Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: CthulhuKefka on March 07, 2009, 01:53:36 PM
-
So, Watchmen. Anyone else see it yet? I caught the midnight showing on Thursday and, avoiding spoilers, it was pretty decent. I went into it worried that it wouldn't live up to my expectations, yet it always seemed to keep my interest.
I had a few problems with it, but most of them should get resolved with the Director's Cut and the supposed hour of additional footage that couldn't make the theatrical cut. Any other problems I had were so small and insignificant that I don't even think they'd qualify as nitpicks.
All in all, the acting was fantastic. James Earl Haley NAILED Rorschach and Jeffrey Dean Morgan was about as perfect a Comedian as I could have imagined.
8)
-
well, the director's cut is only going to add about a half hour. then an extended cut will include some of the Black Freighter stuff. My hope is that the extra footage will be added at the end to make the impact of the finale more meaningful. it was too choppy and lacked punch.
i did think the movie was good though.
-
I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. I've never liked the ending to that story, but I did like the movie ending a little more than the novel. And I agree about Rorshach--he was absolutely perfect. I liked all the Watchmen, actually.
-
I kinda felt Ozy was a little flat. Other than that I was good with them. Rorschach was awesome. Comedian was awesome. I personally thought Nite Owl II was great as well - I liked his persona change from normal dude to Nite Owl a lot.
I also think had they gone with the comic ending, it would have turned off more people. There IS a small hole in the logic of the new ending - first with Dr Manhattan, and then with Ozy (his was more of a character hole imo). I super enjoyed the prison scene.
-
The prison scene had two little visual jokes in it that I thought were just brilliant, and which I'm pretty sure were added specifically for the movie. Very nice.
I see two logic holes in the ending, one small and one big, but both are immense spoilers. We'll have to discuss them elsewhere.
-
if youd ever play TI with Nick and I we could discuss, but noooooooooooo...
-
TI games are long enough without also holding long cross-analyses of book to movie adaptations.
-
Plot summary
Death, exploding body parts, penis, exploding body parts, sex, penis, death, penis, exploding body parts, penis, sex, exploding body parts, phenomenal ending.
Like honestly EVERY article of clothing you could see through. The sex scenes were basically pointless. I liked Rorschack and Adrian. I found the ending and a certain character's reasoning absolutely genius. Everything else in the movie basically was lame.
Also penis.
-
Plot summary
Death, exploding body parts, penis, exploding body parts, sex, penis, death, penis, exploding body parts, penis, sex, exploding body parts, phenomenal ending.
Like honestly EVERY article of clothing you could see through. The sex scenes were basically pointless. I liked Rorschack and Adrian. I found the ending and a certain character's reasoning absolutely genius. Everything else in the movie basically was lame.
Also penis.
*Sigh*
It's really sad that you aren't the only one to think this way about Watchmen. IMO it was awesome. The world that Snyder was able to create onscreen was absolutely amazing! However, the more opinions I read like this the more dissapointed I become. If this movie doesn't succeed/make a profit, you can kiss the adult dark comic book movie genre goodbye. I'm really tired of the bubblegum comic book/superhero movies such as Fantastic 4. Unfortunately, without success from Watchmen it may be all that we are left with.
Oh and as far a your "also penis" comment, really? Is everyone stuck at age 13? I swear the whole theater snickered or made some lude comment every time Dr. Manhattan appeared. Grow up. It's only a penis. Dr. Manhattan, with his god-like existence, is past all insecurities about his body and doesn't see the need for clothes.
-
I think the "adult dark comic book movie genre" was doing just fine before Watchmen, thanks to The Dark Knight, so it seems odd to say that Watchmen will make or break it.
-
I think the "adult dark comic book movie genre" was doing just fine before Watchmen, thanks to The Dark Knight, so it seems odd to say that Watchmen will make or break it.
The Dark Knight is definately darker than the run in the mill comic book movies but I wouldn't put on the same level as Watchmen. However, I was discussing this last night with my wife and I actually said that even if Watchmen fails The Dark Knight gives me hope.
-
If nothing else, consider that Dark Knight won and acting Oscar, which is ridiculously unheard of even for action movies, let alone comicbook movies. That means actors will start taking them much more seriously--everybody wants to be the next Heath Ledger. That bodes very, very well for the future of serious comicbook adaptations.
-
yeah, I think the more adult, darker-themed comic movies are firmly established now. and it wasn't just Dark Knight and Watchmen that have pushed that out there. You also have to look at Sin City and some aspects of 300 - though DK and Watchmen DID kind of cement the staying power of the style of films.
Dan is right of course, after seeing the portrayals of Batman, Joker, Rorschach, and even Iron Man, I think more big time actors are going to consider these parts, and lesser-knows are going to look for that defining part that they can make their own. I think movie-wise, we are in a good spot.
TV is a different matter...
As for some of the content in Watchmen, I really had no problem with Dr Manhattan and his nudity. It was SLIGHTLY over-done, but I think it showed well his losing touch with the human race and the sensibilities included. This detachment led to the other sex scene, which while im never a fan of nudity, I felt the whole situation felt very awkward and 1st-time-ish - which is how it was supposed to feel. I felt it was very in character. As for violence, I cringed, but felt it all was for the purpose of showing character. Frankly, the ending was the biggest problem with its logic holes - though I still thought the ending was fine. Just my opinion though.
-
I don't know, maybe if I watched it a second time it would be better. I mean, the concept of the movie was good, I just didn't like the premise.
-
What's the difference between the concept of a movie and the premise? At least in this case.
-
I may have worded that wrong. What I meant was I liked the point that was being made by the movie, but the look and feel of the movie wasn't appealing to me.
-
i felt the presentation was fantastic. the opening credits were amazingly well done. Snyder really does need to learn a few new comic-book-action-sequence tricks other than the slow-mo from 300 and Watchmen, but i felt the movie looked amazing.
Of course i like dark and gritty.
And I saw it in IMAX - everything in IMAX looks great.
-
I've read a lot of "I told you so type" articles the past few days harping the 77.9% (according to box office returns for this last Friday) drop in ticket sales, but anyone that thinks about it shouldn't find it that hard to believe. It's an almost 3 hour R-Rated movie that does not pander to the lowest common denominator. I think it was marketed wrong, all the trailers I saw were making it out to be in the same vein as Iron Man or Spiderman 3, when it obviously is targeted at a smaller percentage of moviegoers.
I think a lot of people shovel a lot of hate towards Zach Snyder, but I think he did the best darned job he could under the circumstances. Just imagine if Watchmen had fallen into, I dunno, say Joel Schumacher's hands. :o
-
I've heard a lot of people say a lot of different things about this movie. Not quite so much in the "it was bloody amazing" vein, but I've heard a lot of people say that it was decent, but with some flaws. However, a couple of my friends saw it and like half of them left before it ended...
So. What is this movie? Someone categorize it and put it in nice orderly boxes for me so I can make a decision about it lol
P.S. with ribbons
-
I've heard a lot of people say a lot of different things about this movie. Not quite so much in the "it was bloody amazing" vein, but I've heard a lot of people say that it was decent, but with some flaws. However, a couple of my friends saw it and like half of them left before it ended...
So. What is this movie? Someone categorize it and put it in nice orderly boxes for me so I can make a decision about it lol
P.S. with ribbons
It's a superhero movie, but not the same kind as Iron Man. It's a lot darker and more mature. It's a movie you actually have to pay attention to.
It really is a movie for the fans of the comic, although that doesn't stop people from enjoying it if they haven't read the comic.
Honestly though, the largest majority of dissent for the movie that I've read (not here, mind you) has boiled down to either a) "I didn't get it because I wasn't paying attention;" or b) every time I saw a certain someone's genitalia I had to either giggle or scoff because I'm so manly that any genitalia other than my own frightens me."
It's not a popcorn action movie.
I was actually glad when I walked out of the theater and overheard people (who I could tell had never read the book from hearing their conversation) that were debating the message of the movie. That made me very happy, since I don't hear that kind of banter often. :)
So to actually answer your question, if you like movies that have an almost philosophical conundrum, wrapped up with awesome setting and some pretty hardcore characters, then this is a movie for you. ;D
-
I've read a lot of "I told you so type" articles the past few days harping the 77.9% (according to box office returns for this last Friday) drop in ticket sales, but anyone that thinks about it shouldn't find it that hard to believe. It's an almost 3 hour R-Rated movie that does not pander to the lowest common denominator. I think it was marketed wrong, all the trailers I saw were making it out to be in the same vein as Iron Man or Spiderman 3, when it obviously is targeted at a smaller percentage of moviegoers.
I think a lot of people shovel a lot of hate towards Zach Snyder, but I think he did the best darned job he could under the circumstances. Just imagine if Watchmen had fallen into, I dunno, say Joel Schumacher's hands. :o
77.9%??? Gah! That hurts my heart. Such a good movie. It deserves much more than to be remembered as the comic book movie that lost a bunch of money. Hopefully through dvd sales and such they can recover alot of that money. I also thought Snyder did an amazing job.
-
Bookstore Guy was right about the opening credits: the rest of the movie could have sucked, and I would have loved it based on the credit sequence alone.
So. What is this movie? Someone categorize it and put it in nice orderly boxes for me so I can make a decision about it lol
This is a movie about superheroes trying to define their role in the world: why do they do what they do? Should they be doing it at all? How far should they go? It asks questions and discusses issues most superhero stories ignore, and it does it with some of the most interesting superhero characters you've ever seen. There is action, but most of the movie is talking and thinking.
-
To go along with Fell, it is the thought process of how they define themselves in the world that was interesting to me. It asks some of the same questions that were asked in Dark Knight, but it gives us a variety of responses. Rorschach comments on the lack of psychotics wearing the mask now-days, and goes on to detail just how far he will go (VERY far). While I loved Dark Knight, I felt that the responses the characters in Watchmen took were more believable on the whole.
and yes, /high-five to Fell about the opening credits. they were so full of absolute win. I'd recommend seeing the movie just to see the best credits ever done (and to see the prison scene).
-
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm shocked that they didn't take out the frontal nudity.
-
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm shocked that they didn't take out the frontal nudity.
Why is that? I mean, why is it even an issue? The comic had nudity, they kept that aspect of it. It's just genitalia, we all have it in one form or another, so why the big fuss over it?
-
Statistically, higher ratings = lower sales. The film would probably have done remarkably better had it been PG-13.
-
Statistically, higher ratings = lower sales. The film would probably have done remarkably better had it been PG-13.
Yeah, but I believe the full impact of the story could not be accurately portrayed in a PG-13 capacity. The story would be diluted to the point of it being laughable. This is a rough, dark storyline, one that well deserves its R-Rating. I'm not too worried that its drop in sales is anything to be alarmed at. It's a movie for the fanboys, and this fanboy is happy. :)
-
Why is that? I mean, why is it even an issue? The comic had nudity, they kept that aspect of it. It's just genitalia, we all have it in one form or another, so why the big fuss over it?
It worked for the comic because it is a draw two dimensional cartoon character. There is a big difference to seeing a drawing of a naked person and seeing a real person naked. And again, I haven't seen the movie (I'm not big on cinema).
-
i didn't actually feel it was a big deal. the character was entirely CG rendered, so I didn't feel any real difference between it and the comic. and once again, the context of his nakedness renders it virtually meaningless. in fact, i thought it looked much worse when he wore a speedo. I felt i got his character more completely when he was going commando.
-
Why is that? I mean, why is it even an issue? The comic had nudity, they kept that aspect of it. It's just genitalia, we all have it in one form or another, so why the big fuss over it?
It worked for the comic because it is a draw two dimensional cartoon character. There is a big difference to seeing a drawing of a naked person and seeing a real person naked. And again, I haven't seen the movie (I'm not big on cinema).
I'm not understanding the problem with it. Obviously a drawing isn't real, but neither is the CGI they used to make his blue genitalia.
i didn't actually feel it was a big deal. the character was entirely CG rendered, so I didn't feel any real difference between it and the comic. and once again, the context of his nakedness renders it virtually meaningless. in fact, i thought it looked much worse when he wore a speedo. I felt i got his character more completely when he was going commando.
It fits with his character very well. Right after the accident, he wore more clothes. Then, as he gradually began to disconnect with humanity, he got nakeder (is that even a word?) and nakeder.
-
...nakeder (is that even a word?) and nakeder.
I'm always nakeder. In fact, I am the nakederest! (apparently my spell check likes nakeder, but not nakedest...looks like you are fine.)