Ha!! Dark Aquaman.Well,I suppose if you throw them the story of Black Manta(who's sorta like a pirate)murdering Aquaman's son and Mera going nutso and leaving ol' Arthur,you could indeed have a movie pitch they might like.
It's a dog eat dog world & I'm wearing milkbone underwear.
Fucking loved the movie. With the exception of the ending change, this was the most faithful comic book adaptation ever. Anyone who was a fan of the comic will appreciate it, but anyone expecting a superhero movie will probably end up disapointed.
Rorsach was spot on, and provided most of the (very few) laughs within the film, even though his lines were straight out of the comic book.
Still not convinced that the end change was necessary, but it certainly didnt effect my enjoyment of the film or the ending outcome.
I can see this film doing well initially with people thinking its another Iron Man or Dark Knight, which will possibly see them break even or make a profit, but I do think it will end up being more of a cult movie!
Just got back and loved it. I agree that it's the best we're going to get out of a movie version. I'd have preferred less slo-mo, but it's not a deal killer. I agree with Mxy that the change to the ending actually worked better than the comic ending. Adrian was really the only actor who didn't seem to step up to the role. Rorschach and Nite Owl were the best of the bunch. The guy playing Dan had a very Clark Kent vibe about him. The opening credits was a good way of bringing the audience up to speed on the world of Watchmen. I liked the little nods and touchs (like the Comedian living in apartment number 3001, and the 1 getting knocked off the door in the fight). Really, it is the best adaptation that I've ever seen. I still won't say it's the best comic book movie, though. Oh, and there be titties in this film.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Just got back and loved it. I agree that it's the best we're going to get out of a movie version. I'd have preferred less slo-mo, but it's not a deal killer. I agree with Mxy that the change to the ending actually worked better than the comic ending. Adrian was really the only actor who didn't seem to step up to the role. Rorschach and Nite Owl were the best of the bunch. The guy playing Dan had a very Clark Kent vibe about him. The opening credits was a good way of bringing the audience up to speed on the world of Watchmen. I liked the little nods and touchs (like the Comedian living in apartment number 3001, and the 1 getting knocked off the door in the fight). Really, it is the best adaptation that I've ever seen. I still won't say it's the best comic book movie, though. Oh, and there be titties in this film.
That was a lucid well-thought out re......wait did you say titties?? Hurm.
It's a dog eat dog world & I'm wearing milkbone underwear.
Adrian was really the only actor who didn't seem to step up to the role. Rorschach and Nite Owl were the best of the bunch. The guy playing Dan had a very Clark Kent vibe about him.
You have to say as well, that he didnt look the part either. Ozy was a big guy in the comics, and the one in the film was weedy looking and rather effeminate.
Comedian, Rorschach (without mask) and Nite Owl (without mask) were dead ringers to their comic book counterparts, even down to the hair styles.
I too saw Clark Kent traits in the portrayal of Dan, but when he was masked, his look (not actions) was certainly that of Keaton era Batman.
Just got back and loved it. I agree that it's the best we're going to get out of a movie version. I'd have preferred less slo-mo, but it's not a deal killer. I agree with Mxy that the change to the ending actually worked better than the comic ending. Adrian was really the only actor who didn't seem to step up to the role. Rorschach and Nite Owl were the best of the bunch. The guy playing Dan had a very Clark Kent vibe about him. The opening credits was a good way of bringing the audience up to speed on the world of Watchmen. I liked the little nods and touchs (like the Comedian living in apartment number 3001, and the 1 getting knocked off the door in the fight). Really, it is the best adaptation that I've ever seen. I still won't say it's the best comic book movie, though. Oh, and there be titties in this film.
That was a lucid well-thought out re......wait did you say titties?? Hurm.
These titties
And for Rob, Dr Manhattan showed his penis quite a lot!
Adrian was really the only actor who didn't seem to step up to the role. Rorschach and Nite Owl were the best of the bunch. The guy playing Dan had a very Clark Kent vibe about him.
You have to say as well, that he didnt look the part either. Ozy was a big guy in the comics, and the one in the film was weedy looking and rather effeminate.
Comedian, Rorschach (without mask) and Nite Owl (without mask) were dead ringers to their comic book counterparts, even down to the hair styles.
I too saw Clark Kent traits in the portrayal of Dan, but when he was masked, his look (not actions) was certainly that of Keaton era Batman.
Very much so. Even when he just pulled the mask off for a second, though, he snaps back into Dan, a regular guy. It was much like that scene in Superman in Lois's apartment when Clark pulls off his glasses, ready to reveal his secret to her, but then puts them back on.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
It's difficult to look at them with Jesus staring you down, though.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
One of the other things I liked in this film was the attention to detail. The torn epilet on Rorschach's coat. The eating of the cold beans (missed the sugar cubes tho). Stuff like that.
Yeah there was some small changes, like Ozy replacing Captain Metropolis in the Watchmen meeting where Comedian burns the map. Mason Hollis wasnt killed (or if he was, I missed it with a toilet break.
And there was some stuff that was cut out for time constraints (the news vendor stuff and the news paper journo bits), but keeping the characters in the film was a nice nod to the fan base.
As I said before, I personally dont think changing the "alien" for the Dr. Manhattan destruction was needed, as I dont think it made any more or less sense, but I dont think it hurts the film in the slightest unless you are an absolute 100% purist.
I will say though that I dont consider what comedian did to be rape, as i dont even think he got his dick in before Hooded Justice beat him up!
Oh and as doc said, I absolutely loved the intro montage as it put enough history into the Minute Men without bogging the film down with their backstory! The only way you could have fitted everything in would have been to have made this into a 12 episode tv show or something, but that would have cost the Earth!
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Did you notice the muzak in Adrian's office right before the assignation attempt?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
to the average moviegoer, is this movie poised to be different than a typical action film? like... to us web nerds, there's a clear cut difference between this and, say, "wanted". does that come across to someone who doesn't know the history of the comic?
Roger Ebert is probably the biggest name critic with the best sense of mainstream appeal working today and, he gave it a big "thumbs up":
After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it’s not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope.
****
The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again.
There are some action scenes to give it the 'comic book' feel; but, like the comic, most of the film is the character interactions and conspiracy story.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
to the average moviegoer, is this movie poised to be different than a typical action film? like... to us web nerds, there's a clear cut difference between this and, say, "wanted". does that come across to someone who doesn't know the history of the comic?
I know there has been some complaints about too much slow mo footage in the film, but I didnt really think there was that much, and I got the feeling it was done to make things look like a comic book panel.
I mean, if you watch the slow mo bit where The Comedian gets punched in the face by Ozy, it looked like a static comic book panel.
Thats what I think the point of it was, and that added to my enjoyment. I maybe wrong, and they could have just been going for moody slow motion, but if thats how I interpreted it, then by my reckoning, they got a better result than they planned!
to the average moviegoer, is this movie poised to be different than a typical action film? like... to us web nerds, there's a clear cut difference between this and, say, "wanted". does that come across to someone who doesn't know the history of the comic?
I dont think its so much that its not gonna be a typical action film, its that its not really a superhero film in the traditional sense, which is what I think most non-comic book fans will be expecting.
big_pimp_tim-made it cool to roll in the first damn place! Mon Jun 11 2007 09:27 PM-harley finally rolled with me "I'm working with him...he's young but, there is much potential. He can apprentice with me and then he's yours for final training. He will remember the face of his father...
Some day, Knutreturns just may be the greatest of us all...."-THE bastard
my only complaint wasnt with the movie but with some people who brought their little kids to see it. They had to spend a lot of time covering their eyes...
big_pimp_tim-made it cool to roll in the first damn place! Mon Jun 11 2007 09:27 PM-harley finally rolled with me "I'm working with him...he's young but, there is much potential. He can apprentice with me and then he's yours for final training. He will remember the face of his father...
Some day, Knutreturns just may be the greatest of us all...."-THE bastard
my only complaint wasnt with the movie but with some people who brought their little kids to see it. They had to spend a lot of time covering their eyes...
Some people are fucking morons. What do they think the ratings are for?
I still remember the idiots sitting in front of me at "Robocop 2" with a group of crying six year olds.
I think most people were expecting something like The Dark Knight, which is pretty creepy for a kid (in a cool fascinating re-watch it at night with your friends way), but doesn't have any sex or gore.
Why the fuck was the theatre letting underage kids into the movie? Dunno bout over there, but you have to be over 18 to see it here!
You can correct me if I'm wrong on this; but, as I understand it, the rating system in Britain is a government thing and, essentially, law. In the US it's done by the MPAA, a lobbying group for the film industry. A lot of theaters won't let kids under the age of the rating in without a parent or guardian present.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
My understanding of it has always been that the government is involved as far as saying that the ratings system must be abided by, and anyone not abiding by those ratings is breaking the law, but the actual ratings themselves are not handled by the government.
Rorshach, Dan and the Comedian were all excellent. Doc and Laurie were good. The only weak link was Ozymandias. Casting someone who looked and sounded like a Eurotrash villain out of a "Die Hard" movie made it obvious who the 'bad guy' was early on, even to people like Mrs G who haven't read the book.
The special effects (with the exception of the Nixon makeup and Bubastis) were all outstanding.
The changed ending didn't really bother me.
The movie went along at good clip. I didn't notice the running time. Obviously some things had to be sacrificed to make the book into a movie.
Overall, I thought the music choices were done well and mirrored the song lyrics in the book. If there was a quibble (and I suppose it was a rights thing), I wished they'd used Roy Orbison's version of "the Comedians" (originally written by Elvis Costello) at the funeral instead of "Sounds of Silence."
A lyric from "the Comedians" was the closing quote of that chapter of the book and it seemed a bit off to have a different song there.
And I'm up while the dawn is breaking Even though my heart is aching I should be drinking a toast To absent friends Instead of these comedians
Ozy didn't bother me that much, but he was obviously the villain. I don't know whether that was the way it was written/directed or acted.
The rest I liked--I had no major problem with it (other than Bubastis just seemed thrown in as an afterthought--wasn't she in the comic way earlier?). I think the R rating will ultimately hurt the theater sales.
