Yes, we get it, RJ.
Why repeat a quote as if you want to be heard? Watchmen sucked. You think so? Brilliant. We are aware. Why keep repeating it like a child who isn't being given attention?
Originally posted by dadudemon
In my opinion, it exceeded it. I would rather watch the movie than read the comic, any day of the week.
I'm a reader. I'd rather read a book.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup. Glad I've touched on them in multiple posts in multiple threads then, right?And, the movie exceeded the comic in almost every category.
Nah, it didn't. The comic did way more for the story, the movie couldn't pull off what the comic did, story wise, without a director's cut and an additional DVD or two. Alan Moore did it in a book an inch thick.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It felt like the comic but thank the Lord, they didn't keep with that very linear format for all of the characters. They all seemed like the same character with just a tad bit of variance to them.
It didn't feel like the comic at all. They made the characters have less depth, not more. That's what happens when you cut parts out.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, to think that the novel had anything but a bland and monotonous color scheme is laughable. Anyone who doesn't admit that should be taken out into the streets and beaten.Sure, it's not bland at all if you compare it to Edo era "manga". 😐
And, actually, they made Manhattan even more believable.
Nope, what I said.
Manhattan was a ***** in this film. Nothing like the assured character he was in the movie.
Originally posted by dadudemon
How dare they give her a personality. How. Dare. They.
My point was that they took her personality away. She was just a whiney young woman.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Covered this point already. I understand that some people can't let go of their precious comic and think about things objectively cause that would be too intelligent.
What do you mean "let go"? What's there to let go of? Nobody has taken the comic away, or edited the comic. It's still on my shelf, the same as it always was. Lame adaptation or not.
It hasn't ruined the comic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So, in other words: "I didn't pay attention to the movie so I missed the part about tachyons clouding his vision. Look at me. I'm cool."
The tachyons cloud his vision in the comic, how does that have anything to do with what I said?
The man sees time simultaneously and can do literally anything he desires, yet you complain about realism.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, how dare they create character development. How. Dare. They.
It wasn't development, it was turning Laurie into a character that she was never meant to be, by asking the audience to accept something flawed. The whole point was that Laurie didn't think on Manhattan's level, and in the end, she changed HIS way of thinking without knowing it. She was never meant to be like "Oh, I get what he meant now.", because that dissolves everything that created the friction between them.
That's not a baseless fanboy comment, it's a legitimate flaw.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought the movie did the novel justice and then some.Also, it was one of the best novel to movie adaptations ever done.
Not really.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, I think the movie was superb. The only other movie I enjoyed more this year was Inglorious Basterds.
Ok, well done.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Watchmen movie exceeded the expectation I had from reading the comic. That's a huge accomplishment. I feel that too many novel readers are not being objective about it, at all. I've only met one other person that liked the movie more, and he already posted in this thread.
I'm not being objective enough? Are you one of those who operates under the flawed idea; "Don't judge it by the comic, judge it as a movie."? When you make an adaptation, you get judged by the source. By the source, Watchmen was a poor adaptation. It cut too much out and altered too much to be a good one. It was a decent movie regardless.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think any lesser of you, AC, for liking the novel more. In fact, it might be said that you have a better imagination than I do because you liked the novel more. Lots of people enjoy reading a story, that has lots of more details, than watching a movie of the same story. The little details and side stories are what do it for them.
That's the point of novels and non-film media; imagination. Watchmen was for people who lack imagination. I don't think less of you for liking it either, I'm not even saying I didn't.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel the opposite. It is my opinion that the Watchmen fanboys and fangirls dislike the movie specifically because they can't be objective. Especially when they say stupid shit like, "No matter what the movie is like, I'm going to hate it" before they even watch the damn film. How much more silly can that get?And, because you did like the film and didn't say you'd hate the film before watching it, your criticisms most definitely seem more objective. How can someone hate the live action adaptation of a comic they loved when it held so close to the comic?
It didn't hold close to the comic. The fact that some parts were shot for shot doesn't excuse the fact that they cut out and changed way too much for it to be considered a good adapataion.
I never said I'd hate it before seeing it, but I knew it'd cut a lot out, or change a lot and this would affect my opinion. It did. It was better than I expected, but it was as bad of an adaptation as I expected.
You cannot cut out such important plot points as Hollis Mason's murder and expect to be considered a good adaptation. Rorschach's psych evaluation, Laurie/Manhattan on Mars (The WHOLE thing), the true ending with Veidt/Manhattan, Veidt's interviews etc. These are integral parts. Tales of the Black Freighter didn't even make it, neither did Under the Hood.
They couldn't pull off the part where Manhattan is talking to Laurie on Mars, and Rorschach at Karnak both at the same time in the present/past/future simultaneously. Alan Moore was 100% correct, the comic shows off things that are impossible to reproduce in cinema.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's how I see it:The comic book series is a giant bland colored cake with lots of flavors hidden throughout the many layers of the cake, but the flavors have similar tastes. The layers fit together nicely, but sometimes, the layers get messed up into each other unnecessarily. Also, the layer design can sometimes be a tad unappealing.
The movie is a much smaller cake with an exterior decoration that makes the giant cake look like it was designed by a 5-year-old. The flavors are more varied in the layers, but there are fewer layers. However, the layers fit together more closely and even the layers are beautiful in design. Some of the layer design was slightly changed, but it very closely resembles the Giant cake.
I don't see anything bland about the comic. Your taste for the characters being moving images is probably what causes that. The art is flawless, the characters are some of the most intricate in comics (To the point that you can find Watchmen influences today).
=AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm a reader. I'd rather read a book.
Ah.
That explains it.
I'm more of a movie person. I feel that the movie "canvas" gives a lot more freedom and ability to tell a story. What takes an entire page to describe could take less than a second to convey, on screen. That's power.
You won't see me writing novels, any time soon. Only scripts.
What does this mean about my opinion? It means that I expected the movie to offer more than the comic, no matter what. If it failed there, it would have been horrible horrible horrible. It not only succeeded there, it exceeded beautifully on multiple levels.
SQUID? Or, Manhatten-esque "bombs"? The latter makes more sense.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't see anything bland about the comic. Your taste for the characters being moving images is probably what causes that. The art is flawless, the characters are some of the most intricate in comics (To the point that you can find Watchmen influences today).=AC
I'm not the only one to think the art was plain, monotonous, bland, etc.
This is all opinion of course, but you'll find some contemporary comics with far better art and coloration. Fact. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemonI prefer novels over movies, they allow more room for imagination. Reading "Interview with the Vampire" is much more satisfying than watching the movie IMO. Doesn't really matter to me if it can be depicted more easily on screen, I like spending those long moments taking in page after page, going over them again and again, letting my mind take control, not my eyes.
Ah.That explains it.
I'm more of a movie person. I feel that the movie "canvas" gives a lot more freedom and ability to tell a story. What takes an entire page to describe could take less than a second to convey, on screen. That's power.
Best author out there is Matt Reilly, his book "Temple" is amazing.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ah.That explains it.
I'm more of a movie person. I feel that the movie "canvas" gives a lot more freedom and ability to tell a story. What takes an entire page to describe could take less than a second to convey, on screen. That's power.
The movie proved that there are things images and movies can't convey that comics and novels can. So I'm not sure why you feel the movie was better.
They couldn't pull of Dr. Manhattan simultaneously experiencing time, which is crucial. The book did.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You won't see me writing novels, any time soon. Only scripts.What does this mean about my opinion? It means that I expected the movie to offer more than the comic, no matter what. If it failed there, it would have been horrible horrible horrible. It not only succeeded there, it exceeded beautifully on multiple levels.
SQUID? Or, Manhatten-esque "bombs"? The latter makes more sense.
The Squid ending allowed for the Veidt/Manhattan ending, which made way more sense than letting Laurie use his lines. For reasons I just stated.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not the only one to think the art was plain, monotonous, bland, etc.This is all opinion of course, but you'll find some contemporary comics with far better art and coloration. Fact. 🙂
It's not a fact.
Art is preference.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The movie proved that there are things images and movies can't convey that comics and novels can. So I'm not sure why you feel the movie was better.They couldn't pull of Dr. Manhattan simultaneously experiencing time, which is crucial. The book did.
Because the movie did in less than 3 hours what the novel took many many pages to do, and then some.
Also, I didn't have a problem, even a little bit, understanding his time experience. All it takes is one sentence, and that should be all it takes. If you needed a couple of pictures to help you understand "parallel realities" perception, that's fine. (Wow, that sounds incredibly insulting, after rereading it. I do NOT mean it to be insulting. Some people understand things in different ways. For me, text is usually good enough. For others, text with pictures. Forothers, a picture. Still, for others, hands on. I did NOT mean it to sound as demeaning as it came off.) Just know that not everyone needs that or even wants it. (Wow, that las
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The Squid ending allowed for the Veidt/Manhattan ending, which made way more sense than letting Laurie use his lines. For reasons I just stated.
The other ending, for reasons I did not state other than it made more sense, was better. It made more sense. Laurie using his line was not out of place at all.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not a fact.Art is preference.
-AC
I agree. I could have sworn I mentioned something about that, earlier in this thread. hmm
lol. I was being a smartass, AC. That's what the smartass smilie is for, at the end, there. Alas, this proves a point about written communication/entertainment missing some ways of communication.
Imp. I don't see anything in my post that is worth replying to, other than "ah, ok." Or, "yeah, we will just have to agree to disagree, there." So, that should be the last of it. AC, if you want to reply, again, we should probably take this to PM. I think we've done a superb job at keeping this civil...which is astounding...not just for us, but for any comic book and movie lovers. It's rare to find a civil conversation about such topics when it comes this particular kind of subject.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
haermm
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
100% man here, babe. A man stands by his opinion until he is convinced otherwise. If I were to cave, I wouldn't be much of a man.Get a green card.
A man also doesn't emply one set of rules when it suites him, only to toss them way of the curbside when it doesn't.
Green card? I was born in East L.A.
Be a man.