How can you say it worked very well, when the very release of it proves otherwise?
It CLEARLY doesn't work well as a movie because it's taking a theatrical release, a director's cut and two additional DVD side stories to tell the bloody thing.
It wasn't meant as a movie and it doesn't work.
It's a movie with characters from Watchmen in it, loosely and carelessly telling bits and pieces of the story. It's not a Watchmen movie.
None of Alan Moore's movies work without being gimped, this is fact.
The Dark Knight was a Batman movie. It wasn't meant to adhere to any set source, it was just inspired by the source. It felt like a Batman movie, not just "Oh, Batman's in it.".
Well it worked for me. Might not have worked for you. I felt it was a great film of the genre and I base it soley on that. I don't try and match it up with the book.
I liked the Watchmen better. I like the movies ending better than the books. I also felt that TDK was purely a Joker movie and concentrated way to much on him. Ledger played a great Joker, but in my opinion, the Jokers probably the easiest character to portray, so maybe all the kudos he gets are unwarranted.
I can't believe this is even a discussion. We're in the comic book MOVIE forum. The question is which MOVIE was better. Not which is a better adaptation or which novel was better. Put that aside and look at JUST the movie. If you can't then, oh well. TDK is wayyyyy better than Watchmen. I have never read the Watchmen novel, so I know it only as a movie(which is why I comment here, and not in the Comic Book thread), and as a movie is was OK at best. The best part of the movie was the opening montage, I LOVED THAT WHOLE scene. After that the movie was just OK. TDK had me from beginning to end. Ledger did a very good job becoming a different person. Not just Method Acting like everyone, except Rorschach, did in Watchmen.
Why bring up the fact that the actor who played a role in a movie died in real life, that's just done to get a rise out of people; it's not necessary. Stay within the movie.
P.E.A.C.E.
__________________ "I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy."
How about not cutting off my quote and warping it out of context, you cretin?
Would that work for you?
"It's not up to you to decide if it works, it clearly didn't. You liking it doesn't change the fact that it's a sucky adaptation.".
I wasn't saying you can't enjoy the movie, or feel it worked as a movie. It didn't work as an adaptation, and everything proves this. The amount of add ons that exist have proven it doesn't work.
Gender: Male Location: On a rock, floating through space..
Ah, okay - now we just revert to calling names? How mature.
All hail AC - The only one allowed to decide what "works" and what doesn't. Apparently.
Why so aggressive? Why so full of hate?
Your quote was not taken out of context - just abbreviated. Nowhere did I change the meaning of your statements. Taken in full, if you prefer:
You state, as you repeated "It's not up to you to decide if it works, it clearly didn't." Then you state "I wasn't saying you can't enjoy the movie, or feel it worked as a movie."
That is EXACTLY what you are saying. Now, maybe you didn't mean to contradict yourself that way - but, like it was explained to Alice in Wonderland - "Saying what you mean and meaning what you say is not the same thing, now is it?"
Unfortunately, it comes across quite draconian and totalitarian, sort of implying (and not very subtly) that WE are not allowed to have an opinion on what sucks and what doesn't - but YOU do.
I used to enjoy your posts, you seemed, reasonable, fair and willing to allow other people their opinions without reverting to insults - but for some reason you have now decided you are the only one allowed to decide what works and what "clearly didn't"...
Quite clearly you are extremely passionate about TDK and have appointed yourself a (VERY) vigorous defender of it's virtue and value. (Damn - notice my awesome allitteration there? V ain't got nothing on me! ) But would it not be more appropriate to let the film speak for itself, and let the fans make up their own minds about what they like and what they don't - without being browbeaten about it?
Maybe you just typed too hastily? Too passionately? Maybe you didn't notice you contradicting yourself? However, it is difficult for me to guess what you MEANT to say - I can only respond to what you actually DID say.
I think a lot of people here are afraid to like Watchmen (the film). They think that they shouldn't because Alan Moore didn't want it made, etc. But that said, I'm not afraid to show my love for the movie; it's still my favorite film of 2009 thus far and I thought it was (overall) great.
With that said, I do like The Dark Knight better/think it's a better film. All I'm saying is that Watchmen was also very good. Decent adaptation, quality film imo.
I thought most of the casting was perfect (Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, JEH as Rorschach, and Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan). I've said it before but the Dr. Manhattan scenes on Mars were fantastic imo and I thought his origin sequence worked perfectly with Philip Glass's music.
Anyway, I think a lot of you are being a little harsh on the movie. It's not as rich or as layered as the graphic novel, but as a "companion piece," if you will, to the graphic novel I thought it was great.
But it didn't blow me away like The Dark Knight. TDK was the last film I've seen in theaters that literally exceeded every expectation and left me in awe of how awesome it was.
If I had to give ratings: Watchmen - 8.5/10, The Dark Knight - 9.5/10
Bravo, just a huge bravo. You have me figured out. You've nailed the tail to the donkey, cracked the pinata and hit the bullseye. Everything you said was definitely not pretentious and perfectly summed up precisely who I am and what I do.
Now, without the sarcasm, I'll explain it to you again;
Watchmen did not work as an adaptation. That is a fact. On any level that is to be considered good, it didn't work. Fine, lots of movies do not work as adaptations from a direct source.
This does not mean it isn't a well done movie you can enjoy.
I am not expressing that nobody is allowed an opinion or that I am the only one that is right, or that nobody else can speak. Stop being so painfully melodramatic. The fact is that it didn't work as an adaptation. Nothing about me has changed, you're just one of the many people who loved to see me tear apart other people, then turned on me when their debates were in pieces with me standing over them. It's cool, it happens, it's just dumb.
It's funny, you accuse me of things I haven't done, but then you suggest how I go about my ways. I am not as rabidly defensive of The Dark Knight as you claim, I'm just expressing my opinion, and my opinion on your opinion. That's allowed. No need to over-exaggerate my actions to make your own over-reacting feel justified.
There is no old AC. Fact.
Decent meaning what?
This is what I have issue with. When you spend millions of dollars on making a movie three hours long, and you still happen to leave out multiple massive chunks of an important story, as well as STUPIDLY giving characters the WRONG dialogue, I consider that a poor adaptation.
What's the basis for it being decent? It not ENTIRELY sucking as a movie you can sit and watch if you don't compare it to the book?
The Dr. Manhattan Mars scenes were heavily cut back, they were way less poetic and meaningful to the story than the ones in the book.
This is what I have issue with too.
"It's good as a companion piece.", "It's not as rich, but..." but what? If you have to gimp the compliment, you're starting off on a losing foot. The book doesn't need a companion piece. Especially a companion piece like that. It's fine as it is. The only people who needed this movie were those too lazy to read it, or people who need things to be in motion; Darth Martin being a prime example. He loves Watchmen so much because he feels he's part of the group that lauded it in the first place, now.
I guarantee you he will say he didn't find the book as good, simply because he wishes to defend the movie, or he needed the movie. People somehow feel things are automatically better if they're not just still pictures.
It's like when Doug Stanhope criticised people for saying Sarah Palin is hot...for a politician. What's the measuring stick there? That she's hotter than John McCain? She's not hot.
"Watchmen was good compared to most comic book movies.". Most are shit.
Gender: Male Location: On a rock, floating through space..
Thank you.
For you.
No, that is an opinion. YOUR opinion. But as I pointed out earlier, you seem to suffer from the delusion that your opinion IS fact...
For you.
Gee whizz golly gosh - thank you, oh THANK YOU...
Why, then, did you attack me when I stated that I DID enjoy it?
Then why state "It's not up to you to decide if it works..." ? Why do you keep contradicting yourself?
For YOU. Making it an opinion - YOUR opinion.
Maybe it's time?
Actually, no - I liked how, for instance in the Religion forum, you would post links to sites arguing for and against Creationism - this is where I developed the opinion that you were balanced.
Then why, when I wish to do the same, namely express my opinion, do you revert to abuse and sixth-grade name calling?
Maybe there should be a new one?
I'm a little bit bored with this now - and tired of having to point out to you why and how you seem unable to distinguish between fact and opinion... So if you don't mind, and in fact, even if you do - I am going to leave this here now and move on.
Please feel free to respond as much or as little as you like - but I think I'm not the only one bored with this by now. Have a great day, and please try to remember that the purpose of an open forum - where people are invited to 'post their opinions' by the creator of the discussion - is to ENCOURAGE people to share their opinions - therefore it seems more than a little small-minded to become abusive and aggressive and hurl insults about when people do exactly that...
__________________
May all your dreams come true - except for one.
Last edited by Dreampanther on Jul 29th, 2009 at 02:22 PM
Watchmen was a great movie!!! The movie is very confusing and doesn't give too much information which leaves people who read the novel saying, "where is the rest?" But if you haven't read the novel and just watch it, then it's pretty good. You get a decent movie that explains a lot, and it doesn't leave to much questions.
I never read the novel, but I still loved the movie. It explained what it had to. However, my teacher who read the novel and then proceed to watch the movie was pissed off. He kept saying they are leaving things out. It is just like the Green Lantern: FF. That's now how the story is, and it leaves a lot of question and confusion among comic book reader. Like how did the guardians get defeat by Sinestro? Why didn't the GL ring lose to yellow if there was an imperfection? Though, my father actually liked it. Why? he didn't read the comic itself.
TDK, however was just completely better. Even if you are a comic book fan, or just have common knowledge of Batman you will still understand the story. It draws you in; especially the park about the part how you live long enough to see yourself as a villain.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 25th, 2009 10:48 AM
) But would it not be more appropriate to let the film speak for itself, and let the fans make up their own minds about what they like and what they don't - without being browbeaten about it?
