Watchmen Movie Thread (spoiler alerts)

[Yeahduff]

We both know that dude played wide receiver for the Detroit Lions.

[Dr Legostar]

We both know that dude played wide receiver for the Detroit Lions.

that would be Langston Moore.

[Yeahduff]

No I mean the one who played in the 90's.

[McDuffies]

This film certainly won't ruin the comic for me.

[Levi-chan]

Oh yeah one more thing.

The sex scene for Nite Owl and Laurie really showed what went wrong in the making of the film. It was utterly devoid of any sort of intimacy - even when there were closeups of Nite Owl's faces and ass and Laurie's tits and...you get the idea.

It's like Snyder went to the cutting crew and asked, "Hey do you think the audience will get that they're having sex? PERHAPS WE SHOULD GIVE THEM A SHITLOAD OF VISUAL CUES LIKE A CLOSEUP OF NITE OWL'S ASS AND THEIR BITS MOVING FOR A FULL MINUTE WHILE THE SONG "HALLELUJAH" PLAYS."

They do.

Then, stumped with how to portray their orgasms, Zack Snyder asked, "Hey, do you guys think that the audience will get that he's ejaculating with his expressions and his curled fingers and his heavy breathing in sync with the words "Hallelujah" in the song? I THINK NOT. HEY WHY DON'T WE CLEVERLY SUPERIMPOSE THAT SCENE WITH A CLEVER VISUAL METAPHOR OF THE OWLSHIP SHOOTING OUT FIRE WHILE HE BLOWS HIS LOAD."

They do.

[Dr Legostar]

No I mean the one who played in the 90's.

you work out what you mean and get back to me.

[Rkolter]

Yeahduff and Legostar sitting in a tree...

[Ahaugen]

No I mean the one who played in the 90's.

you work out what you mean and get back to me.

Dion Sanders?

[Dr Legostar]

Yeahduff and Legostar sitting in a tree...

B. I. T. CH. I. N. G.


what? Ch is a perfectly reasonable letter in the serbian alphabet.

[Phact0rri]

It's like Snyder went to the cutting crew and asked, "Hey do you think the audience will get that they're having sex? PERHAPS WE SHOULD GIVE THEM A SHITLOAD OF VISUAL CUES LIKE A CLOSEUP OF NITE OWL'S ASS AND THEIR BITS MOVING FOR A FULL MINUTE WHILE THE SONG "HALLELUJAH" PLAYS."

I was wondering how they were gonna fit Leonard Cohen into the film. Nothing says sex like Leonard Cohen crooning.

[Yeahduff]

No I mean the one who played in the 90's.

you work out what you mean and get back to me.

Dude, the all-pro wide receiver who played for the Lions for ten years, starting in 91. Julian Moore. Ya know, #84? Dude was a force.

Dion Sanders?

He was running back for the Washington Redskins. Ricky Sanders was halfback for the Lions, not to be confused with wide out/cornerback of the Atlanta Falcons, Barry Sanders.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

You can talk about indie shit all you want, but you're still a fucking jock at heart. The veneer is starting to peel.

[Phact0rri]

You can talk about indie shit all you want, but you're still a fucking jock at heart. The veneer is starting to peel.

Jock-o-rama by the Dead Kennedys is to blame.

[Evil Jamie!]

Then, stumped with how to portray their orgasms, Zack Snyder asked, "Hey, do you guys think that the audience will get that he's ejaculating with his expressions and his curled fingers and his heavy breathing in sync with the words "Hallelujah" in the song? I THINK NOT. HEY WHY DON'T WE CLEVERLY SUPERIMPOSE THAT SCENE WITH A CLEVER VISUAL METAPHOR OF THE OWLSHIP SHOOTING OUT FIRE WHILE HE BLOWS HIS LOAD."

They do.
[/size]

Fire load is taken directly from the comic.

Anyways I liked it. I knew things would be different and that no acting could beat my imagination. I went in expecting a movie and thats what I got.
If you're the type of comic fan who insists that any slight deviation from the original source material will make the movie terrible, then well, look out; the obvious has happened.
And besides, after the fight in the alley I was too busy cringing during the rest of the fight scenes, going "Oh God, don't break any more aaaarrrmmmms!" to worrie about diffrences in scripts.

[KWill]

Fire load is taken directly from the comic.

Aye.

Anyways I liked it. I knew things would be different and that no acting could beat my imagination. I went in expecting a movie and thats what I got.
If you're the type of comic fan who insists that any slight deviation from the original source material will make the movie terrible, then well, look out; the obvious has happened.

Yeah, I'm not really like that, though, so it surprises me that I was cringing the whole way through. I liked the movie version V for Vendetta, for one. Snyder fucked it up. I can tolerate certain things being cut out, and I'm probably overreacting where Hollis' portrayal is concerned, but fact is, Snyder pretty much botched the central message of the comic as I saw it. The fight in the alley is a pretty good example of how: In the comic, Laurie and Dan brutally knock down two to three of the Knottops and the rest run away. In the movie, they kill or maim all of them. All of a sudden, everyone gets to be a Rorschach. Ruins the "If you're squeamish, leave him to me" line at the end, because its rather firmly established that Dan's not squeamish. It's character derailment. Rorschach is supposed the uncompromising one with a holier-than-thou attitude that goes around breaking fingers left and right. It's what set him apart in the book and it's missing in the movie.

[Evil Jamie!]

Fire load is taken directly from the comic.

Aye.

Anyways I liked it. I knew things would be different and that no acting could beat my imagination. I went in expecting a movie and thats what I got.
If you're the type of comic fan who insists that any slight deviation from the original source material will make the movie terrible, then well, look out; the obvious has happened.

Yeah, I'm not really like that, though, so it surprises me that I was cringing the whole way through. I liked the movie version V for Vendetta, for one. Snyder fucked it up. I can tolerate certain things being cut out, and I'm probably overreacting where Hollis' portrayal is concerned, but fact is, Snyder pretty much botched the central message of the comic as I saw it. The fight in the alley is a pretty good example of how: In the comic, Laurie and Dan brutally knock down two to three of the Knottops and the rest run away. In the movie, they kill or maim all of them. All of a sudden, everyone gets to be a Rorschach. Ruins the "If you're squeamish, leave him to me" line at the end, because its rather firmly established that Dan's not squeamish. It's character derailment. Rorschach is supposed the uncompromising one with a holier-than-thou attitude that goes around breaking fingers left and right. It's what set him apart in the book and it's missing in the movie.

But in V for Vendetta movie V stood for completely different ideals!
In the comic he was all about Anarchy vs Fascism and in the movie... he was like, what, a republican or liberal or something? Something about democracy. While I agree that his character in the film was charming and I also liked it well enough, I don't see how you could watch that in good conscience and then be annoyed Dan beat up everyone instead of just a few guys when V was completely re-written to basically say "That system that in place now? Yeah, V is all for that. we totally have it right." Thats just not what he was about.
Look, I can see where you're coming from, I was watching the whole time to see where the movie was faithful to the comic and where it deviated from the original script and personally, I liked the comics ending better and yeah the characters got more time to be fleshed out in the comic, but I don't think that it makes it a worse movie. The movie is GREAT. The (comic) book is BETTER. I wish I could only say so much for all comic book adaptions.

[Mr.Bob]

[Rkolter]

I love you Mr. Bob.

[Evil Jamie!]

Hahahaha! Damn you and your genius, Bob.

[KWill]

But in V for Vendetta movie V stood for completely different ideals!
In the comic he was all about Anarchy vs Fascism and in the movie... he was like, what, a republican or liberal or something? Something about democracy. While I agree that his character in the film was charming and I also liked it well enough, I don't see how you could watch that in good conscience and then be annoyed Dan beat up everyone instead of just a few guys when V was completely re-written to basically say "That system that in place now? Yeah, V is all for that. we totally have it right." Thats just not what he was about.

Well, yeah, V being played by Hugo Weaving probably did what the Watchmen cast couldn't. Maybe I'm not so displeased about it because both adaptations still adhere to the core Freedom vs. Security message, whereas Watchmen the graphic novel was a deconstruction of superheroes and Watchmen the movie was a plot to prevent nuclear war. Course Dan beating them up wasn't the issue. Dan killing them without mercy was. Overall they seemed more interested in showing blood effects than staying true to the characters.

Look, I can see where you're coming from, I was watching the whole time to see where the movie was faithful to the comic and where it deviated from the original script and personally, I liked the comics ending better and yeah the characters got more time to be fleshed out in the comic, but I don't think that it makes it a worse movie. The movie is GREAT. The (comic) book is BETTER. I wish I could only say so much for all comic book adaptions.

Like I said in my LJ, I'm glad some people can enjoy it. I just couldn't and there's a long list of reasons why. Many of them personal, like my favorite bits of dialog getting cut or botched.

*snip image*

Absolutely brilliant =D