Movie Posters - The good, the bad & the awful

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Movie Posters - The good, the bad & the awful

«‹›1797 »

Mister Chief: Jun 6, 2011

Better ending than the book.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 05:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 07:27

Lady Naga: Apr 25, 2008; Voyons Donc!

I hate Watchmen because of all the things you could do with the concept in a film made in 2009, just straight-up adapting the literal plot in a modern day setting is probably the laziest and least interesting.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 05:14

Lurdiak: Feb 26, 2006; I believe in a universe that doesn't care, and people that do.

It's got really bad tone issues that gently caress up the message of the original work despite adapting it really closely. But I just wanted to talk about the casting, which I liked (except for Ozymandias).

# ? Oct 8, 2015 05:20

Lady Naga: Apr 25, 2008; Voyons Donc!

I would've much rather a 2015 or 2016 Watchmen adaptation that takes the general premise and uses it to make fun of the trend of super hero cinematic universes.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 05:21

King Vidiot: Feb 17, 2007; You think you can take me at Satan's Hollow? Go 'head on!

Lurdiak posted:

But I just wanted to talk about the casting, which I liked (except for Ozymandias).

First person that popped into my head was Ryan Gosling, and even if you disagree with that choice you can probably agree it still would've been a lot better than what we got.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 05:26

Lurdiak: Feb 26, 2006; I believe in a universe that doesn't care, and people that do.

King Vidiot posted:

First person that popped into my head was Ryan Gosling, and even if you disagree with that choice you can probably agree it still would've been a lot better than what we got.

The first person that pops into mine is Chris Evans because comic book Ozzy is basically Captain America with a more intellectual bent.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 05:29

Cleretic: Feb 3, 2010; Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!

Lady Naga posted:

I would've much rather a 2015 or 2016 Watchmen adaptation that takes the general premise and uses it to make fun of the trend of super hero cinematic universes.

The thing with Watchmen is that it's one of those comics that was a reaction to the state of the medium at the time, so a straight adaptation is always going to be a little weird and, unless it goes exactly right, won't work as well. It's the same with Kingdom Come, and it's the reason I don't think the Superman Vs. Batman movie will work out.

You want a comic adaptation to comment on shared universes, I'd probably go with Infinite Crisis.

Personally, I think Watchmen was a really solid movie as long as you knew what you were going into, which is a three hour movie with not a lot of payoff.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 05:31

Lady Naga: Apr 25, 2008; Voyons Donc!

From the early costume design it looked to be a reaction to the sort of comic book movies that killed the genre (giving Ozymandias' costume bat nipples) which would've been a fun movie, if Dark Knight and Iron Man hadn't come out and made the whole thing pointless.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 05:45

Erebus: Jul 13, 2001; Okay... Keep your head, Steve boy...

To say something about Mondo other than how poo poo they are, there was an interesting tidbit in this interview about getting likeness rights:

quote:

Let's talk about the likeness rights debate. I think there's a perception out there that producing posters without likenesses is a conscious effort on your part, that it's something your're not pursuing as often. That theory is stupid, but I figured you might have something to say about it.

JS: I have plenty to say.

Haha, OK, great.

JS: To truly set the record straight here: unless there is a solid artistic decision not use a likeness - and, y'know, sometimes there is - we are always, always, always asking if they're available. We want likenesses. Of course we want likenesses. We want the artist to be able to draw the people in the film. Obviously that's something we want to do, and any time it's available, we make it available to the creative process. The thing about likenesses, though, is that you don't just get them. The studio has very little control over that most of the time; most of the time, it's the talent. And when you're doing something licensed and not bootlegged, you're sort of at their mercy. You can't just put Bruce Willis in a poster. You can't do that without his permission, and we don't want to. It's not just "the mean ol' studios" or that we don't want to, it's that we have enough respect not to do it.

And my understanding is, there's no tiered system here when it comes to licenses.

JB: (laughs)

It's not as though you can say, "Well, we'll spend X amount of dollars for the license to Y movie, or we could pay a little more and get likeness rights."

JS: Right. Not even close. When we go to a studio and license a property, it's "You can potentially use these people, you can't use these people" or "the whole cast has signed off on this".

JB: Sometimes it's a situation where you have to go after the stars yourself.

JS: Sometimes it's crazy. When Martin Ansin did Taxi Driver, the way we were able to get Robert DeNiro to sign off on that was, we had to send him a finished copy of the poster. So we had to take this psychotic leap of faith, finish and print the drat poster, pay the artist, and if DeNiro had said "No thank you", that would've been it. No poster.

JB: That would've been over a year-long process that was just out the window.

How often does something like that happen?

JB: It's pretty rare.

JS: That was an extreme situation. That was a thing where, Martin had a great idea, it was a perfect poster, Rob Jones was very excited about it - the whole staff was excited about it - and it was one of those situations that was just worth the gamble. Usually (re: likenesses) you know at the outset who you can and can't use. Sometimes you can't, but then a lot of the time you come up with a really creative solution to that problem. Die Hard was a great example of that. We couldn't (put Bruce Willis on the poster), so he came up with a great solution to that. We'd love to see Bruce Willis on a Die Hard poster, but look at what he came up with! I love that poster, it's crazy.

JB: What's funny is that on that print, we still had to get likeness approved on the building, for Nakatomi Towers. The FOX building, or whatever it is.

Haha, what?

JB: Yeah! We sent it in (an original version) for approval and they said, "No, you can't use the building". And we were like, what?! And they said, "Yeah, you can't use the building, it's copyrighted". We were like, so we can't use Bruce Willis and we can't use the building - what sort of Die Hard poster do you think we're going to make? Luckily we were able to get with the building owners and get the thing approved. We totally cleared it. But that's a good example of how crazy this stuff can be.

The Die Hard poster in question:

# ? Oct 8, 2015 06:40

Hat Thoughts: Jul 27, 2012

Cleretic posted:

The thing with Watchmen is that it's one of those comics that was a reaction to the state of the medium at the time, so a straight adaptation is always going to be a little weird and, unless it goes exactly right, won't work as well. It's the same with Kingdom Come, and it's the reason I don't think the Superman Vs. Batman movie will work out.

What does any of that have to do with Batman vs Superman?

# ? Oct 8, 2015 06:40

Cleretic: Feb 3, 2010; Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!

Hat Thoughts posted:

What does any of that have to do with Batman vs Superman?

It's reportedly based on The Dark Knight Returns, which is one of those famous reactive comics. Specifically, to bring the Batman character himself back to what he was supposed to be: grim, dark and frightening. He'd been hit and derailed pretty hard by the Comics Code and the Adam West TV show, and it was TDKR that finally brought him back to the serious Batman he's been since.

You can probably tell, we're not exactly in an analogous situation.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 06:52

MikeJF: Dec 20, 2003

King Vidiot posted:

I didn't even really know who he was (think I may've seen him somewhere, probably the Fargo trailer), so I kept thinking he was Chris Pratt and I was wondering why he wasn't being smarmy or funny or interesting. I didn't realize he was Fargo Season 2 Guy.

He looks like some bizarre cross of Chris Pratt and Wil Arnett.

Lurdiak posted:

The first person that pops into mine is Chris Evans because comic book Ozzy is basically Captain America with a more intellectual bent.

That makes me think that Chris Hemsworth would been pretty good; look at him as George Kirk for Ozzy-ish hair. He's got the enormous, imposing frame and too-perfect-looking-to-be-human deal going on.

Of course he wasn't really around back then.

MikeJF fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Oct 8, 2015

# ? Oct 8, 2015 06:55

SomeJazzyRat: Nov 2, 2012; Hmmm...

Cleretic posted:

It's reportedly based on The Dark Knight Returns, which is one of those famous reactive comics. Specifically, to bring the Batman character himself back to what he was supposed to be: grim, dark and frightening. He'd been hit and derailed pretty hard by the Comics Code and the Adam West TV show, and it was TDKR that finally brought him back to the serious Batman he's been since.

You can probably tell, we're not exactly in an analogous situation.

So you're saying, to make a truly, contextually analogous film, we'd need an infallible, quip-y, and true blue boy scout. One who puts his faith in the justness of the criminal justice system (despite repeat offenders), the potential of tomorrow's generation(whose influences and morality must be considered), and the honesty of the common man (and doesn't let a few bad apples ruin it).

I'd like that actually.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 07:41

WeedlordGoku69: Feb 12, 2015; by Cyrano4747

Lady Naga posted:

I hate Watchmen because of all the things you could do with the concept in a film made in 2009, just straight-up adapting the literal plot in a modern day setting is probably the laziest and least interesting.

But what the hell else exactly would you do? Anything else done with the source material would have outright sucked out loud, as opposed to being pretty decent if somewhat unnecessary. Also, it's not a modern-day setting- the aesthetic makes it seem as such, but it's still set in the 80s and with Vietnam flashback scenes and etc.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 07:54

Lady Naga: Apr 25, 2008; Voyons Donc!

LORD OF BUTT posted:

But what the hell else exactly would you do? Anything else done with the source material would have outright sucked out loud, as opposed to being pretty decent if somewhat unnecessary. Also, it's not a modern-day setting- the aesthetic makes it seem as such, but it's still set in the 80s and with Vietnam flashback scenes and etc.

That's a really weird thing to say considering there's absolutely no way to tell whether or not a Watchmen film about anything other than "silver age comics are incredibly naive, real super heroes would be way hosed up" would suck since it didn't happen.

You know what I never really thought of it but that makes it even loving lazier. It's an 80s film that doesn't bother at all setting the scene that it is in fact the 80s, and then ends with My Chemical Romance.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 08:05

CelticPredator: Oct 11, 2013; 🍀👽🆚🪖🏋

It's a version of the 80's that has a literal god in it. So, of course it's going to be different. There's too much that would change from the very notion of having such a being exist. And it's not like it's absent from the comics either.

And Watchmen is hardly the first period film to be anachronistic.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 08:21

Hat Thoughts: Jul 27, 2012

Lady Naga posted:

and then ends with My Chemical Romance.

Hell yeah!!

# ? Oct 8, 2015 08:29

Lady Naga: Apr 25, 2008; Voyons Donc!

Yeah but the problem is that the anachronistic details of the Watchmen world aren't congruent with the idea that they're specifically caused by the presence of Manhattan, it's just styled like every other late-2000s movie (and especially like every other Snyder movie).

# ? Oct 8, 2015 08:30

Gonz: Dec 22, 2009; "Jesus, did I say that? Or just think it? Was I talking? Did they hear me?"

I loved the Watchmen comics, but holy poo poo was that movie a letdown. Especially the final act.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 08:32

Shoehead: Sep 28, 2005; Wassup, Choom?
Ya need sumthin'?

SomeJazzyRat posted:

So you're saying, to make a truly, contextually analogous film, we'd need an infallible, quip-y, and true blue boy scout. One who puts his faith in the justness of the criminal justice system (despite repeat offenders), the potential of tomorrow's generation(whose influences and morality must be considered), and the honesty of the common man (and doesn't let a few bad apples ruin it).

I'd like that actually.

The Tick was pretty good.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 09:17

The Saddest Rhino: Apr 29, 2009; Put it all together.
Solve the world.
One conversation at a time.

Watchmen probably would have benefited from being adapted in the Netflix style of a miniseries but budget concerns would not have allowed it

it is a pretty film but it wasn't very good

# ? Oct 8, 2015 11:19

Mantis42: Jul 26, 2010

How could you miss the 80s setting of the Snyder film? Like the first 10 minutes is about introducing the alt history premise.

And the movie is not about the same things as the novel, despite the close adaptation of the plot. If is a good story in its own right.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 11:40

CelticPredator: Oct 11, 2013; 🍀👽🆚🪖🏋

Lady Naga posted:

Yeah but the problem is that the anachronistic details of the Watchmen world aren't congruent with the idea that they're specifically caused by the presence of Manhattan, it's just styled like every other late-2000s movie (and especially like every other Snyder movie).

I mean they're taken right out of the book.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 11:42

Sleeveless: Dec 25, 2014; by Pragmatica

Watchmen was always going to be seen as a disappointment because it could have been the best movie ever made and it still wouldn't have had the cultural or industry impact that Watchen did. Because movies have been commonly accepted as a form of art for like a century so they don't have anything to prove, which is like half the reason why comic book fans cling to Watchmen so tightly and hold it up to such a high level of praise.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 13:06

BonoMan: Feb 20, 2002; Jade Ear Joe

Isn't HBO doing a Watchmen show? Maybe that will give you guys something you like?

# ? Oct 8, 2015 13:46

dr_rat: Jun 4, 2001

mind the walrus posted:

At this point they're just trying out w/e cause the flick is guaranteed to make bank.

While it really doesn't work, and is two busy by half, I do like that they're trying. Interesting failures are always better then a mediocre success.

Apart from in like engineering... or surgery.. or er anything else that involve people dying because of a sucky job.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 14:15

The Anime Liker: Aug 8, 2009; by VideoGames

As long as he sings the lego movie song about Dead Parents, Batfleck vs. Murderman will be ok.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 15:21

westborn: Feb 25, 2010

Sleeveless posted:

kiimo posted:

I looked at this way too long. It's like I'm in a new dimension and my brain can't accept it.

It's a reflection in a wet sidewalk of people in the rain, just turned upside down. What's so hard to grasp about it...?

Can your brain accept it the right way around?

# ? Oct 8, 2015 15:37

Humbug Scoolbus: Apr 25, 2008; The scarlet letter was her passport into regions where other women dared not tread. Shame, Despair, Solitude! These had been her teachers, stern and wild ones, and they had made her strong, but taught her much amiss.; Clapping Larry

Cleretic posted:

The thing with Watchmen is that it's one of those comics that was a reaction to the state of the medium at the time, so a straight adaptation is always going to be a little weird and, unless it goes exactly right, won't work as well. It's the same with Kingdom Come, and it's the reason I don't think the Superman Vs. Batman movie will work out.

You want a comic adaptation to comment on shared universes, I'd probably go with Infinite Crisis.

Personally, I think Watchmen was a really solid movie as long as you knew what you were going into, which is a three hour movie with not a lot of payoff.

I liked Watchmen and agree that the cast was terrific. As a devoted reader of comic books in the late 70s early 80s, I got what Moore was saying and a lot of that tone Snyder got too. I really don't think the movie could have been made any other way actually.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 16:10

kiimo: Jul 24, 2003

Gonz posted:

I loved the Watchmen comics, but holy poo poo was that movie a letdown. Especially the final act.

How is that possible?

# ? Oct 8, 2015 16:21

Alhazred: Feb 16, 2011

Mister Chief posted:

Better ending than the book.

I don't get this. The squid was supposed to be ridiculous in the omic. It was supposed to be something that humans couldn't wrap their mind around. To replace it with Dr. Manhattan really misses the point imo.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 16:35

GrandpaPants: Feb 13, 2006; Free to roam the heavens in man's noble quest to investigate the weirdness of the universe!

Erebus posted:

To say something about Mondo other than how poo poo they are, there was an interesting tidbit in this interview about getting likeness rights:

Am I missing something or should making a poster not be a year long process?

# ? Oct 8, 2015 16:42

DrVenkman: Dec 28, 2005; I think he can hear you, Ray.

Alhazred posted:

I don't get this. The squid was supposed to be ridiculous in the omic. It was supposed to be something that humans couldn't wrap their mind around. To replace it with Dr. Manhattan really misses the point imo.

But the movie repurposed Manhattan as a literal God instead. It serves the function of 'There's this deity out there now, and if we don't behave ourselves then he's going to destroy us'. It takes a different road to get to the same end.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 17:24

Lady Naga: Apr 25, 2008; Voyons Donc!

CelticPredator posted:

I mean they're taken right out of the book.

I'm gonna drop this because I hadn't seen the movie in a long time but I just wanted to say that I meant aesthetics, not literal plot beats. The Watchmen comic has a clear advantage of showing its time period by being inked and coloured in a way that hasn't been the norm for comic books for decades.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 17:29

Alhazred: Feb 16, 2011

Lady Naga posted:

I'm gonna drop this because I hadn't seen the movie in a long time but I just wanted to say that I meant aesthetics, not literal plot beats. The Watchmen comic has a clear advantage of showing its time period by being inked and coloured in a way that hasn't been the norm for comic books for decades.

That was actually a happy accident. The printing techniques in the eighties was so primitive that it more or less forced Higgins to color it the way he did.

# ? Oct 8, 2015 17:42

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Lady Naga posted:

I'm gonna drop this because I hadn't seen the movie in a long time but I just wanted to say that I meant aesthetics, not literal plot beats. The Watchmen comic has a clear advantage of showing its time period by being inked and coloured in a way that hasn't been the norm for comic books for decades.

That reminds me that someone did some digital recolor of "The Incal" by Mobius and it really sucks the life out of it by going with natural lighting and desaturating the poo poo out of it.