WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum


Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series and film
It is currently Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 673 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:12 pm 
Offline
Genetically-Altered Lynx

Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:57 pm
Posts: 2817
yeah all i am saying is Matthew goode is the tallest guy in the movie by far in a large margin

and the silhouette is of a very tall man

maybe it is because i read the novel haha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:17 pm 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 8132
Location: 1060 W. Addison St.
Idk if this is just me, but the thief appears to be pretty built, while Veidt doesn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:22 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:19 pm
Posts: 10658
Location: Arkham, Mass.
WJK wrote:
Idk if this is just me, but the thief appears to be pretty built, while Veidt doesn't.


I think it's just appearance, like he has some burgalar gear (as a red herring) andhis get up makes him look bigger, I think that was just to throw some suspicion

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:45 am 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
An interesting note (on the films of Dario Argento) I read last night...

Maitland McDonagh wrote:
If Pauline Kael's iconoclastic criticism of Sergei Eisenstein's 'Ivan the Terrible' - "a brilliant collection of stills," she writes, but "static, grandiose and frequently ludicrous" - contains some grain of truth, it is still as misguided as similar criticisms of, say, 'Deep Red'. Both are films whose sheer excess arouses as almost puritanical distaste in many (re)viewers. The excess in question here is not mere excessiveness; that's what you get from a filmmaker who's brought into the notion that "more is more": more elephants, more extras, more lavish costumes, more stuff blowing up = more entertainment value for the box office dollar. This excess is what Barthes identifies as the realm of obtuse meaning, when he discusses 'Ivan' in The Third Meaning.

Barthes wrote:
On the one hand, it cannot be conflated with the simple existence of the scene, it exceeds the copy of the referential motif, it compels an interrogative reading... on the other, neither can it be conflated with the dramatic meaning like the rest of the episode... By contrast with the first two levels, communication and signification, this third level - even if the reading of it is still hazardous - is that of significance, a word which has the advantage of referring to the field of the signifier (and not of signification) and of linking up with... a semiotics of the text.

It's tough to get a handle on the concept of obtuse meaning; it wouldn't be obtuse if it weren't. Obtuse meaning is obtuse precisely because it lies outside of whatever system the reader has adopted in order to make sense of a particular work; it seems unnecessary, excessive. Your mind rebels because the material doesn't fit, doesn't make sense. If the reader adopts the scientific method to the task of reading a work of art (and many readers, especially critics, do), one theory must be found that can incorporate every diegetic element within its boundaries. If no single theory can be proposed, the work may well be labelled "incoherent". Barthes' radical proposal is that the excess, all the meaning that falls outside the system or systems that determine the work's overall structure, forms its own system, one which may exist parallel or tangentially to the others. The parameters of the system of the excess are shifting and elusive but none the less there, persistent, allusive and tantalizing.

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:15 am 
Offline
Crimebuster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:21 am
Posts: 27
InfinityQuantum wrote:
Slightly off-topic question, mainly directed at ROR-SHACK

What's the first moment in the book, when we realize it's a satire? Sorry don't have the book on me right now (lent it out to a friend).



When the cop says that it's some drop. It totally undercuts the Rorschach ravings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:18 am 
Offline
Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:29 am
Posts: 4978
Flying Tiger wrote:
InfinityQuantum wrote:
Slightly off-topic question, mainly directed at ROR-SHACK

What's the first moment in the book, when we realize it's a satire? Sorry don't have the book on me right now (lent it out to a friend).



When the cop says that it's some drop. It totally undercuts the Rorschach ravings.


Nail on the head.

_________________
Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:55 am 
Offline
Crimebuster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:21 am
Posts: 27
Satan's Slut wrote:
Right then. I have a friend - an extremely intelligent guy - who writes film reviews for 'Soldier' magazine; an unoffcial publication for the British Army widely read by both soldiers and civilians alike. They send him a DVD; he reviews it and gets to keep it. It's something he does in his spare time to flex his mental muscle. I am not holding him up as an authority; I am just providing background and letting you know that he doesn't just passively watch films, he analyses them and asks "What is this film trying to say to me?"

As a thought experiment, I asked him to write me a review of Watchmen; not a 'formal' review, but just to structure his thoughts and get them down. The only remit I placed upon him was to explain his previous knowledge of Watchmen (had he read the GN, trailers, etc), and not to let any discussion we had previously had influence him. Not that it would - he's quite strong-minded.

Bear in mind, this is not a formal review, so you may find some British slang in there, and he wrote it fairly quickly. He's writing it for me; so some of it is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but nevertheless, I am pasting the review below, completely unedited, with his permission:

Quote:
In March 2009, the Watchmen was released to an eagerly waiting audience. Billed as some sort of 'fast paced action epic' (see Wikipedia) this anticipation soon turned to dismay.

Prior to advertisement, I knew little if anything of the Watchmen, other than close friend was a fan of the Graphic Novel. the undertones of the movie in the trailer portrayed nothing less than some dynamic shots, closing in, fading out a superhero here, a murder there, a mystery about to begin, tagged with a line 'God Help Us All'. Interestingly enough - I'd have given the Trailer a 11/10 for the use of sound and visual effects, painting a picture; gritty yet colourful, dynamic - in flames, flying submersibles, the hot chick and sublime backdrops of extra terrestrial worlds, disintegration...it had it all.

Unfortunately , that's where it ended. Clearly, when you see a man punch through a wall, or trance another so hard with a lamp shade that he travels a great deal of distance you feel there's an inevitable feast of super-human strength and intellect going to be involved. Dr Manhattan, wrapped in his ethereal glow, explosive and erotic kissing, surely, there's got to be something good here - right? wrong!

The use of over developed character backdrops, flawed, nothing more than human, does not tie in to the crime busting, ever watchful genre of superhero's, even where batman in concerned! At least you knew he was nothing more than a man, with unlimited funding, a dark yet fulfilling biog and lots of toys. This is where I expected Watchmen to go. Instead, I was left wondering, at what point do these guys take off? At what point does this get interesting? where's that flying submersible? how are these guys linked to Dr M? And why oh why would you stick a blue dick on screen including 'balls n all'?? frankly - Offensive. Having read a couple of reviews, taking in the impalpable dross about rape scenes and the death of pregnant women being hard to watch,,,NO! Do me a lemon - some blue bloke with his undercrackers off and his knob out is hard to watch Mr Snyder!

Had this inadequate gem of screen trash been presented with a new tag line 'what would you do' - cut to new shot, 'once revered'...'now rebuffed' (Something explodes) 'when you are only human'? we'd have thought. We'd have thought long and hard about what this was - where's it going to go? and what do they mean only human? Had this been the case, I would have eagerly watched in earnest understanding at who these were, whilst trying to unravel the question of 'why'? As this wasn't the case, it's a misnomer from the start. the pitch was wrong, the angle was wrong and as it was - it went wrong!

There's something to be said here for the die-hard fans that obviously understood what's it all about - who invariably anticipated the on screen action but were also looking for flaws in their pride and joy - to see how the director would transpose those characters from page to screen and sure, some of them were happy - others I know were not.

For me however, a complete lack of understanding and having been mis-informed made it easy for me to point out those flaws.

Rorschach - his voice - similar production values to those used in the Dark Knight - and completely fabricated by technology - not his mask - a piece of cloth that changed colour - symmetrical in design, spooky - eerie - not on your life! for me - this character sucked. there's a distinct difference to a someone with a deep, gravelly voice and his - it was over the top. Not ordinarily lost for words, I can't quite articulate how much this aggravated me.

The Comedian - what a cock. Need I say more. Any egotistical, cigar smoking, half leather clad Superhero is going to be a Pratt - I am glad to say I wasn't wrong...apart from his lack of super-hero powers - because obviously he wasn't a super-hero. If you are going to give us a villain, at least endear him to us in some small way - no matter how diabolical he is - don't just say 'this guy's complete dick' and deliver it that way.

Night Owl - Four Foot Snake - get a grip - some four eyed buck toothed fembot is not my idea of how it goes. You couldn't have gone more camp if you stuck robin in fishnets! And ears - owls have ears...of course they do - but they could have made him look more Barred owl instead of Great horned!

Ozymandias - Oh here we go - give it to us - that line - You wanna know my past? well listen matey, you are no super hero - you are just a bloke - you've nothing to offer other than your ego - your toy dolls and your slef gratification - follow this a little later with 'I've made myself feel every death... see every innocent face I've murdered to save humanity.' - this is what we should have seen, not listened to - if you are going to get your point across Snyder - show us - don't tell us - and if you are going to show us anything - don't do it with a bloke in a gay purple suit!

look - I am sure there are those out there that enjoyed this film. For me however, you cannot mix villainy and pain without understanding why, pleasure with ethereal beings in the buff or go to Mars without a rocket. There's too much to deal with. If you are going to use Nixon - don't make him look like he's a midget that can't reach his desk - and if he's going to bang his fist on the desk, at least make him stand up - not slap it like you would a thigh and shout call me ginger!

No - too much faff. Too much confusion. Men can't punch through walls or move with in-humane speed. They cannot purport to being something they are not, not without ability - whether divine, innate or manufactured - not just because they 'think' they can. Dr Manhattan cannot exist - ethereal - because of a short circuit..yeah yeah - pull the other one, even if he could, he'd still wear underpants!

In short - this was just a complete waste of time - the directors and the actors, yours and mine. I am afraid to say that there are still those that consider themselves intellectual having seen this. There are those that just want to pretend to understand it - to claim they can decipher the message 'it's the same now as it was 20 years ago - impending doom, class clashes, abuse of power' etc etc. Look guys - if you get this film you are clearly a fan or a bit of a sheep, following the diabolical dialogue of some arty farty director who thinks he's clever. Sure, Silk Spectre in the Buff was interesting, but with an over-age and rather fat four eyed berk - no, no thanks, it's all just gravy.



The oddest thing for me about the review is that someone ostensibly supposed to be British should misuse the very British insult prat, misspelling it and capitalising it into the bargain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:17 am 
Offline
Government-Sponsored Weirdo
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:39 am
Posts: 7191
Location: Everywhere, Everywhen, UK.
Flying Tiger wrote:
Satan's Slut wrote:
Right then. I have a friend - an extremely intelligent guy - who writes film reviews for 'Soldier' magazine; an unoffcial publication for the British Army widely read by both soldiers and civilians alike. They send him a DVD; he reviews it and gets to keep it. It's something he does in his spare time to flex his mental muscle. I am not holding him up as an authority; I am just providing background and letting you know that he doesn't just passively watch films, he analyses them and asks "What is this film trying to say to me?"

As a thought experiment, I asked him to write me a review of Watchmen; not a 'formal' review, but just to structure his thoughts and get them down. The only remit I placed upon him was to explain his previous knowledge of Watchmen (had he read the GN, trailers, etc), and not to let any discussion we had previously had influence him. Not that it would - he's quite strong-minded.

Bear in mind, this is not a formal review, so you may find some British slang in there, and he wrote it fairly quickly. He's writing it for me; so some of it is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but nevertheless, I am pasting the review below, completely unedited, with his permission:

Quote:
In March 2009, the Watchmen was released to an eagerly waiting audience. Billed as some sort of 'fast paced action epic' (see Wikipedia) this anticipation soon turned to dismay.

Prior to advertisement, I knew little if anything of the Watchmen, other than close friend was a fan of the Graphic Novel. the undertones of the movie in the trailer portrayed nothing less than some dynamic shots, closing in, fading out a superhero here, a murder there, a mystery about to begin, tagged with a line 'God Help Us All'. Interestingly enough - I'd have given the Trailer a 11/10 for the use of sound and visual effects, painting a picture; gritty yet colourful, dynamic - in flames, flying submersibles, the hot chick and sublime backdrops of extra terrestrial worlds, disintegration...it had it all.

Unfortunately , that's where it ended. Clearly, when you see a man punch through a wall, or trance another so hard with a lamp shade that he travels a great deal of distance you feel there's an inevitable feast of super-human strength and intellect going to be involved. Dr Manhattan, wrapped in his ethereal glow, explosive and erotic kissing, surely, there's got to be something good here - right? wrong!

The use of over developed character backdrops, flawed, nothing more than human, does not tie in to the crime busting, ever watchful genre of superhero's, even where batman in concerned! At least you knew he was nothing more than a man, with unlimited funding, a dark yet fulfilling biog and lots of toys. This is where I expected Watchmen to go. Instead, I was left wondering, at what point do these guys take off? At what point does this get interesting? where's that flying submersible? how are these guys linked to Dr M? And why oh why would you stick a blue dick on screen including 'balls n all'?? frankly - Offensive. Having read a couple of reviews, taking in the impalpable dross about rape scenes and the death of pregnant women being hard to watch,,,NO! Do me a lemon - some blue bloke with his undercrackers off and his knob out is hard to watch Mr Snyder!

Had this inadequate gem of screen trash been presented with a new tag line 'what would you do' - cut to new shot, 'once revered'...'now rebuffed' (Something explodes) 'when you are only human'? we'd have thought. We'd have thought long and hard about what this was - where's it going to go? and what do they mean only human? Had this been the case, I would have eagerly watched in earnest understanding at who these were, whilst trying to unravel the question of 'why'? As this wasn't the case, it's a misnomer from the start. the pitch was wrong, the angle was wrong and as it was - it went wrong!

There's something to be said here for the die-hard fans that obviously understood what's it all about - who invariably anticipated the on screen action but were also looking for flaws in their pride and joy - to see how the director would transpose those characters from page to screen and sure, some of them were happy - others I know were not.

For me however, a complete lack of understanding and having been mis-informed made it easy for me to point out those flaws.

Rorschach - his voice - similar production values to those used in the Dark Knight - and completely fabricated by technology - not his mask - a piece of cloth that changed colour - symmetrical in design, spooky - eerie - not on your life! for me - this character sucked. there's a distinct difference to a someone with a deep, gravelly voice and his - it was over the top. Not ordinarily lost for words, I can't quite articulate how much this aggravated me.

The Comedian - what a cock. Need I say more. Any egotistical, cigar smoking, half leather clad Superhero is going to be a Pratt - I am glad to say I wasn't wrong...apart from his lack of super-hero powers - because obviously he wasn't a super-hero. If you are going to give us a villain, at least endear him to us in some small way - no matter how diabolical he is - don't just say 'this guy's complete dick' and deliver it that way.

Night Owl - Four Foot Snake - get a grip - some four eyed buck toothed fembot is not my idea of how it goes. You couldn't have gone more camp if you stuck robin in fishnets! And ears - owls have ears...of course they do - but they could have made him look more Barred owl instead of Great horned!

Ozymandias - Oh here we go - give it to us - that line - You wanna know my past? well listen matey, you are no super hero - you are just a bloke - you've nothing to offer other than your ego - your toy dolls and your slef gratification - follow this a little later with 'I've made myself feel every death... see every innocent face I've murdered to save humanity.' - this is what we should have seen, not listened to - if you are going to get your point across Snyder - show us - don't tell us - and if you are going to show us anything - don't do it with a bloke in a gay purple suit!

look - I am sure there are those out there that enjoyed this film. For me however, you cannot mix villainy and pain without understanding why, pleasure with ethereal beings in the buff or go to Mars without a rocket. There's too much to deal with. If you are going to use Nixon - don't make him look like he's a midget that can't reach his desk - and if he's going to bang his fist on the desk, at least make him stand up - not slap it like you would a thigh and shout call me ginger!

No - too much faff. Too much confusion. Men can't punch through walls or move with in-humane speed. They cannot purport to being something they are not, not without ability - whether divine, innate or manufactured - not just because they 'think' they can. Dr Manhattan cannot exist - ethereal - because of a short circuit..yeah yeah - pull the other one, even if he could, he'd still wear underpants!

In short - this was just a complete waste of time - the directors and the actors, yours and mine. I am afraid to say that there are still those that consider themselves intellectual having seen this. There are those that just want to pretend to understand it - to claim they can decipher the message 'it's the same now as it was 20 years ago - impending doom, class clashes, abuse of power' etc etc. Look guys - if you get this film you are clearly a fan or a bit of a sheep, following the diabolical dialogue of some arty farty director who thinks he's clever. Sure, Silk Spectre in the Buff was interesting, but with an over-age and rather fat four eyed berk - no, no thanks, it's all just gravy.



The oddest thing for me about the review is that someone ostensibly supposed to be British should misuse the very British insult prat, misspelling it and capitalising it into the bargain.


probably used spellchecker and wasn't paying attention, since Pratt is a name that spellchecker would probably have suggested, when it didn't recognise "prat"

_________________
We're all actors, Laurie. I'm just an actor who read the script. :?
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:30 am 
Offline
Crimebuster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:21 am
Posts: 27
Hurm.

Simple spellchecker defeated Satan's Slut? Ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:37 am 
Offline
Government-Sponsored Weirdo
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:39 am
Posts: 7191
Location: Everywhere, Everywhen, UK.
Flying Tiger wrote:
Hurm.

Simple spellchecker defeated Satan's Slut? Ridiculous.


SS said it was unedited, so the mistake must have been the reviewer's. SS also said it was written quickly, so i think the spellchecker expanation is totally reasonable. :P

_________________
We're all actors, Laurie. I'm just an actor who read the script. :?
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:43 am 
Offline
Crimebuster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:21 am
Posts: 27
AvatarIII wrote:
Flying Tiger wrote:
Hurm.

Simple spellchecker defeated Satan's Slut? Ridiculous.


SS said it was unedited, so the mistake must have been the reviewer's. SS also said it was written quickly, so i think the spellchecker expanation is totally reasonable. :P


Won't know for sure until we check SS' computer. Suggest password may be "Rameses".

Scronch scronch


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:10 pm 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 8132
Location: 1060 W. Addison St.
[NOTE: In response to a banned spammer. --"Curiosity Inc."]

SundayForever wrote:
I don't mean to say that everything was perfect. Sure, there were flaws in the movie. But as far as crunching the story of Watchmen into a 3-hour celluloid presentation, that's the best we're ever going to get. The box office wasn't as high as everyone hoped, but by the story's very nature (not to mention the economic meltdown that hit just a few months previous), it did the best it could.


If I give you my copy of the DC can I have free WoW gold?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:44 am 
Offline
New Frontiersman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 373
AvatarIII wrote:
Flying Tiger wrote:
Hurm.

Simple spellchecker defeated Satan's Slut? Ridiculous.


SS said it was unedited, so the mistake must have been the reviewer's. SS also said it was written quickly, so i think the spellchecker expanation is totally reasonable. :P


This is the correct explanation. Also, the review is not mine; as AvatarIII says, I just cut 'n' pasted it.

_________________
(ø‹›≈≈

"You Can't Help Smiling If You've Bitten Off Your Own Lips."

http://thegq2.co.uk/forum/index.php


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 673 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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 : 0.124s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]