guy's head
No I wouldn't.
I did have problems with the movie and I listed them before, but the things everyone in here were bitching about were greatly exaggerated. There was nothing in it that prevented me from enjoying the hell out of the movie.
I didn't overlook shit, and if you think I'm overlooking the music find some OBJECTIVE way to tell me that they were bad choices because I loved the soundtrack.
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
You just don't fuck with another man's carefully planned chart.
You just DON'T.
I saw that a bit differently, because he got a lot of those looks. This was still in the part of the movie where his death was being actively investigated and was the central mystery, so it didn't seem out of place.
EDIT - This also when he was doing a lot of other prickish things, like the whole
I thought it was pretty neat they used that line when he was killing the guy rather than one of the dogs.
Ball of hash.
What line? I can't seem to remember.
I thought they captured the characters very well if not perfectly. The structure could never be like the comic book because it's not a comic book but I agree with you that it was sort of lacking.
Once again though, nothing to even remotely prevent me from watching this movie another 30-50 times before I die.
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
And really, no one benefits from comparing the source material to the comic book.
"the shock of the knife ran through my arm, something blood something something, and I opened my eyes and was Rorschach"
I completely butchered the line but whatever.
seriously people who completely could not enjoy this movie are dumb
and need to get their heads out of their asses
hard to see a movie with your innards blocking your view
Shock of impact ran along my arm. Jet of warmth spattered on chest, like hot faucet. It was Kovacs who said "Mother" then, muffled under latex. It was Kovacs who closed his eyes. It was Rorschach who opened them again.
I just think some people are more interested in stroking the penis of academia than being entertained.
the music was pretty silly, I guffawed at the hallelujah sex scene
but munkus what about structure and making sure to play the entire movie in reverse
it's like Snyder knows nothing of art
I would compare the prison one to the fight scene in gang of daggers
My head was neither up my ass nor my nose in the air and I did not like this movie.
I wanted to LOVE this movie, but it felt disjointed and dragged to hell and back. The pacing was bad and the needless gore and sex was just that, needless. The battles were the same thing we have been seeing in almost every superhero movie for the last decade at least.
There are somethings that work as a comic, but not as a movie. This movie did not work because it relied too much on things that worked in the book.
And people are going to say that it is "a companion to the book" bollocks on that. It is a major motion picture that should be able to stand on its own. It should not have to be a companion to anything.
It was not very good at all.
Fortytwo's blog about fatherhood, life, and everything.
It is probably one of the best adaptation works I have ever seen, much better than Jurassic Park even.
Why? Because Synder acted more as an translator and an adapter. He translated the comic into a movie and did a fantastic job in the process.