| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 03/09/2009 : 21:26:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
"We won't even go into why saving the world takes place wholly in America, where a group of trapped schoolkids takes precedence over the Iran-Contra affair, equal pay for women, a cure for AIDS, the bombing of The Rainbow Warrior - well, you see what I mean."
Considering that Watchmen is entirely a critique of superheroes' vast limitations, I don't really think this is a fair criticism at all.
You're missing my point -- why trumpet the save-the-world thing in light of said limitations. And then there's the priority thing.
I mean there's the fascinating conceit of an alternative timeline, but it has no definitions, so no one can tell what's been retained. It's all pretty narrow for a supposed global vision.
But most of all -- "do it for me." Stand aside, that's projectile vomit. 
|
 |
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 22:30:29
|
| Watchmen made $55 million this weekend. The Incredible Hulk (Edward Norton version), X-Men 1, and Fantastic Four 1 made about the same during their opening weekends. Those three ended up grossing roughly $150 million each and all of them were PG-13 and were about characters that are much more popular around the world than Watchmen. It will be interesting to see how Watchmen does on the second weekend, but I somehow doubt that it will pass $150 million and become a pop culture phenomenon like Dark Knight or Iron Man. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 02:56:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
"We won't even go into why saving the world takes place wholly in America, where a group of trapped schoolkids takes precedence over the Iran-Contra affair, equal pay for women, a cure for AIDS, the bombing of The Rainbow Warrior - well, you see what I mean."
Considering that Watchmen is entirely a critique of superheroes' vast limitations, I don't really think this is a fair criticism at all.
You're missing my point -- why trumpet the save-the-world thing in light of said limitations. And then there's the priority thing.
I mean there's the fascinating conceit of an alternative timeline, but it has no definitions, so no one can tell what's been retained. It's all pretty narrow for a supposed global vision.
But most of all -- "do it for me." Stand aside, that's projectile vomit.
I agree with MBI, Beebs: I think you are projecting something onto the film/story that is not intended.
To quote Mr.B.I. "Watchmen is entirely a critique of superheroes' vast limitations". BINGO! I agree.
It isn't a story designed to raise awareness about any popular societal ills; use of the nuclear threat is symbolic of all societal ills, but the film/story is not about raising social consciousness -- a Rainbow Warrior subplot involving an underpaid female executive on her way to a meeting with the contras who gets infected with HIV might have "enhanced" the social morals of the film, but who wants to clean up after that mess?
Occasionally stilted dialogue is a necessary element of the character studies: it's about a bunch of nut jobs who perceive themselves as super crime fighters, fer chrissake! It's about what must be going on under those masks, and what might happen if one of them actually did obtain superpowers!
Clearly, Beebs, you are a Communist sympathizer who boycotts organic food and refuses to spay or neuter your pets, which you allow to roam freely about the neighborhood. As soon as you stop advocating for legalized pygmy slavery and subsidized experimental radiation therapy for adolscent hippopottami -- all on the taxpayer dime -- you might see the light!   |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 04:45:19
|
quote:
why trumpet the save-the-world thing in light of said limitations.
Well, they kind of failed to save the world, didn't they? Nite Owl and Spectre save the kids from a fire rather than solve Iran-Contra or whatever because they don't have the inclination and, more importantly, they don't have the ability.
quote:
It's all pretty narrow for a supposed global vision.
Who supposed it was global? |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 08:36:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
why trumpet the save-the-world thing in light of said limitations.
Well, they kind of failed to save the world, didn't they? Nite Owl and Spectre save the kids from a fire rather than solve Iran-Contra or whatever because they don't have the inclination and, more importantly, they don't have the ability.
quote:
It's all pretty narrow for a supposed global vision.
Who supposed it was global?
Well, they suppose it is! In the end, they ... [invisibo] all go along with Adrian's cockamamie theory, implying the inevitable limited [limited!! - oh, that's a cute interpretation] - damage is needed to save the planet.
And I didn't SAY they would/wouldn't save anything - I said why declare that's their intention.
Not having the ability is the key point - well, it is in the grafnovs.
A. Mixed-up and misguided, they meet up post-war to fill the NYC gap [NOT national or global] when in real life the city was over-run with crime gangs.
B. They liked dressing-up and adored their public adoration.
C. They started abusing their pretend powers, perks of being a vigilante gang.
D. The public started seeing through them and dared to confront them.
E. The public unleashed its toughest weapon -- mockery. And, oh, no, they were turned into fodder for The Convention. The equivalent of Trekkies.
F. They were disgraced and couldn't adjust to "normal" life. Some went totally ga-ga.
G. One of the loonier ones concocts his evil/good plan.
Moore invites us to draw conclusions, do a lot of self-examination.
My beef with Snyder is that he cherry-picks only the bits that allow him to sew together his brand of action-chic ... which is basically what he did in 300, another film that needs a logic transplant. So Watchmen is virtually deprived of anything cohesive.
I think that's why Gilliam, et al decided it wasn't filmable ... they couldn't find a way to keep the intricacies Moore had provided.
Snyder has no such integrity. His reducto ad absurdum approach is perfect for nudging the material into the p.r. niche so loved by the P&A guys.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 09:05:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I agree with MBI, Beebs: I think you are projecting something onto the film/story that is not intended.you might see the light!
I don't know how many interviews you've read with Moore, but so far as the story goes ... you're just plain wrong. What Snyder intended was to climb another rung of the La-La-Land Ladder. I guess.
quote:
To quote Mr.B.I. "Watchmen is entirely a critique of superheroes' vast limitations". BINGO! I agree.
Yeah, so do I [except for 'entirely']. But the film doesn't do that! Nor is it entirely clear about how the WM develop, or how we're supposed to absorb that development ... or non-development.
quote:
It isn't a story designed to raise awareness about any popular societal ills; use of the nuclear threat is symbolic of all societal ills, but the film/story is not about raising social consciousness -- a Rainbow Warrior subplot involving an underpaid female executive on her way to a meeting with the contras who gets infected with HIV might have "enhanced" the social morals of the film, but who wants to clean up after that mess?
Now you're just being silly   ... and using your sneaky lawyer tricks because you think I won't notice that you've taken a false premise and built it into an illogical logical correlative. You bottom feeder! And I say that in a caring way.  
quote:
Occasionally stilted dialogue is a necessary element of the character studies: it's about a bunch of nut jobs who perceive themselves as super crime fighters, fer chrissake! It's about what must be going on under those masks, and what might happen if one of them actually did obtain superpowers!
Necessary? Really? No! Maybe in this mess of a script, but in the hands of decent writer -- well, we'll never know. Except you. Because - and you can't hide it forever - you were once a WatchMan ... oh, yes, don't deny it. Disgraced, found crawling around the rec room of the asylum. 
quote:
Clearly, Beebs, you are a Communist sympathizer who boycotts organic food and refuses to spay or neuter your pets, which you allow to roam freely about the neighborhood. As soon as you stop advocating for legalized pygmy slavery and subsidized experimental radiation therapy for adolscent hippopottami -- all on the taxpayer dime -- you might see the light!
Communism as practiced by the biblical account of the Essenes, those Jesus loving bastards. It's never been truly practiced here on the real earth. K. Marx's book's a good read, though. Have you ever finished it? You can prob'ly get it piped into your iPod while you're doing all that fitness crap.
Locally-grown organic food is the ONLY thing that will save the multi-national engendered food crisis, and I've been an advocate for nearly 30 years.
Bubble is spayed. All the cats and dogs who ever shared my home were spayed or neutered. Bubble and all my cats are/were indoor cats, where they are/were flealess, healthy, and in tip-top shape. Which is more than I am, fer pygmy's sake!
Taxpayers over here don't pay in dimes, you right-wing bullifying bigot ... what have you got against hippos and why don't you want them to get well? The only light you see is when you open that secret compartment at the back of your wardrobe - no not that Narnia bit, the other one - where you keep your Nazi memorabilia. 
No wonder they kicked you out of the boyscouts ... AND took your WM badge away.
Hey, buddy - answer me this ... why do I associate the smiley face badge with Anita Bryant? Did the OJ folks use it in a campaign. Not THAT OJ, doofus.
No, seriously, I'm asking ...
Respectfully submitted to the court of MguyX appeals.
|
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/10/2009 : 17:04:07
|
My final thoughts on the analysis:
Well, your last summary in response to MBI demonstrates an astute grasp of the novel/story, so I'm just at a small loss to consider your dislike of the film.
I think I'm hearing from you that there was a general consensus that the story was unfilmable in its original form, so something was going to have to be cut, and that others shied away from the project because the cutting was going to be drastic. I can get with that. I just disagree that the product we got was a failure. I liked it a lot; and I liked that it adhered very closely to the novel, because I really liked the novel and its visuals. Should it have done so? Could it have focused more tightly on even fewer points of the story? Mightn't there have been a new treatment of the dialogue?
I like mustard, ketchup and relish with my hot dogs, a litle salt on the popcorn, and occasionally a slight drizzle of that butter-flavored stuff (that kind of tastes like coconut oil!).
I don't know whether we ultimately are engaging in a debate about what could have made this film better (which we can do with nearly every film -- except "Showgirls," which simply couldn't get any better) -- but I think we can agree that the film is a box-office success, it is certainly no popular disaster (i.e., no "Heaven's Gate" or "Ishtar"), and the source material was challenging to film in the first place (dealing with a complex storyline and pre-existing images that virtually dictate what any live-action representation was going to have to look like).
There's thems that like it, and thems that beat their dogs -- and that's o.k. That's all I'm saying. 
(As for the rest of your prying revelations and infernal observations: curses, Beebs, curses!) |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 03/10/2009 17:05:56 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 12:29:17
|
Watchmen
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
despite the blue CG todger
Despite? That was one of the highlights!
I found it rather bewildering to start with. I couldn't really understand who the Watchmen were, whether they had supernatural powers or were just vigilantes. The American history montage looked great but it was so fast that I felt like I was missing things. I hadn't realized that I was tired, but the first half hour or so was so draining that I then started dozing off a few times and so missed more. I guess I'll go and watch the beginning again when I have the energy.
B.B. is quite right about the hokeyness of the Mars scene especially. It's bad in every way. Why on Earth would they need to have the conversation there and why would Dr. Manhattan forget that people need to breathe?
I don't see the appeal of comic books, but I'm slightly interested to read this one, just to see whether it makes sense.
I'm glad though to hear that the film is loyal, as I'm very keen on that. I only favour things being changed if it is essential or they were rubbish in the original material.
Overall, I enjoyed it. Gotta love Patrick what's-his-name trying to pass himself off as not one of the hottest men in the world.
Two hours in, a couple and then an individual near me left, which I found rather bizarre.
4/5 for now. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 13:43:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Why on Earth would they need to have the conversation there and why would Dr. Manhattan forget that people need to breathe?
Presumably because Manhattan doesn't see the significance of human life in the grand scheme of things anymore- he no longer even thinks of small considerations like breathing.
quote:
I'm glad though to hear that the film is loyal, as I'm very keen on that. I only favour things being changed if it is essential or they were rubbish in the original material.
I think it's loyal on the surface but skims a lot of greater detail storywise- much as you'd expect from an unfilmable book. No, it's not really changed, just Watchmen Lite if you will. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 14:16:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Presumably because Manhattan doesn't see the significance of human life in the grand scheme of things anymore- he no longer even thinks of small considerations like breathing.
Yeah, but it doesn't work. It is like they are trying to have a comic moment from a scatterbrained genius, but he's just not that sort of character -- he's totally serious and thorough. That whole scene is just lame. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 20:29:58
|
I'm pretty certain it wasn't for comic effect. The scene occurs in the graphic novel as well. It highlights the fact that Dr. M is fallible and that he doesn't (and can't) think of everything.
The theme is recurrent in the novel: Laurie gets sick each time Dr. M. transports her somewhere, but he either does not or cannot do anything to ease even that small burden. Dr. M. has emotional episodes, memory lapses, forethought lapses, and instances where his super thoughts can be blocked. He fails/refuses to prevent Blake's incident with the Vietnamese woman, though he clearly demonstrates that he has lethal power during the war (and during a certain holdup); he fails to intervene at Dealey Plaza in Dallas; indeed, there are quite apparent demonstrations in various places that he is not omniscient.
As part of a theme, it is yet another demonstration that he is neither God nor all-knowing. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 23:24:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ro�k G01f
Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars (out of 4) and wrote TWO articles on it.
And by now you've probably seen this, but just in case you haven't, ladies & gentlemen, I give you "Saturday Morning Watchmen"
Yup, G, we saw it. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 00:46:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I'm pretty certain it wasn't for comic effect. The scene occurs in the graphic novel as well. It highlights the fact that Dr. M is fallible and that he doesn't (and can't) think of everything.
The theme is recurrent in the novel: Laurie gets sick each time Dr. M. transports her somewhere, but he either does not or cannot do anything to ease even that small burden. Dr. M. has emotional episodes, memory lapses, forethought lapses, and instances where his super thoughts can be blocked. He fails/refuses to prevent Blake's incident with the Vietnamese woman, though he clearly demonstrates that he has lethal power during the war (and during a certain holdup); he fails to intervene at Dealey Plaza in Dallas; indeed, there are quite apparent demonstrations in various places that he is not omniscient.
As part of a theme, it is yet another demonstration that he is neither God nor all-knowing.
Yeah, the Vietnam example makes more sense, i.e. that he just doesn't care. The Mars one is too clunky. It would be better if he didn't apologise to her, i.e. he knew that she wouldn't be able to breathe for a few seconds but did not worry about getting the air bubble up straight away. Forgetting that humans cannot breathe on Mars is like me forgetting that dogs cannot talk: however much I am not a dog, I'm just not going to forget that. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 02:29:45
|
It's even pointed out in the film by Laurie that he is losing touch with his humanity and we see Jon getting more and more aloof and otherworldly so it made perfect sense to me. It's also a good moment in the comic that never rang false. I agree the scene isn't great in the film, mainly because she is pretty weak, but the idea is still a strong one, mainly because it puts you as reader/viewer in the reality of actually being on Mars outside of a common science fiction concept - ie what might really happen. Comic book readers would be very used to their heroes galavanting around different planets on a regular basis - Moore was sending that convention up a bit (also with Laurie puking on transport, a far cry from most seamless sci-fi journeys).
On the whole I thought it was ok. No disaster, but no work of art either. All the things that are good come straight from Moore and Gibbons, all the cheese and mis-steps from some of the miscasting and the juvenile mind of Snyder. I think he's a dreadful director... all that loathsome redundant slow-mo and appalling choice of music - he's just like an over excited fanboy teenager trying too hard to be faithful to the source at the expense of actual drama or allowing the characters to breathe a little (no pun on Mars intended) see also 300 (a one note comic, hence nothing significant to hide behind). The best section by far was Dr Manhattan's origin - very well handled, engrossing and moving in a way little else was. No coincidence given that Crudup was the best actor in the film.
My other thoughts are fairly consistent with things I've heard or read already... what's up with Goode's accent; Ackerman is hot but boring; incredibly violent which I wasn't sure was especially necessary (multiple cleaver hacks to the head, knife in gang member's neck, sawing the fat man's arms off in the prison riot - they weren't in the book!). Interestingly it made me think for the first time that the costumed heroes were all totally mad... all the joy Dan and Laurie got from maiming and killing people. A little bit fucking crazy. Still... very stylish, surprisingly funny, well condensed down but still felt long, pretty good. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Watchmen (2009)
