My opinion is not fact, my opinion is subjective like everyone else's. This isn't opinion, it's fact.
No, objectively, as proven.
Did you consider that I wasn't attacking you, that you were perhaps being over-sensitive? No? Consider that.
It's not a contradiction. It was me fully not clarifying what I was referring to, which is my bad.
You continuing to tell me "For YOU" won't make it any more true. I've continued to provide massive evidence and proof that shows you why, outside of your overall judgement of the flick, it's a poor adapation. This does not require you to agree, so there's no point in discussing it. You agree with fact or you deny it. One is sensible, one is dumb.
For you to stop concerning yourself with how others act, yeah.
Yeah, then you ended up debating me yourself, now you dislike me.
...but really?
Hardly ever been in the religion forum in my life. Any other times I've been in there were extremely one off, so you obviously pay more attention to me than I'd like or you are thinking of someone else.
If you take my "name-calling" seriously then I suggest getting more than a sixth-grade backbone, pal.
This isn't opinion, it's objective.
Yeah, I'll change who I am so you don't tear up when we debate. Sure.
(That was sarcasm)
Likewise, I'm tired of you not knowing what is the difference between fact and opinion.
Once again, you miss the point, but thank you for telling me I can post as little or as much as I like. I didn't need your permission.
As far as leaving things out, think about ANY adaptation of a complex, or sometimes just plain lengthy, property. Aspects HAVE to get left out and that's something everyone should expect going in. As for why I thought it was decent, as I said I thought the casting and acting was near-perfect, the feel/tone of the graphic novel was represented accurately on the screen I thought and yes, even though they left things out, the ideas conveyed in the graphic novel were translated into the film; the movie evoked thoughts and ponderings on a lot of the same things the graphic novel did, ie "is it morally acceptable to kill of millions to save billions," etc.
Anyway, I know you won't allow yourself to understand or agree with me, but considering that the film kept the core ideas/themes of the book intact and represented them well, that's why I consider it a decent adaptation.
Now, let me say that it's been a couple years since I've read the graphic novel. It's possible that when I reread it, I'd see things in it that make me more critical of the film, but as of now, this is how I'm feeling.
As for the Dr. Manhattan stuff; less poetic and meaningful? Sure. But for me, I FELT more when I saw the film version of that scene. Actually HEARING his voice and the music in conjunction with the images allowed me to have an emotional response that I was unable to have when reading the book.
Which brings me to my next point. I didn't mean to gimp the compliment, I just meant to give it context. As I stated just above there, the film allows the viewer to have a different response to essentially the same material, therefore allowing for a broader understanding and deeper appreciation for the work as a whole. And no I'm not saying that I didn't understand the Dr. Manhattan scenes when I read them in the book, I'm just saying that for me, I can watch the film, then go back and read the book again and like it even more.
And also there's just something that's plain awesome about seeing scenes in the movie lifted directly from the book. I'm sure a lot of fans would agree.
And I agree, the book doesn't NEED a companion piece or an adaptation, but it sure is nice. Lord of the Rings didn't NEED to be made into a film trilogy, but I fvcking love those movies, moreso than the books. What qualifies whether or not a property NEEDS to be adapted anyway?
Anywho, hopefully you'll get the jist of what I mean.
Don't give me that nonsense of "You won't let yourself agree.". I disagree because I disagree. I don't agree with you. Not because I'm forcing myself to, but because what the Watchmen movie did was what South Park does every episode.
At the end, the nicely sum up what the point of the episode was explicitly, for all the stupid people.
Watchmen did the same. That was the one point that translated over from the book because they explicitly said "Is it wrong or right to kill millions to save billions?". They didn't clearly convey all the other themes of moral absolutism, all the nuances around being or feeling obsolete, deconstruction of the genre, nihilism etc. Naturally, because of what they changed, the whole point of the time/space theme wasn't conveyed accurately. The comic actually conveys Dr. Manhattan being in multiple times at once; he's talking to Laurie on Mars, referencing Rorschach. Then at the very same time, but also later, he's talking to Rorschach in the same manner he spoke to Laurie on Mars. "Sorry, I'm informing Laurie five minutes ago".
That IS what you're saying though. "It offered a different perspective.", it didn't. It just cut down what was already there. That's literally all it did. Nobody got a proper understanding of Dr. Manhattan and the way he sees things because they took out everything that depicts that in the comic, including his final scene with Veidt.
I'm above debating the whole "It's a moving image so it's awesome.". I've got an imagination.
Nothing. They never need to be adapted.
Ultimately what you're saying is that Watchmen wasn't necessarily as good as the book, nor was it needed, but it was nice. Fine, it's happened now, and it was fun. I just don't think "Fun" justifies its existence.
Gender: Male Location: +40° 36' 5.70", -73° 57' 49.46
Well first off...i hate the graphic novel Watchmen....it was boring and horrible i.m.o......yet i find the movie was way better than TDK, i found TDK to be so boring and trying so hard to be real life...it was such a huge disapointment to me.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 29th, 2009 05:47 PM
