fistfulofmetal
Banned
Watchmen will probably be better than The Dark Knight.
jett said:Neither of them have superpowers.
Nevermind TDK's realistic approach to the whole thing.![]()
I dunno. I've seen some of it at work and I'm not exactly thrilled. I'm trying to stay away from it for a proper theater viewing.polyh3dron said:So basically, every negative reaction I've read so far is from someone who just doesn't like things about the story that were present in the GN, like the fact that Ozymandias has some weird looking pet, or "what's the deal with the funny blue guy lololol"
ItsInMyVeins said:No, but I'm sure most people consider Batman a Superhero even so.
fistfulofmetal said:Watchmen will probably be better than The Dark Knight.
fistfulofmetal said:Watchmen will probably be better than The Dark Knight.
Kastro said:I think he's using the Watchmen definition of a "superhero" vs. a "masked adventurer"
Nah, I am very hyped for it but it can't be. Nolan is a great director while Synder is rather average at best. The fact he is sticking close to the GN is what makes it excel it seems, Synder has never been a very strong director unlike nolan.fistfulofmetal said:Watchmen will probably be better than The Dark Knight.
Cheebs said:Nah, I am very hyped for it but it can't be. Nolan is a great director while Synder is rather average at best. The fact he is sticking close to the GN is what makes it excel it seems, Synder has never been a very strong director unlike nolan.
I doubt many would claim Synder has the directorial ability to match Nolan.
Both of which were teeeeerrrrrrrrrrible.ItsInMyVeins said:Snyder's done like two movies so far so I'd say it's a bit early to say that "he's never been a strong director".
Put Nolan's first two movies against Synders and there is no question Nolan is a far better director based on their first two films compared.ItsInMyVeins said:Snyder's done like two movies so far so I'd say it's a bit early to say that "he's never been a strong director".
MickeyKnox said:Both of which were teeeeerrrrrrrrrrible.
MickeyKnox said:Both of which were teeeeerrrrrrrrrrible.
MickeyKnox said:Put Nolan's first two movies against Synders and there is no question Nolan is a far better director based on their first two films compared.
I am very hyped for Watchmen but Synder isn't some top line director. He is just a big action guy who does pretty visuals. Not that that is a bad thing, but its hard to claim he is better than Nolan when that is all he is.
ItsInMyVeins said:But I do think that Snyder is the perfect choice for Watchmen, and probably more so than Nolan would be in this specific case.
Oh yeah, I agree with that. I was just saying on a director director basis Nolan is the more skilled director by quite a lot and thus thought fistfulofmetal's comments were rather over the top.ItsInMyVeins said:But I do think that Snyder is the perfect choice for Watchmen, and probably more so than Nolan would be in this specific case.
Baker said:1. I really fell into the "omg best graphic novel ever" shtick until around Chapter 7 (when Rorschach is in prison). I can't put my figure out in it, but the book didn't really grab my attention between then and the final chapter. Is this a minor general consensus or am I just a lame and bitter old man? Chapter 4 was absolutely godly though.
2. I don't really understand the Comedian character, especially in the whole "he gets the satire/dark comedy/humor" of what's really going on.
2a. The only "comedy" I felt/figured out was shown by the New Frontiersman grunt wearing the smiley shirt in the last panels. Veidt is the smartest man in the world and fucking made an interdimensional psychic alien appear to stop WWIII. He even convinced the "good" guys not to snitch on him. However, his whole plan was ultimately undone by some semi-crazy loner who had the minor foresight to mail his diary before he left.
2b. I don't get why Blake was so destroyed by what he saw at the island. What's more ironic/"funny" than putting a stop to war by destroying 3 million people with yet again, a fucking interdimensional psychic alien?
3. Are there any super major plot points you don't notice until a second read through? The only "ohh yeah" moments I can remember are the Rorschach = End is Nigh dude, the Nostalgia bottle popping up all over the second Mars act, and the artist concocting the alien with what's his name. I'm sure there are a lot of parallel lines with the Black Freighter that start making even more sense.
Kastro said:I disagree. Snyder is overly flashy when the comic is anything but. The comic doesn't even use sound effects.
Prince of Space said:2a. It was?
Snaku said:The mediums are completely different. What makes a graphic novel entertaining might not be so when transfered over to film. An audiences tastes & expectations must be taken into consideration when adapting a graphic novel to film.
Kastro said:I disagree. Snyder is overly flashy when the comic is anything but. The comic doesn't even use sound effects.
Watchmen needed someone with intelligence and poise to direct it. Snyder's like the nerdy college kid who just read watchmen for the first time and thinks he can make a cool movie by having lots of slow mo fight scenes.
He may end up doing a good job, even a great one. But I don't agree that he was the perfect choice.
JayDubya said:I liked Dawn of the Dead and 300 quite a bit. They weren't spectacular, but they were solid efforts. On a 4 star scale, they're arguably 2.5-3, and I'd lean towards 3.
There isn't a plane of reality where fucking 300 can be considered anything other than shitty nonsense. Dawn of the Dead may be able to squeak by on account of being a zombie film if it wasn't a remake of a better movie.fistfulofmetal said:oh man you've been comedy gold in this thread
Overall, comicdom probably will embrace this movie, but its critics are going to compare it to The Dark Knight, Iron Man and Sin City , though it would be unfair to use those familiar templates. This kind of film hasn't been done before, it has no clear "right" or "wrong," that, even in current Batman movies, still is very well-defined. Also, it's pretty refreshing to see a "superhero" movie with no superheroes -- well, there is one, the omniscient Doctor Manhattan.
But focusing back on this mythic movie, on every level, it will demand your attention and intelligence as it entertains; it's sophisticated and sensationally sophomoric; and for those just watching Watchmen for the Watchmen without any expectations or knowledge of the comic's storyline or historical importance, this really will be a blast.
It's pretty bold stuff for a film peopled by characters hopping about in leather and latex. That is the film's real tightrope, and it may come down to the individual's acceptance of this fact as to whether they enjoy the film or not...
...Where the film falls down - there are makeup moments where physical (ageing and prosthetic) makeup doesn't quite match up with the precision of other aspects of the film. Some cahracters age well, others look like they've been in a plastic surgery accident. President Nixon looks like Harvey Keitel fallen asleep in a hardened bowl of porridge. That and the non-signposted blending of the 'comic book' with the 'real' are what will give most viewers pause. The denseness and complexity of the story may also be a challenge for some, but for most, this will be a plus - Alan Moore's multi-layered work of art brough to living, breathing life.
This is a lavishly shot super-production that is as faithful as any true believer of Alan Moore's original could hope to see.
Which means, as a Hollywood Blockbuster, it's one hell of an anomaly. The traditional experience of the comic book movie is turned on its head. The usual lines that separate good and evil are blurred beyond recognition, and the the touchstones that we usually use when watching this kind of movie are missing.
So now, the world that exhilarates in the new found joy given it by Iron Man and The Dark Knight, gets something they haven't bargained for. This is not comic book made real or dragged into our 'reality', but a comic book world that is real, in and of itself.
MickeyKnox said:There isn't a plane of reality where fucking 300 can be considered anything other than shitty nonsense. Dawn of the Dead may be able to squeak by on account of being a zombie film if it wasn't a remake of a better movie.
MickeyKnox said:There isn't a plane of reality where fucking 300 can be considered anything other than shitty nonsense. Dawn of the Dead may be able to squeak by on account of being a zombie film if it wasn't a remake of a better movie.
fistfulofmetal said:
jett said:It doesn't matter how much you wish it was, 300 is not a good movie.
jett said:It doesn't matter how much you wish it was, 300 is not a good movie.
True, but remember, he sent it to the New Frontiersman -- not exactly the most reputable source of information, so I doubt anything would be majorly exposed.Baker said:Well, I'm assuming if there was an Epilogue, it was. The editor told the grunt that he needed to fill two pages and had him go through the shit pile where they earlier threw Rorschach's journal.
I guess it wouldn't outed Veidt as the creater of the alien, but it at least would have cast blame on him for all the other shit.
fistfulofmetal said:STOP STOP I CAN'T BE LAUGHING THIS HARD AT WORK.
Is that what you call it now?fistfulofmetal said:STOP STOP I CAN'T BE LAUGHING THIS HARD AT WORK.
Kastro said:so when are you ever gonna add anything that's not obnoxious? stick to collecting natalie portman pictures.
MickeyKnox said:Is that what you call it now?
So what do you call your "thing" with Natalie Portman pictures?fistfulofmetal said:what, the place that I go every week day and provide services for a company in return for monetary compensation?
yes
i call that work.
jett said:If IGN does, then fine. If they really think a Snyder movie is better than TDK, then lulz at them. Speaking of which I find their comment about slowmo a little strange...everything, EVERYTHING I've seen of the film points in the exact opposite way.
Jtwo said:300 was awesome!
I don't really know how to argue it other than to say that you people are taking it too seriously.
Everything about that movie was so over the top, how could you not love it? It's like the definition of a fun time.
I agree. Lulz at him.quadriplegicjon said:youve seen the movie? if not, these comments are pretty funny.
MickeyKnox said:So what do you call your "thing" with Natalie Portman pictures?
Still, it's a triumph of abridgment. As the movie itself is a triumph of adaptation. Those who claimed Watchmen was unfilmable may have been right, if you're accepting the usual rules of filmmaking. Zack Snyder hasn't done that, and it makes the film feel incredibly outside of the mainstream, incredibly fresh, incredibly unique. This isn't Watchmen beaten into submission for movie screens, it's Watchmen being allowed to exist as itself on movie screens. There will be those who are alienated by this, and those who just don't have the ability to keep up for nearly three hours. It's not an easy film, and it's a movie that demands participation. It's a movie that requires digestion; opinions walking out of the theater will not be the same as opinions three days later. Be wary of reviews written in the heat of the moment; a thoughtful person probably wants to approach this movie after having some time to chew on it.
And how amazing is that? A huge budgeted superhero movie that delivers intellectually? That takes serious, ballsy chances with the form? That isn't giving audience what they expect, and is possibly not giving them what they want? Why, that sounds like a piece of art. A glorious, epic, exciting, mind blowing piece of art.
TrAcEr_x90 said:Why is everyone all of a sudden being so snobby towards 300? take it for what it is. Snyder did a great job adapting it from the comic. If you have ill feelings towards the story you might want to blame frank miller.