Originally posted by Darth Exodus
acting was great in parts, fine in others
I hope you don't mean Akerman and Goode.
the action was awesome
No, not really. It completely ruined the theme of the entire film, and turned it into a mindless action flick. It's not even supposed to be an action movie.
and the slow-mo was tastefully done
...No, it wasn't. The slow motion was absolutely annoying and did nothing but turn the film into "300 Part 2".
Plot was solid and the 'gaping holes' were non-existent (super-villains are meant to have crazy-ass stuff like genetically-altered lynx's)[/b]There were very big plotholes. For example, if Nite Owl's out of shape, how can he do super flips and throw people five feet? And saying "super-villains are meant to have weird creatures" is nothing more than a poor attempt to protect a weak point. If a creature appears on screen, you explain it. Don't just go "hey, I'll put it here to look cool", because it leaves everyone wondering what the hell's going on. And by calling Ozymandias a super-villain proves that you didn't understand Veidt' role in the comic.
[quote]nobody cries in the comic either, Rorschach just gets pissy
No, he cries.
and it wasn't mindless sex and action but succeeded in delivering the major themes of the GN the best a movie could have in the time.
Um, no. That's just... That's just a no. Slow motion 5 minute sex scenes don't put AM's point across in any way, shape, or form. Neither just random and useless fight scenes that weren't even in the comic.
You mentioned that the music was a little off at times right....😕
No, I didn't.
No offense Toku King, I don't think you 'got' a lot of the techniques and other things used in the film at all. Such as, the sex scene was meant to be silly and cringing, even more amplified by the choice of music. It wasn't meant to be tasteful or romantic.
I see what you mean about the fights though. The comic wasn't an action comic at all. But since they had to leave out a lot of the explainations of some of the characters skills due to time constraints, they included the fight scenes to physically display the skills the Crimebusters have.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
The comic wasn't an action comic at all. But since they had to leave out a lot of the explainations of some of the characters skills due to time constraints, they included the fight scenes to physically display the skills the Crimebusters have.
You mean... The Watchmen!
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
No offense Toku King, I don't think you 'got' a lot of the techniques and other things used in the film at all.
No offense, but you're absolutely wrong. I take video classes, I'm obsessed with movies as much as comics, and could name almost every video technique done in the film. Unfortunately, Snyder used most of these elements incorrectly.
Such as, the sex scene was meant to be silly and cringing, even more amplified by the choice of music. It wasn't meant to be tasteful or romantic.
I know, and it's something that had absolutely no reason to be there. I don't need anything more silly or cringing past Rorschach's actions, and neither did Alan Moore, considering how short those scenes were compared to the comic. Nobody in the theater liked the sex scene. Those two scenes were basically hints of Zach Snyder screaming "IT'S FOR ADULTS! LOOK AT THAT! THAT'S FOR ADULTS!" at the top of his lungs.
I see what you mean about the fights though. The comic wasn't an action comic at all. But since they had to leave out a lot of the explainations of some of the characters skills due to time constraints, they included the fight scenes to physically display the skills the Crimebusters have.
Which ruined the film further.
Originally posted by Toku KingI took Media in college for two years myself, and from my view, even if Snyder did flash his effects around too much, I enjoyed a lot of the little things he added in. It kind of echo's some of the things Moore added into the comic, such as when Rorscach is behind Jacobi, and underneath is the title 'Fearful Symmetry'. It's these little things I noticed, and that you probably noticed as well (yet didn't like, and that's fine), that I thought were nice little touches. I had to start thinking of the film objectively, and stop judging it so heavily on the book, which I did at first. The film doesn't have to be identical to the book, since if it was, where would even be the point in making it in the first place?
No offense, but you're absolutely wrong. I take video classes, I'm obsessed with movies as much as comics, and could name almost every video technique done in the film. Unfortunately, Snyder used most of these elements incorrectly.I know, and it's something that had absolutely no reason to be there. I don't need anything more silly or cringing past Rorschach's actions, and neither did Alan Moore, considering how short those scenes were compared to the comic. Nobody in the theater liked the sex scene. Those two scenes were basically hints of Zach Snyder screaming "IT'S FOR ADULTS! LOOK AT THAT! THAT'S FOR ADULTS!" at the top of his lungs.
Which ruined the film further.
Originally posted by Toku KingI thought so. Now that was a stupid move.
Yeah, they were.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I took Media in college for two years myself, and from my view, even if Snyder did flash his effects around too much, I enjoyed a lot of the little things he added in. It kind of echo's some of the things Moore added into the comic, such as when Rorscach is behind Jacobi, and underneath is the title 'Fearful Symmetry'. It's these little things I noticed, and that you probably noticed as well (yet didn't like, and that's fine), that I thought were nice little touches. I had to start thinking of the film objectively, and stop judging it so heavily on the book, which I did at first. The film doesn't have to be identical to the book, since if it was, where would even be the point in making it in the first place?
I'm actually not comparing it to the book in that aspect. As a moviegoer, "Watchmen" put details in general that should've been left out completely(most obviously the slow motion). And when I do compare the details to the book, the film's details are even worse, because they show Snyder's need to crutch everything he does with special effects instead of story.
Originally posted by Toku King
I'm actually not comparing it to the book in that aspect. As a moviegoer, "Watchmen" put details in general that should've been left out completely(most obviously the slow motion). And when I do compare the details to the book, the film's details are even worse, because they show Snyder's need to crutch everything he does with special effects instead of story.
I must say that Toku King's review of the watchmen was the best I have read yet! The movie was very close to the graphic novel, but as far as it being a movie. It was bad. It was way too long. What I don't think people understand is that, in order for a movie adaptation of a book, comic book, play... whatever it is, it does not have to follow the the source exactly. The only thing the movie needs to be exact with are the characters and the mood, feeling, emotions of the source. Dark Knight was a good film and all the characters were very close to the source. The story is not like anything in any of the issues of Batman. What made Dark Knight great was Christopher Nolan's interpretation of the Batman mythos. That is what makes a great film maker! Sorry if this upsets any Zack Snyder fans out there but... all he did was follow the comic book panel for panel, page for page. He did it in 300 as well. Where , I ask, is the artistic talent of direction and cinematic techniques?! These reasons is why I think Watchmen sucked. And Toku King is right in his review.
Originally posted by jcvaldez
I must say that Toku King's review of the watchmen was the best I have read yet! The movie was very close to the graphic novel, but as far as it being a movie. It was bad. It was way too long. What I don't think people understand is that, in order for a movie adaptation of a book, comic book, play... whatever it is, it does not have to follow the the source exactly. The only thing the movie needs to be exact with are the characters and the mood, feeling, emotions of the source. Dark Knight was a good film and all the characters were very close to the source. The story is not like anything in any of the issues of Batman. What made Dark Knight great was Christopher Nolan's interpretation of the Batman mythos. That is what makes a great film maker! Sorry if this upsets any Zack Snyder fans out there but... all he did was follow the comic book panel for panel, page for page. He did it in 300 as well. Where , I ask, is the artistic talent of direction and cinematic techniques?! These reasons is why I think Watchmen sucked. And Toku King is right in his review.
This is an intense conversation. Negative reviews aside, I still want to see this. I'm a big fan of the GN, I'm really curious to see how it pans out on the big screen. I know I may be let down, I just want to make that judgment on my own.
Is anyone else excited for the Watchmen: Tales of the Black Freighter DVD? The marketing company I work for is doing a promotion for it. I wish they gave us promos - oh well. Looks like I will just have to add it to my list when I go to get the new Mastodon album on Tuesday.