Support NeoGAF

[EviLore]

c) 2001: A Space Odyssey

Doesn't really count.

Wikipedia
"Originally, Clarke was going to write the screenplay for the film, but this proved to be more tedious than he had estimated. Instead, Kubrick and Clarke decided it would be best to write a prose treatment first and then adapt it for the film and novel upon its completion. The screenplay and treatment were developed by Clarke and Kubrick in collaboration, which were loosely based on "The Sentinel" and incorporated elements from other various Clarke stories. Clarke wrote the novel adaptation independently. Although the film has become more famous due to its groundbreaking visual effects and ambiguous, abstract nature, the movie and book were intended to complement each other."

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Doesn't really count.

Wikipedia
"Originally, Clarke was going to write the screenplay for the film, but this proved to be more tedious than he had estimated. Instead, Kubrick and Clarke decided it would be best to write a prose treatment first and then adapt it for the film and novel upon its completion. The screenplay and treatment were developed by Clarke and Kubrick in collaboration, which were loosely based on "The Sentinel" and incorporated elements from other various Clarke stories. Clarke wrote the novel adaptation independently. Although the film has become more famous due to its groundbreaking visual effects and ambiguous, abstract nature, the movie and book were intended to complement each other."

Oh snap!

Can I switch it to "Lolita"?

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

No, for sure, I understand. I'm just referring to the extra critiism it's getting here on gaf, the extra discussion. There's simply more fans and readers of the book here than there are of many other books. Hence, more discussion. I'm not trying to criticize the book nor movie here. I'm not saying there's a bias just because it's a comic book.

I don't think it is either, but this idea that it's just a bunch of geeks that are up in arms about it, I don't really see it. Most people I've talked to are quite charmed by the film. And I know a lot of geeks.

 

[Blader]

This really, really should have been an HBO or Showtime miniseries. There was just no way to get the major points across properly in time. Maybe in a decade or two, someone will take another swing at it.

I don't know why people keep suggesting this, an HBO miniseries would never happen. Especially not with a production budget large enough to actually do the story credit.

 

[Tobor]

For the record, what are some book to movie adaptions that people are happy about? I think why watchmen is getting extra criticism is because it lies in the realm of comic geekery.

Off the top of my head, and only examples where I've read the book and seen the film, here are some excellent adaptations:

Jaws
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Wizard of Oz
The Godfather
Moby Dick(Gregory Peck, not sure of the year)
To Kill a Mockingbird
A Clockwork Orange
Willy Wonka(Wilder, not Depp)
About a Boy

I could go on...

I don't know why people keep suggesting this, an HBO miniseries would never happen. Especially not with a production budget large enough to actually do the story credit.

I would be willing to trade the larger budget for the expanded screen time and format. A 12 episode series would better fit the pacing and characterization.

 

[Exclamation-One]

For the record, what are some book to movie adaptions that people are happy about? I think why watchmen is getting extra criticism is because it lies in the realm of comic geekery.

The Shawshank Redemption. Far, far better than the original novella it was based upon.

 

[Particle Physicist]

For the record, what are some book to movie adaptions that people are happy about? I think why watchmen is getting extra criticism is because it lies in the realm of comic geekery.

yup.

 

[Tobor]

yup.

I can only speak for myself when I say absolutely not. But if it makes you feel better to dismiss opinions by generalizing, knock yourself out.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I can only speak for myself when I say absolutely not. But if it makes you feel better to dismiss opinions by generalizing, knock yourself out.

read this whole thread. some of the criticisms have been absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Evlar]

I have seen it. My fiancee and I attended a Sunday evening showing.

'Adaptation' doesn't aptly describe it. What is the word for the relationship between a movie and its storyboard? That's what this is. If you cut the GN into strips of three panels wide, tacked them onto corkboard, made a few cuts and changes to save on budget and solve a couple dilemmas with the least visual parts, and constructed your film around that board the resulting direction would be this. I think some of the actors did good work; Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jack Earle Haley are the obvious standouts.

The story is too long for the film. Going back to the storyboard idea, there are too many panels, too many shots and characters and scenes and narrative threads, too be comfortably absorbed in even a 160 minute film. Rather than editing down the story to a manageable level the director speeds the narrative up to a numbing pace. The story content is still very good and manages to retain much of its power- this movie is a slavish visualization of a very good work of graphic storytelling, and the effectiveness of Moore's and Gibbon's work isn't lost, if the poor audience can keep up.

I've been thinking about the Moore "filmography" we have to this point. Watchmen is by far the best as an alternate means of experiencing the original work. If the creators of this film had any secondary influence than the graphic novel itself it must be the movie version of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen; every creative (non)decision in the adapting, directing and editing process seems to consciously avoid all the many sins of The League. That film is so terrible, so irresponsible in its treatment of the source, so distainful of the work of the original creators, that it exists as an almost creative negative image to Watchmen. League mocks the original, Watchmen worships. League is vapid, Watchmen is lucid. League strip-mines a great graphic novel for cheap exploitable thrills, Watchmen by its literalist approach elevates a great graphic novel to near divine revelation.

I enjoyed the movie. It is Watchmen in cinematic form. It is not a very good film, though. Like watching a safe period-dress, standard staging of Hamlet I felt that the essential genius of Watchmen was retained but the cumbersome literalness in the process of bringing it to life subtracts from the creativity at the source.

 

[Zabka]

The story is too long for the film.

I thought it worked out quite nicely. It wasn't a total hatchet job in the way LOTR was (filled with plot holes and dangling bits).

 

[Flynn]

My friend pointed out to me why my Star Wars analogy wasn't exactly a good one...but you know what I mean! :lol

I'm going to argue that cinema -- at least as presented by major Hollywood output has devolved. As the audience has fragmented and home video has made it possible to select, very specifically, the kind of movies you view, the level of film literacy and ability to detect or appreciate quality has dropped.

That's why people can call Watchmen a "perfect" film. Because their baseline is Michael Bay. Of course it's perfect in comparison.

But when entire generations were schooled on Hitchcock, Ford, Wilder, etc. the bar was much higher -- not to mention that the experiences were mostly shared.

 

[AndresON777]

I thought it worked out quite nicely. It wasn't a total hatchet job in the way LOTR was (filled with plot holes and dangling bits).

I agree completely.

I dont think I'll go to the theater and see it again but I cant wait to get it on bluray

 

[Blader]

I'm going to argue that cinema -- at least as presented by major Hollywood output has devolved. As the audience has fragmented and home video has made it possible to select, very specifically, the kind of movies you view, the level of film literacy and ability to detect or appreciate quality has dropped.

That's why people can call Watchmen a "perfect" film. Because their baseline is Michael Bay. Of course it's perfect in comparison.

But when entire generations were schooled on Hitchcock, Ford, Wilder, etc. the bar was much higher -- not to mention that the experiences were mostly shared.

 

[Flynn]

Don't just gif me. Debate me on this. What's your explanation for why a new generation tolerates crap like the new Star Wars Trilogy? I'm saying they have shitty taste. And they have shitty taste because they haven't seen very many good movies. What's your reasoning?

 

[Blader]

Don't just gif me. Debate me on this. What's your explanation for why a new generation tolerates crap like the new Star Wars Trilogy? I'm saying they have shitty taste. And they have shitty taste because they haven't seen very many good movies. What's your reasoning?

It's not that hard. People simply like what they like. Taste is subjective. Different people derive enjoyment from different films in different ways.

It is possible for a person to enjoy a film like Citizen Kane and at the same enjoy something like Transformers.

 

[mrkgoo]

I don't think it is either, but this idea that it's just a bunch of geeks that are up in arms about it, I don't really see it. Most people I've talked to are quite charmed by the film. And I know a lot of geeks.

Well, I guess what I'm saying, rather than extra criticism, is that this particular example is held to higher scrutiny, simply because it's predominant with the geek side [of the internet]. There are simply more people vocal about this than, say, I don't know, I can't come up with any examples. Oh well, maybe I'm just wrong and it's just like anything else.

You know, just how LotR was looked at VERY closely, as opposed to say, I am Legend - noone seemed to particularly 'care' about that one, but perhaps because the book itself is not that good, I dunno.

I guess basically what I am saying is the higher scrutiny because it's a part of the geek-fondness, or just because it is 'good'?

 

[Flynn]

It's not that hard. People simply like what they like. Taste is subjective. Different people derive enjoyment from different films in different ways.

It is possible for a person to enjoy a film like Citizen Kane and at the same enjoy something like Transformers.

Yes, but tastes are acquired. They just don't spawn out of the aether. You gain your taste by sampling things. You don't just start out drinking good wine. You swill Ernest and Julio Gallo and work your way up.

 

[Zabka]

Don't just gif me. Debate me on this. What's your explanation for why a new generation tolerates crap like the new Star Wars Trilogy? I'm saying they have shitty taste. And they have shitty taste because they haven't seen very many good movies. What's your reasoning?

This is the worst example you could have chosen. What makes you think the Prequels did well because of young people? Moviegoers of all ages are responsible for their undeserved success.

 

[AndresON777]

You know, just how LotR was looked at VERY closely, as opposed to say, I am Legend - noone seemed to particularly 'care' about that one, but perhaps because the book itself is not that good, I dunno.

I Am Legend is a fantastic book, much better than the movie imo....though I did enjoy the movie as well.

 

[mrkgoo]

I agree with some of the great - book-to-movie turnouts suggested.

Tobor: Do you think a lot of these, while still good, would have been ripped apart now if the same movie were released? You know, this being the internet and all? Aren't the same complaints in, say, Willy Wonka in that Charlie was also 'bad' (the sneaking of the bubble stuff) the same kind of nitpicking happening in Watchmen?

 

[Flynn]

This is the worst example you could have chosen. What makes you think the Prequels did well because of young people? Moviegoers of all ages are responsible for their undeserved success.

Truly. Still, I'd argue that all generations that helped these movies succeed have, in one way or another, been impacted by the contributing factors I noted before.

EDIT: And I'll argue that younger generations are the most forgiving of the new trilogy.

 

[Acid08]

Yes, but tastes are acquired. They just don't spawn out of the aether. You gain your taste by sampling things. You don't just start out drinking good wine. You swill Ernest and Julio Gallo and work your way up.

Uh not at all. If you wanted to start drinking wine, why would you start with the shittiest if you have the option to get the best right away?

You don't have to see a bunch of shitty movies to really appreciate the great ones.

 

[Dead]

Im not sure why some of you are comparing the Watchmen adaptation to a novel adaptation and complaining its getting picked apart more...

Adapting a novel will always involve the subjective view on how to bring the material the screen. No two film-making teams would make the same movie

With Watchmen, Its a set story, written and drawn. It leaves nothing to the imagination for the most part. For the movie, you know what you expect to see, and you know what the outcome will and should look like. Zack Snyder chose to unimaginatively copy and paste the majority of the novel, while at the same time making many sophomoric and useless changes.

How can you be possibly be surprised at it being picked apart more than your average novel adaptation...?

 

[Talon]

I'm going to argue that cinema -- at least as presented by major Hollywood output has devolved. As the audience has fragmented and home video has made it possible to select, very specifically, the kind of movies you view, the level of film literacy and ability to detect or appreciate quality has dropped.

That's why people can call Watchmen a "perfect" film. Because their baseline is Michael Bay. Of course it's perfect in comparison.

But when entire generations were schooled on Hitchcock, Ford, Wilder, etc. the bar was much higher -- not to mention that the experiences were mostly shared.

Two points.

First of all, a handful of people calling the film "perfect" /= high praise for the film (see: Rotten Tomatoes 64% rating). Granted, I go to a university that's quite film literature, but the buzz on campus is that the movie is not very good, while fans of the comics are left to defend it.

Second of all, I would say that there is a much, much larger film industry today than in the past. As a result, there's going to be a lot more room for filth in terms of films that are made for pure entertainment. Now, I don't necessarily think that's a terrible thing because everyone needs an entertaining movie every now and then. That being said, there are great films being made year after year due to the larger film industry. Larger film industry = more opportunity for talent to get involved => more good films and more bad films. I mean, hell, Milk and The Wrestler both probably should've won the Academy Award this year, although I won't complain too much about Slumdog because I'm a Danny Boyle fan...but that's neither here nor there.

In closing, I don't see Tyler Perry creating successful movies as a terrible thing for the American psyche. He knows very well how to cater to his market, and he does well based on that. I have no interest in watching his movies, but that doesn't make his movies terrible for the industry. Now, I shake my head whenever I see, say, a Dragonball movie being made, but that movie's designed to flop (or so it seems).

More importantly, different people have different tastes. I always get into it with one of my friend's who literally likes every movie he sees. He's very intelligent and actually is very literate in regards to films, but he judges a movie by how entertained he was rather than it's artistic merits. I can't prove that he's wrong for liking the movie, but I can at least get him to admit that it wasn't a great film (but he flips it on me and makes me feel like an elitist dick).

 

[whytemyke]

Don't just gif me. Debate me on this. What's your explanation for why a new generation tolerates crap like the new Star Wars Trilogy? I'm saying they have shitty taste. And they have shitty taste because they haven't seen very many good movies. What's your reasoning?

Dude, nobody tolerated it. It's generally seen everywhere I turn as one of the reigning pop culture jokes of the past 20 years.

I think what you need to understand (or maybe you do and aren't discussing it) is there are two versions of hollywood. There are the movie stars, and there are the cinemaphiles. Will Smith is a star; Sean Penn is a cinemaphile as I'll call it. they exist for two different purposes. One is to create excitement that enables you to bask in escapism... the other to create art. I can watch No Country for Old Men and absolutely love it for what it is, but at the same time I have no will to watch it on a rainy afternoon time and time again. I also will watch Armageddon when I see it on TV and understand that it's not a "good" movie... but it's entertaining.

Where movies succeed and draw the most $$$ is when they are one of these sides and gently start to broach that cross-section between the two of them. Lord of the Rings, for example, or Dark Knight. Where someone can watch the film, appreciate it as entertainment and still see the artistic endeavor that went into creating it. However, films like Synechdoche, New York will never be blockbusters because they're meant to feature an artistic styling, not to thrill. At the same time, nobody is ever going to look at Independence Day as Oscar material.

Too many people make the mistake of assuming that because people prefer one of these forms to the other that they're stupid. They're not stupid. That's like saying people who buy minivans instead of sports cars are stupid. It's a choice people make to fit their comfort zone, and with the proliferation of unmasking of Hollywood these past few decades, cinema hasn't gotten worse-- there's just more of it to suit individual tastes. Don't assume a correlation between what people like and what people consider 'good'. People tend to love french fries and alcohol and yet nobody is going to say that either are good for them.

That being said... one of those populations being marketed to regularly for total dollar tonnage are idiots who will see anything. This explains Larry the Cable Guy movies being greenlit. :lol I still don't think it means that moviegoers are stupid en masse... but the spotlight sure is shined more on the stupid ones, eh?

----

Anyways, just got back from Watchmen. I can see this having a major dropoff because it'll absolutely turn off movie-goers who want a Spiderman 3 experience. I loved the movie and will own it on DVD though. Favorite exchange?
Nite Owl: "What ever happened to the American Dream?"
Comedian: "It came true." :lol awesome.

 

[Buttchin]

i liked the movie...

but if i went by the feelings of this board this is the least important opinion i should listen to...

 

[Talon]

i liked the movie...

but if i went by the feelings of this board this is the least important opinion i should listen to...

Who cares what other's think?

I was entertained by the movie, but I think it was very flawed in a number of avenues (acting, some of the music, character development).

 

[Tobor]

Well, I guess what I'm saying, rather than extra criticism, is that this particular example is held to higher scrutiny, simply because it's predominant with the geek side [of the internet]. There are simply more people vocal about this than, say, I don't know, I can't come up with any examples. Oh well, maybe I'm just wrong and it's just like anything else.

You know, just how LotR was looked at VERY closely, as opposed to say, I am Legend - noone seemed to particularly 'care' about that one, but perhaps because the book itself is not that good, I dunno.

I guess basically what I am saying is the higher scrutiny because it's a part of the geek-fondness, or just because it is 'good'?

Just because it's "good", trust me. It's a comic book, sure, and it has it's share of fanboys, but it's widely regarded as one of the finest works in the medium. The movie should be held to a higher standard.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Oh snap!

Can I switch it to "Lolita"?

Lotlita's not much of an adaptation, though- more of "a movie that happens to have the same characters and plot."

 

[Blader]

Yes, but tastes are acquired. They just don't spawn out of the aether. You gain your taste by sampling things. You don't just start out drinking good wine. You swill Ernest and Julio Gallo and work your way up.

Again, people like what they like. They watch movies that interest them. If movies like Transformers or the Star Wars prequel are more successful than something like No Country for Old Men, it's mainly (imo) because of marketing. "Oscar films" don't receive a fraction of the amount of advertisement that typical summer blockbusters do. You can't blame people for not watching enough "good films" if they don't even know they exist.

Additionally, with something like Star Wars, you have to take into account the baggage that comes with that franchise. Star Wars is an enormously popular cult phenomenon, and people waited 16 years for the prequels. Most people didn't like the prequels, but they still went to see them because it's Star Wars on the big screen. How many times does that happen? Especially for something like Revenge of the Sith, which was really the end of an era. The financial success of the prequel trilogy has less to do with the quality of those films or moviegoers having shitty taste, and more to do with that people like the franchise no matter what.

 

[PantherLotus]

Don't just gif me. Debate me on this. What's your explanation for why a new generation tolerates crap like the new Star Wars Trilogy? I'm saying they have shitty taste. And they have shitty taste because they haven't seen very many good movies. What's your reasoning?

I think you underestimate the depth of shitte that past audiences waded through and overestimate their 'discerning tastes' by selecting a few of the greatest directors that ever lived to use as examples.

People didn't suddenly become more accepting of worse work; the majority of all film has always been relatively bad, and the majority of all audiences have relatively enjoyed it.

And while I floss this point ad naseum between the teeth of critical thought on an almost daily basis, how can we not judge a work based on what is intended? We know there's a difference between "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "Watchmen," but both clearly have different intentions and goals in the mind of their respective creators. That doesn't mean that one can't enjoy either on different merits, nor that one should be more critically upheld more than another except that which matches its goals.

On those grounds, Watchmen (the movie) clearly accomplishes its storytelling goal, which I believe is several-fold:

1) To build upon the world which Moore already built, putting the story into three dimensions.

2) To express the loss of innocence that America experienced after World War II through the un-superhero narrative.

3) To make a film deep enough to both honor the Graphic Novel's author, artist, and audience and introduce a film light enough that can be presented in a limited time frame that is digestible by the mass media.


This isn't an art house film, nor an Oscar entry. This is an epic which attempts to accomplish the goals above, of which I think it succeeds quite well. I certainly acknowledge the surface-level flaws, but I think that focusing on those flaws breaks the unspoken contract with both the director and the source material to suspend your disbelief.

 

[Flynn]

You guys both raise great points. I think my point is that the craft of Hollywood's fluffy output was better honed back in the day -- because the same people who were making the art were frequently working on the fluff. There was less of a segregation between the two.

And, yeah, a bigger film industry does mean more room for experimentation. But I'd also argue that it makes it harder for the average punter to find the good stuff or to cultivate a background of the classics.

Though stuff like IMDB does make it pretty easy to go find 100 acclaimed films -- I'm just saying that with way more competition for peoples entertainment time there's way less of a likelihood of absorbing that stuff.

As opposed to, say, thirty years ago when you only had 18 TV channels to chose from. Back then there was a way better chance that you'd seen Casablanca then there is now. And it's not just because the movie is older.

@whytemyke Find an eighteen year old kid and ask him about the new Star Wars, chance are they'll be way more forgiving than a 30-something. Further to your point, I'd say the quality of the blockbuster has faded since its inception. They don't make 'em like Raiders of The Lost Arc any more. Sure they make them kinda like Raiders. But nothing's been perfect like that. I think the more time passes with half-assed entertainments posing as the best of fluff cinema, the more forgiving we become of them.

@Talon- I'm not saying Tyler Perry and the like are the end of the world. I'd argue that Paul Blart and Perry are the modern day equivalents of Abbot and Costello -- throwaway, feel good cinema with very little meat on its bones. But I'm of the mind that even our lightweight stuff can be artful. And a good argument can be made that previous generations has a better success rate of making populist movies that were also really artful.

 

[mrkgoo]

Just because it's "good", trust me. It's a comic book, sure, and it has it's share of fanboys, but it's widely regarded as one of the finest works in the medium. The movie should be held to a higher standard.

I trust you.

 

[Tobor]

I trust you.

Good, now loan me $20.

 

[Blader]

You guys both raise great points. I think my point is that the craft of Hollywood's fluffy output was better honed back in the day -- because the same people who were making the art were frequently working on the fluff. There was less of a segregation between the two.

And, yeah, a bigger film industry does mean more room for experimentation. But I'd also argue that it makes it harder for the average punter to find the good stuff or to cultivate a background of the classics.

Actually, I would argue the exact opposite: that the current size and state of the film industry means less room for experimentation.

The reason filmmaking in the 50s, 60s, and 70s was better "honed" was because, at the time, cinema was still evolving. Directors really could try anything because there weren't any set "rules" for how Hollywood should/would work. Studios could throw everything at the wall and see what would stick. By the 90s and certainly this decade, Hollywood knows what works and what doesn't.

 

[Flynn]

Actually, I would argue the exact opposite: that the current size and state of the film industry means less room for experimentation.

The reason filmmaking in the 50s, 60s, and 70s was better "honed" was because, at the time, cinema was still evolving. Directors really could try anything because there weren't any set "rules" for how Hollywood should/would work. Studios could throw everything at the wall and see what would stick. By the 90s and certainly this decade, Hollywood knows what works and what doesn't.

I meant the output as a whole. The experimentation, of course, happens outside of Hollywood by and large. Do you really think Hollywood knows any more what people want than before? If so movies wouldn't flop. They simply know better how to spent millions to trick people into showing up opening weekend.

 

[JayDubya]

I think you'll find that there were plenty of shit films churned out prior to what these darn kids today are watching.

We remember the gems because they survive the test of time and we've revisited them. The others fade into obscurity.


Incidentally, Revenge of the Sith was great.

 

[NYR]

whatever happened to that Smashing Pumpkins song? I got the OST, and it ain't on there...not in the movie either?

Same with that Muse song. Hrm....

 

[JayDubya]

whatever happened to that Smashing Pumpkins song? I got the OST, and it ain't on there...not in the movie either?

Same with that Muse song. Hrm....

Trailer music is so rarely in the actual feature that I'm surprised that you ask.

"Eyes of the Truth" wasn't in The Matrix. It would have fit pretty well, too.

I was surprised to see that they used "Prophecies," but it fit really well. I don't think "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning" or "Take a Bow" would have fit as well in the actual feature. I'm just glad something of merit came out of the Pumpkin's work for a terrible Batman movie.

 

[Talon]

Actually, I would argue the exact opposite: that the current size and state of the film industry means less room for experimentation.

The reason filmmaking in the 50s, 60s, and 70s was better "honed" was because, at the time, cinema was still evolving. Directors really could try anything because there weren't any set "rules" for how Hollywood should/would work. Studios could throw everything at the wall and see what would stick. By the 90s and certainly this decade, Hollywood knows what works and what doesn't.

Maybe in terms of blockbusters to some extent due to the ridiculous cost of films (case in point: for Pirates 2 by itself, they literally built a city on an uninhabited island), but we also have cameras and editing equipment in more peoples' hands than ever before with dozens of film festivals to showcase their work. It's by no means a democratized industry due to the powers that be, but there's certainly room for experimentation out there either as a nobody or a director with cache (Nolan with the Batman series, anything Cameron does nowadays, etc.).

@Talon- I'm not saying Tyler Perry and the like are the end of the world. I'd argue that Paul Blart and Perry are the modern day equivalents of Abbot and Costello -- throwaway, feel good cinema with very little meat on its bones. But I'm of the mind that even our lightweight stuff can be artful. And a good argument can be made that previous generations has a better success rate of making populist movies that were also really artful.

I generally agree with your sentiment that there's more crap to filter through, but, again, there's also plenty of decent stuff to roll through. Also, the luxury of having access to all these films is a relatively modern thing (and alien to many, even in the US).

I'd like for our lowbrow work to carry more artistic weight, but I don't think Martin Lawrence gives a crap since he drops two family comedies a year. Overall, has our film literacy devolved? I'm not convinced it was ever that high to begin with, honestly. Ultimately, the people that are interested in films will pay attention to the good films. Word of mouth is still the road to success.

Anyways, speaking of successful films, I saw Titanic the other day...and I have very mixed feelings. I have this impression that in 20-30 years we'll be laughing our asses at modern day CG (read: every Zack Snyder film).

 

[NYR]

Trailer music is so rarely in the actual feature that I'm surprised that you ask.

"Eyes of the Truth" wasn't in The Matrix. It would have fit pretty well, too.

Huh, weird - it's a great song. I normally don't care about trailer music, but that one hit me hard, thought it envoked the comic very well in tone and bass. Fit really well. Oh well, I'll just d/l that trailer and be done with it...

 

[Red Scarlet]

Weird movie, but it was interesting. Wondered a bunch of things while watching it and after it was over. May post some of the questions later (they're pretty general).

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Wait, what are the dangling plot ties and holes of the LOTR movies?

 

[heliosRAzi]

Wait, what are the dangling plot ties and holes of the LOTR movies?

Interesting word...

 

[AndresON777]

Trailer music is so rarely in the actual feature that I'm surprised that you ask.

"Eyes of the Truth" wasn't in The Matrix. It would have fit pretty well, too.

I was surprised to see that they used "Prophecies," but it fit really well. I don't think "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning" or "Take a Bow" would have fit as well in the actual feature. I'm just glad something of merit came out of the Pumpkin's work for a terrible Batman movie.

That pumpkins song is on the batman and robin soundtrack?

Isnt it like a remix?


Edit--thanks for the tip

 

[JayDubya]

That pumpkins song is on the batman and robin soundtrack?

Isnt it like a remix?

Both "The End is the Beginning is the End" & "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning" are on the Batman & Robin soundtrack.

I don't know if both or either actually play in the film - I wouldn't revisit that abomination for any reason. IIRC, the faster-paced "End" was in the credits. "Beginning" didn't get much play anywhere, and was just a slower paced version - the most prominent thing it has been in is the Watchmen trailer.

 

[Talon]

That pumpkins song is on the batman and robin soundtrack?

Isnt it like a remix?

It's a remix of the song that was on the Batman and Robin soundtrack.

The point of using the song was supposedly to say farewell to the bygone era of cheesy superhero movies.

EDIT: Didn't realize the remix track was on the soundtrack as well. Tres bizarre!

 

[Bluemercury]

so what's the consensus, is it good? where can one get the full book collection?

 

[Bluemercury]

That scene was in the original Mad Max too, but with a car about to explode.

i dont remember what scene are you talking?