Watchmen

[homsar]

Just curious, how many people think a director could have done a better job of doing an adaption of The Watchmen and 300 better than snyder has?? Not a perfect adaption but prolly the best we can get. Also opinions might change with the DC when it comes out.

[Fedor]

Originally Posted by homsar

Just curious, how many people think a director could have done a better job of doing an adaption of The Watchmen and 300 better than snyder has?? Not a perfect adaption but prolly the best we can get. Also opinions might change with the DC when it comes out.

I don't know whether he could have done a better job but fuck it, I want to see P.T. Anderson's Watchmen. He can handle large casts and ~3 hour movies. You'd also have John C. Reilly and Philip Seymour Hoffman in there somewhere.

[T-rex]

Originally Posted by Korioni

Or the scene(otherwise known as half the scenes) where Rorschach goes on and on and on in a monotone voice eerily akin to the new batman's in a monologue that says nothing.

Most of his monologues are line for line from the novel. Mostly characterization, sure, but an element of setting the scene. Surely, he doesn't say nothing. He may not be deeply philosophizing, but it is all relevant to the events surrounding him. And people have been talking in that type of voice to sound bad ass since before Batman (see: Clint Eastwood). I won't say it is not cliche, but it is not a Batman gank.

Originally Posted by Korioni

Or maybe the scene where the most powerful and important character in the movie resolves his inner conflict in 30 seconds of screen-time.

Get over it, he's not human. You have as much of a chance of understanding his actions as the smartest termite on earth.

I don't know why I would reply to such an obvious troll, but you should work on your delivery a little bit. Talk more about the poorly choreographed fight scenes, those were bad.

[Korioni]

The fight scenes were bad, but I don't harp on those as much because that's not what this movie was marketed as, as much. Through interviews/previews and so forth it was marketed more as a, "darker side of superheroes" thing(yes, I realize that this is consistent with the novel).

I don't complain about the action scenes because that's not what they tried to make the movie.

I complain about the shallow character development/convoluted plot/terrible dialogue and so forth because that's what they wanted to do with the movie, and they failed.

[Leviothan]

I've had three friends of mine watch this, including my girlfriend who never read Watchmen and enjoyed it a lot. I haven't met someone who I personally knew who didn't like it. I agree character development was lacking a bit but fuck... you wanted a 5 hour movie? They got what they needed across in a well fashioned manner.

[Korioni]

Originally Posted by Leviothan

I've had three friends of mine watch this, including my girlfriend who never read Watchmen and enjoyed it a lot. I haven't met someone who I personally knew who didn't like it. I agree character development was lacking a bit but fuck... you wanted a 5 hour movie? They got what they needed across in a well fashioned manner.

No, my point is that the director needed to take artistic license so that he could put the important elements into the movie without making it 5 hours long. What he didn't need to do was quote the goddamn novel word for word so that the fanboys would cream.

[Zeste]

About the dong:

Are you guys really noticing it THAT much in the movie? When the dong first appeared, I couldn't really notice it. Its the exact same color, lighting, texture, everything the same as his legs. Half the time it blended into his leg muscles.

Now that it's been a few days, I can't even see the dong in my head. It's just part of the blue blur.

I am surprised that it stood out for so many people. To me, it just disappeared against the identically colored/shaded legs. Maybe if he had teabagged someone or something.

There was more dong in Eastern Promises. And even then, it was nothing.

[OneofOne]

Originally Posted by Korioni

No, my point is that the director needed to take artistic license so that he could put the important elements into the movie without making it 5 hours long. What he didn't need to do was quote the goddamn novel word for word so that the fanboys would cream.

If only he actually was more accurate in his quoting, some of the dialogue and monologue would actually have been better (and make more sense) in the movie. His cut and paste of it just didn't work in too many scenes.

[T-rex]

Originally Posted by Korioni

No, my point is that the director needed to take artistic license so that he could put the important elements into the movie without making it 5 hours long. What he didn't need to do was quote the goddamn novel word for word so that the fanboys would cream.

Directors don't write dialogue. Are you really surprised that the writers drew from the source material? Converting still images to movement takes some level of creativity. Converting a monologue to a monologue is simple, especially when the first one was already well written.

If your problem is with adaptations in general, than I think many people would agree with you but who cares at this point. The movie is made, it is time to come to terms with it. If this were a standalone movie without any source material it would be phenomenal. I hope some day creative people start making big budget movies so something like that can happen.

[Saban]

Good movie would watch again.

[Gilgamel]

Meh. That is sufficient.

[Clericnon2boxed]

enjoyed it, never read the comic and avoided trailers

can't wait for a 5 hour director's cut, because it felt rushed sometimes

[dak]

Bit off track but the famous footage of JFK getting assassinated was shown in the film but it was much more clear compared to anything I've seen in the past.

Does anyone know if it was digitally remastered or a staged remake for the movie?

[Zeste]

Originally Posted by dak

Bit off track but the famous footage of JFK getting assassinated was shown in the film but it was much more clear compared to anything I've seen in the past.

Does anyone know if it was digitally remastered or a staged remake for the movie?

Watching it here: YouTube - Discovery JFK assassination

I think it would have to be entirely CG, or a staged remake. Honestly, would bet it's a CG backdrop on a greenscreened car with actors. I can't imagine you could film such a visceral reenactment on location.

[Fedor]

Originally Posted by dak

Bit off track but the famous footage of JFK getting assassinated was shown in the film but it was much more clear compared to anything I've seen in the past.

Does anyone know if it was digitally remastered or a staged remake for the movie?

I don't know how anyone could have thought that was the real footage in the first place.

edit: Zapruder is in the footage from the opening credits.