WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum


Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series and film
It is currently Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Watchmen » Talk About the Watchmen Movie

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 23 of 26
  [ 508 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Nostalgia
 Post subject: Re: Watchmen Movie: Lame
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:45 pm 
Offline
Thermodynamic Miracle
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:50 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia/ Auckland, New Zealand
Broken Finger wrote:
Broken Finger wrote:
DoomsdayClock wrote:
I don't think the watch was ever broken in th movie. He just left his watch in there.


That's really disappointing. Without the broken watch sequence you don't get the awesomely subtle and amazingly sly reference to the...



From the man some of you have known as CLINT FLICKER:

The man some of you may know as CLINT FLICKER wrote:
Manhattan comes into being because Jon enters the IF chamber to retrieve Janey's watch, which he has repaired.

It required repair because, at the amusement park (Watchmenland! Where, incidentally, Jon & Janey are "killing time"), a fat man steps upon it.

In the frame immediately preceeding this event, we see a little boy crying because he has let go of his balloon (this ends up as a moment frozen for all time, the balloon entering the sky above Jon & Janey as the photograph is taken).

When the balloon goes up - a common English language expression for a moment when trouble starts, when proceedings begin in earnest.

Fat Man & Little Boy?

Haven't these words taken on historical significance due to their use in the deployment of atomic weaponry?

Weaponry devised & developed as a result of the efforts of a certain Manhattan Project.

Gasp!


You see the kind of shit your golden boy Zack is missing?


Well even if Snyder got that and include it in the movie, I doubt anyone would notice it. Simply put, that amount of details can't be absorbed by the audience when the films are going at the speed of 30 frames per minute. Unless they freeze the entire scenes for like 10 seconds for the audience to drink in everything, which would have been awkward.

Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons exploited the advantage of the comics medium by allowing you to slowly appreciate the details of each panels, and you can always flip back the pages when you're starting to see some form of pattern emerging. All these details and subtleties simply can't be translated on screen.

_________________
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Top
 Profile  
 
Curiosity Inc.
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:58 pm 
Offline
Indestructible Man
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 7664
Location: Clackamas, OR
CaptainGenerica wrote:
Question, DDC:

When you say "David Bowie", do you quite literally mean David Bowie, or an actor who looks like David Bowie?
I'm pretty sure that all the real-life celebrities in the movie were played by lookalikes.

Though it would be pretty cool to see Bowie play himself thirty years younger, wouldn't it?

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Xymon
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:05 am 
Offline
Minuteman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:45 am
Posts: 10
I've been hearing about the fact that Rorschach regains his Face and coat from the psychiatrists office rather that returning home and picking up his 'Spare' Face.

Could you tell me which coat he is wearing in the footage, as in the GN, he returns home to retrieve his original coat - the one splattered with the dogs blood when Rorschach was 'born', and reinforces the underlying themes, motifs and symmetry of Watchmen (and also begs the question if it's Rorschach I or Rorschach II who leaves with Dan and Laurie).

I know it's a tad picky, but it's these details that really make Watchmen what it is.

_________________
Watchmen, We love you all
Hup, hup, Head's up
Ground floor... coming up!

Never compromise. Not even in the face of Warner Brother Executives...
Top
 Profile  
 
Broken Finger
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:10 am 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:36 pm
Posts: 1452
Nostalgia wrote:
Well even if Snyder got that and include it in the movie, I doubt anyone would notice it.


Yeah, I know. Sigh.
Top
 Profile  
 
Kingmob
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:52 am 
Offline
Gazing into the abyss.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:19 am
Posts: 1576
Xymon wrote:
I've been hearing about the fact that Rorschach regains his Face and coat from the psychiatrists office rather that returning home and picking up his 'Spare' Face.

Could you tell me which coat he is wearing in the footage, as in the GN, he returns home to retrieve his original coat - the one splattered with the dogs blood when Rorschach was 'born', and reinforces the underlying themes, motifs and symmetry of Watchmen (and also begs the question if it's Rorschach I or Rorschach II who leaves with Dan and Laurie).

I know it's a tad picky, but it's these details that really make Watchmen what it is.


That's a good point. I'd forgotten it was that exact coat. It's these details I'm most annoyed by to be honest. Manhattan's arc is very, very complicated and for a film that's already pretty dense you'd drive yourself insane trying to make sense of it in a 2.5-3 hour film. But for Gods sake, moments like that are easily incorporated. If you don't know what you're excising, why are you making the film in the first place.

Snyder has dazzled us with the attention to detail on production level. Is that really all he has?

_________________
This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face.
Top
 Profile  
 
DoomsdayClock
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:26 am 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3517
Location: New York
Broken Finger wrote:
You see the kind of shit your golden boy Zack is missing?

Let me play devil's advocate here and say that perhaps he's not "missing" all of this stuff, but has to draw the line as to what he can and can't fit into a movie narrative.

Let's also be fair in saying that we all very well know that every time you read the book, you see something new. I might have seen 10 things that you haven't, you might have seen 10 things that I haven't. So, Zack isn't going to get it all in there.

From what I've seen of footage so far, this will definitely be a "see it at least three times" kind of movie."

CaptainGenerica wrote:
When you say "David Bowie", do you quite literally mean David Bowie, or an actor who looks like David Bowie?

It's an actor dressing like "Ziggy Stardust" David Bowie with the makeup, wig and gold jumpsuit.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Dr. StrangeOne
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:51 am 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 105
Location: New York
CaptainGenerica wrote:
Question, DDC:

When you say "David Bowie", do you quite literally mean David Bowie, or an actor who looks like David Bowie?


I would be able to answer that, but I was too busy checking out the Village People in the background and staring at the nipples on Veidt's costume.

I mean who couldn't???

Just wanted to inject a little 'perspective' (aka. a little 800 lbs gorilla-in-the-room kinda humor) before people start ripping each others' throats out over a matter of said 'perspective'. And yes, this is a pretty hardcore look and a fantastic piece. If you can't stand the smell, get out of the kitchen.

Again, my two cents.

_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you...
Top
 Profile  
 
Dr. StrangeOne
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:59 am 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 105
Location: New York
Kingmob wrote:
Snyder has dazzled us with the attention to detail on production level. Is that really all he has?


I hope not. I read somewhere that Snyder commented on several occasions that 'you have to be faithful to the book'. In that same article, it was also mentioned that '1 hardcore fan equals 20 mainstream fans'. Kinda makes sense. I don't think he's got enough notches on his movie bedpost to come to a definitive answer. Dawn of the Dean (and I'm putting aside my distaste for the horror/slasher/zombie flick genre) was still just a zombie movie. A pretty good one with those legendary 'fast zombies', but still just a zombie flick. No dazzling story. Short shelf life characters. Whatever. Points are granted, though, for good use of Johnny Cash.

I think Watchmen will either be a pretty blue ribbon on the shelf, or that rotting skeleton under the bed, for Snyder.

_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you...
Top
 Profile  
 
DoomsdayClock
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:14 am 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3517
Location: New York
Dr. StrangeOne wrote:
Dawn of the Dead (and I'm putting aside my distaste for the horror/slasher/zombie flick genre) was still just a zombie movie. A pretty good one with those legendary 'fast zombies', but still just a zombie flick. No dazzling story. Short shelf life characters. Whatever. Points are granted, though, for good use of Johnny Cash.

But, that's exactly the type of film he was trying to make, and he succeeded.

Maybe you hate zombie movies that have little subtext, but other people love them.

Does he get any points for that?

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Kingmob
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:17 am 
Offline
Gazing into the abyss.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:19 am
Posts: 1576
I think the point is, he took a film with subtext and removed the majority of it. And now he's making a book with loads of subtext and.........

_________________
This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face.
Top
 Profile  
 
DoomsdayClock
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:23 am 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3517
Location: New York
Kingmob wrote:
I think the point is, he took a film with subtext and removed the majority of it. And now he's making a book with loads of subtext and.........

Which is like saying Speilberg made The Goonies, so how they hell could he make Schindler's List?

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Kingmob
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:42 am 
Offline
Gazing into the abyss.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:19 am
Posts: 1576
Well not really. This is specific to source. He took something with a lot of subtext and chose to strip it out. Now he's taking another source well known for a shit load of subtext, imagery etc and........

_________________
This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face.
Top
 Profile  
 
TheMovieDude
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:56 am 
Offline
...look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:43 am
Posts: 2175
DoomsdayClock-Spielberg didn't make The Goonies. That was Richard Donner. :mrgreen:

Maybe "Raiders of the Lost Ark" would be a better example.

_________________
My unofficial and offical work-> http://www.youtube.com/movieboyandco
Top
 Profile  
 
Soupdragon
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:59 am 
Offline
...look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:58 am
Posts: 2139
Location: Stockholm
A good idea...

How he made "Raiders of the lost ark."

and that awful "Raiders of the lost arc" — Or "Why is the skull only magnetic now and then?".

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Nostalgia
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:35 am 
Offline
Thermodynamic Miracle
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:50 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia/ Auckland, New Zealand
Soupdragon wrote:
A good idea...

How he made "Raiders of the lost ark."

and that awful "Raiders of the lost arc" — Or "Why is the skull only magnetic now and then?".


Dang! I can't believe I didn't notice that! :shock:

_________________
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Top
 Profile  
 
DoomsdayClock
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:47 am 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3517
Location: New York
TheMovieDude wrote:
DoomsdayClock-Spielberg didn't make The Goonies. That was Richard Donner. :mrgreen:

Maybe "Raiders of the Lost Ark" would be a better example.

Well, Speilberg wrote Goonies... but you get the idae.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Dog Carcass
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:21 pm 
Offline
Drinking a toast to absent friends.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:16 am
Posts: 1256
Kingmob wrote:
Well not really. This is specific to source. He took something with a lot of subtext and chose to strip it out. Now he's taking another source well known for a shit load of subtext, imagery etc and........



.... we don't really know what he's doing with it. Sure, certain things I've heard do have me a little worried, but, until we see the film, we're merely speculating.

_________________
" Funny STORY. Sounds UNBELIEVABLE. Probably TRUE."

Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Mere Being
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:47 pm 
Offline
Silk Swinger of Suburbia
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:10 am
Posts: 1789
after all, what is Watchmen's narrative made of (or based on its most)? imagery or text?

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Dr. StrangeOne
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:27 pm 
Offline
Alien Squid Monster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 105
Location: New York
Mere Being wrote:
after all, what is Watchmen's narrative made of (or based on its most)? imagery or text?


That begs the question of overall futility. A book is great because it leaves the reader to imagine the scene and leaves them with a mental picture that is unique - a dream befitting the dreamer. So it has many advantages over a scene that is shoved in front of you - the whole 'You can please everyone some of the time... yada yada'.

A graphic novel already has these scenes - AND a deep story to go with them. So how does a director capture ALL the story and manage to keep all the symbolism, however small or relevant, AND accurately reproduce the scenes given?

I don't envy ANYONE who has to do that - Snyder, Aronofsky, Kubrich or otherwise...

_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you...
Top
 Profile  
 
Doctor M.Long
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:18 pm 
Offline
So impotent.

Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:14 pm
Posts: 2
DDC, do you think some of the shots ( like the one with the young Walter and his mother) will become a complete sequence in the movie ? Or will they remain just single shots ?
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 23 of 26
  [ 508 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

Board index » Watchmen » Talk About the Watchmen Movie

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.135s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]