|
Bill Dungsroman posted:PYF Cabin in the Woods deconstruction. You know, despite all the crap that was wrong with Watchmen, I liked that too. I also liked the photos in the opening scene in the Comedian's apartment: it was somewhat a nice touch to see Silk Spectre and Laurie there, the only photos I can remember seeing in his place.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Watchmen actually had a lot of nice little moments, I thought. If you have an iron rear end I would recommend watching the ultimate edition. It's far truer to the comic, and just flows better. No idea why they left stuff like Hollis' death out of the theatrical cut.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Me neither. On the other hand I thought that the elimination of the space squid plot and replacement with Doctor Manhattan did a wonderful job of streamlining the story without changing the outcome at all. That was actually a better piece of writing than Moore's original.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
How exactly did they change the end? I haven't/won't see it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
The space squid stuff is foreshadowed like crazy in the comic which is why it works there. In the movie they just don't have enough time to set it up properly so it would have looked crazy.Ignite Memories posted:How exactly did they change the end? I haven't/won't see it. Adrian sets up everything to look like Manhattan is the one that attacks. They mention earlier in the film that the two had been working to harness Jon's ability to create power plants but Adrian was just using that as an excuse to make bombs. He blows up the cities and then claims that Jon attacked the world to make them stop fighting. muscles like this! has a new favorite as of 23:46 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:How exactly did they change the end? I haven't/won't see it. Instead of manufacturing a space monster (I should spoil this I guess?) they make it look like Doctor Manhattan set off an atomic blast instead. The world rallies against Manhattan, he fucks off to outer space like he was going to anyway. I only ever watched the long cut, and I've never/won't read the comic, but it was a pretty decent movie. Mostly for the Comedian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Me neither. On the other hand I thought that the elimination of the space squid plot and replacement with Doctor Manhattan did a wonderful job of streamlining the story without changing the outcome at all. That was actually a better piece of writing than Moore's original. The entire point of the plan in the comic was to be ridiculous, unbelievable and over the top. It was repeatedly called history's greatest practical joke. An alien threat is something that cannot be blamed on anyone else, unlike Manhattan going nuts. Manhattan was an American superweapon, so other countries would harbor resentment if said weapon went out of control (even if it also significantly damaged the US in the process). The alien plan put all of humanity in the same boat, forcing them to work together. So to me, the change made for a much weaker plan. I liked the movie though and I understand the original plan would have been very hard to sell. The book spends pages explaining all the supplemental things to make it convincing (cloned psychic brains sending images of alien planets, etc), which you can't really plop into a movie without making it five hours long. I'll just spoiler the whole thing to be safe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:The entire point of the plan in the comic was to be ridiculous, unbelievable and over the top. It was repeatedly called history's greatest practical joke. So to me, the change made for a much weaker plan. I agree as well. You think if they didn't want the the space squid, they could have replaced it was an crashed alien space ship, or an alien weapon, or something. It didn't have to be a squid, it just had to be alien. Making it Dr. Manhattan missed the entire point of Veildt's plan. Sometimes I got the impression Snyder didn't actually read the book. Instead, he just flipped through the pictures and then had someone explain the story to him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Making it Dr. Manhattan missed the entire point of Veildt's plan. Well no, it didn't. It still serves the purpose of uniting the whole world against a common foe, and gives Doctor Manhattan a good movie-friendly excuse for leaving (instead of just "he...left", which doesn't make sense without all the discussion of how he's becoming less and less capable of living like a human). I'll grant that it would be tricky for the USA to explain how their superweapon was responsible for blowing up all the world's major cities but I think it could be done. The real problem that I have with both the book and the movie is that I don't think Adrian ever explained how his plan was supposed to work in the long term. Yes, there's always the possibility of an alien invasion/Doctor Manhattan coming back for the kill. But when neither happens after ten or twenty years...then what? Do people just keep on being united in their defense-building forever, or do they eventually fall back to old squabbling? I think history bears out the latter. Sagebrush has a new favorite as of 00:15 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Well no, it didn't. It still serves the purpose of uniting the whole world against a common foe, and gives Doctor Manhattan a good movie-friendly excuse for leaving (instead of just "he...left", which doesn't make sense without all the discussion of how he's becoming less and less capable of living like a human). I'll grant that it would be tricky for the USA to explain how their superweapon was responsible for blowing up all the world's major cities but I think it could be done. He did in the book, and they even had a scene in the movie, where he talked about eliminating scarcity. He said the first part of his plan was to frighten humanity into peace, and the second was to lift them to utopia. In both book and movie he had been working on replicating Manhattans power (with Manhattans help) so that energy could be virtually free and unlimited. He talked to the 'old world' businessmen about how they are a big part of the current state of humankind, and his vision was to eliminate fighting for resources. So he did have a long-term gameplan, but he needed some short-term peace. IF it would have ever worked, is a different matter (and what he's left worrying about). It's why he asks Manhattan to confirm he did the right thing in the end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
In the vein of director's cuts, I think it's really a shame that the scenes from the Extended Edition of Avatar didn't make it into the theatrical version; yeah, they add length, but they really make the storytelling more genuine. Not only is there a glimpse of life on Earth, there's also a whole subplot with the Na'vi school the scientists set up that only gets a brief mention in the theatrical cut. I don't know why they cut it, because it adds so much nuance; we get a better look at why the human/Na'vi relations are so strained, Grace's character is expanded upon, and we get a sense of why Jake turns against the military that's bigger than just "he and Neytiri are hooking up."
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The real problem that I have with both the book and the movie is that I don't think Adrian ever explained how his plan was supposed to work in the long term. Yes, there's always the possibility of an alien invasion/Doctor Manhattan coming back for the kill. But when neither happens after ten or twenty years...then what? Do people just keep on being united in their defense-building forever, or do they eventually fall back to old squabbling? I think history bears out the latter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Sometimes I got the impression Snyder didn't actually read the book. Instead, he just flipped through the pictures and then had someone explain the story to him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Maybe it's just because I really like Watchmen (especially the book, though I certainly don't hate the movie) , but I've always been able to excuse any plotholes and incredibly faulty logic by telling myself that it's as much an homage to comics as it is a critique of them, or even a story in it's own right. It takes place in a comic book universe where comic book rules apply. Stupid monsters make sense. Kinda dumb "villian" plans make sense. It may be a very intelligent and well-written story about people in tights trying to save the world, but it's still a story about people in tights trying to save the world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
I probably read way too much into the different endings, but I always saw them as Ozymandias trying to justify the continued existence of masked heroes, as a stand-in for comic authors. In the book, the ending signified the shift away from heroes fighting common crooks and mafia, by manufacturing a new "super-villain" that made the people think of the "heroes" as something more than masked vigilantes doing the job of the police in irresponsible ways. The movie ending seemed to reflect the terrorism angle that's been used in other modern works, like the Nolan Batman movies, and downplaying "supers" as necessary by turning people against the only real "superhero" of the group, justifying the "normal" heroes instead and playing up the xenophobic "Other = Bad" mentality. Yeah, probably read way too much into it, but I like the thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:It takes place in a comic book universe where comic book rules apply. Stupid monsters make sense. Kinda dumb "villian" plans make sense. Is this really accurate, though, where only one of the heroes has actual super powers (and he's portrayed as a morally ambiguous personification of incomprehensible physics, not a true hero), and the villain explicitly contradicts everyone's expectations of him because he is acutely aware of how dumb comic book villains traditionally operate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Okay, after this movie, we have to deconstruct/find disappointing another film. I suggest Inception.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Maybe it's just because I really like Watchmen (especially the book, though I certainly don't hate the movie) , but I've always been able to excuse any plotholes and incredibly faulty logic by telling myself that it's as much an homage to comics as it is a critique of them, or even a story in it's own right. It takes place in a comic book universe where comic book rules apply. Stupid monsters make sense. Kinda dumb "villian" plans make sense. It may be a very intelligent and well-written story about people in tights trying to save the world, but it's still a story about people in tights trying to save the world. But the point of the book at least (I've only seen the film once, I'm not going to start overanalyzing it. Cliff Notes version: I agree with Allah above) is actually not in homage to other comics, but rather it takes a stark realist look at the sorts of mentalities it takes to be a successful hero in real life. I thought the conversation between Dan and Laurie about the masochist supervillain is especially telling of that mentality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
One problem with the movie ending is that it takes away from the beautiful moment where Veidt says he isn't some ridiculous pulp villain mere minutes after teleporting a giant psychic squid into NYC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:One problem with the movie ending is that it takes away from the beautiful moment where Veidt says he isn't some ridiculous pulp villain mere minutes after teleporting a giant psychic squid into NYC. In the movie he says that he isn't some ridiculous comic book villain  Watchmen was great and the meme that Snyder is a dumb fratboy is completely baffling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Watchmen was great and the meme that Snyder is a dumb fratboy is completely baffling. You haven't seen Sucker Punch have you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
If you want to see the comic version of the storyline for Watchmen, there is this: http://www.thewb.com/shows/watchmen-the-complete-motion-comic/chapter-1/3623217a-9341-4129-917e-99770d15c10e
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:But the point of the book at least (I've only seen the film once, I'm not going to start overanalyzing it. Cliff Notes version: I agree with Allah above) is actually not in homage to other comics, but rather it takes a stark realist look at the sorts of mentalities it takes to be a successful hero in real life. I thought the conversation between Dan and Laurie about the masochist supervillain is especially telling of that mentality. Maybe homage was the wrong word. There's a real love and understanding of comics, though, along with a kind of tongue-in-cheek humor that makes a nice counterpoint to the overall grimness. It may be starkly realistic in a lot of ways, but it's still completely, self-awarely ridiculous in others. Which is just fine. It's been a few years since I've either read the book or watched the movie, though, and I may be completely talking out of my rear end. vvv I also kind of enjoyed his Dawn of the Dead remake. Crow Jane has a new favorite as of 03:32 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Terminal Entropy posted:You haven't seen Sucker Punch have you. It baffles me how Snyder can go from making 300 and Watchmen which were awesome to Sucker Punch and Man of Steel which are absolutely loving terrible. What happened Zachary?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Ez posted:It baffles me how Snyder can go from making 300 and Watchmen which were awesome to Sucker Punch and Man of Steel which are absolutely loving terrible. What happened Zachary? I think he's only really good at direct comic adaptations. Sucker Punch was entirely original and was complete garbage, and Man of Steel was an original Superman story that... I'm going to say wasn't terrible, but it was a pretty weak movie and I'd hesitate to call it anything above mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:Okay, after this movie, we have to deconstruct/find disappointing another film. I suggest Inception. Nolan films are interesting in that they seem really clever at first, but the more you re-watch them, the more you realize that his dialog is atrocious and repetitive. That being said, I think INCEPTION is one of the most original high concept films in a long time, terrible dialog notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
In the Gremlins Billy's father is an inventor who tries to make the next practical appliance. You see a lot in the film including an auto-matic egg cracker and a smokeless ashtray. My favorite one is the one in a background gag when Billy is about to be introduced to Gizmo, The father asks to dim the lights and the mother grabs a remote control (like a toy cars) to do it, its a hilarious impractical toy and you only see it for 5 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
PersonalGenius posted:Nolan films are interesting in that they seem really clever at first, but the more you re-watch them, the more you realize that his dialog is atrocious and repetitive. I think the main thing that bothers me about Inception is the introduction of the Limbo concept. There's really no reason someone in the planning stage couldn't have said "Oh, but if we're going that deep we'll risk running into Limbo" and Cobb brushes it by saying there won't be any dream security so nobody will be at any risk of dying. Instead, we get a really awkward, flow-breaking exposition dump right as the heist starts and the Japanese guy getting shot has no impact till like 10 minutes later. Its also kind of over-long but that's a problem with a lot of Nolan's recent movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
PersonalGenius posted:That being said, I think INCEPTION is one of the most original high concept films in a long time, terrible dialog notwithstanding. Absolutely, it's probably my third favorite movie about making movies. The dialog I can give a pass because they specifically make a point that Cobb (Nolan) can't write anymore (the way he used to).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Ez posted:It baffles me how Snyder can go from making 300 and Watchmen which were awesome to Sucker Punch and Man of Steel which are absolutely loving terrible. What happened Zachary? 300 really doesn't hold up. I haven't been able to finish it since its opening weekend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
The only thing I don't like about Inception are the dreams, not a single one of them was abstract in a sense of being out of this world. Yeah there were buildings falling and there was that safe room, but nothing truly weird, like monsters or giant food falling from the sky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Pixeltendo posted:The only thing I don't like about Inception are the dreams, not a single one of them was abstract in a sense of being out of this world. The most accurate dream sequences I've seen in live action were on Sopranos. So much random, so much surreal, but rooted in established lore except when it was just true-to-life REM fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:300 really doesn't hold up. I haven't been able to finish it since its opening weekend. The College Republicans at my university hosted a showing of 300. And while all the moments that made that experience hilarious are in no way subtle, but they were apparently just subtle enough for the College Republicans to host a free showing of sheer homoeroticism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
I'm slightly late for Watchmen chat but the changed ending misses a large part of Ozymandias' character, namely that he's modelled himself to a great extent after Alexander the Great and considers the world's political climate his personal Gordian Knot to solve. Using Dr. Manhattan to do that is like if Alexander had solved the knot by looking carefully at it and finding just the right spot to loosen. Actually it misses a big point of the whole story in that all the superheroes in the world can't keep the world from becoming hosed enough that it takes an incredibly radical approach. Also, re "how would it work long term", it's pretty heavily implied by the last scene and Dr. Manhattan's departing words that it very well might not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:In the movie he says that he isn't some ridiculous comic book villain I never thought Snyder was a fratboy or a hack. How I like to describe him is his strengths lie in taking properties popular with geeks/nerds, and then making movies out of them that are great and relateable to the layperson, but infuriating to those same geeks. But someone mentioned Gremlins? That's chock full of great subtle moments. One of my favorites happens way early in the film, when the dad is calling from the inventors convention. At first behind him the Time Machine from the 50s film can be seen, lighting up and rotating, like it does in the original. The we cut to the family side of the conversation for a tic, then when we cut back, the machine is gone in a puff of smoke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
According to this interpretation of Sucker Punch, it actually is kind of clever and subtle. I agree with that (at least the Babydoll isn't the real main character angle (which I didn't think was that subtle, but it seems like every critic missed it, so...)), and also thought the action sequences were good enough to make it worth watching even if it was just a dumb action movie. vv
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
The Escapist's MovieBob did two videos on Sucker Punch. Now, I know Escapist has one of the stupidest communities on the web but MovieBob does good stuff. Part One Part Two
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
Pixeltendo posted:The only thing I don't like about Inception are the dreams, not a single one of them was abstract in a sense of being out of this world. This says more about you and your dreams than it does about Inception.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
The movie also addresses it when they're talking about building the dreamworld. They are purposefully making mundane dreams because they want to make the mark think they're still awake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 12:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
And when things do happen that are out of the ordinary and might happen in dreams (a train running down the middle of a busy street, children playing in bar) they try to distract Cillian Murphy's character so he doesn't see them, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 12:16
|
|
