|
Uh, interesting way to promote the movie I guess https://twitter.com/ComikazeNews/status/744609676185088000 Translation: "Have you seen these dyes at the supermarket? They include a special edition comic of Suicide Squad" EDIT: Also https://twitter.com/mrmarkmillar/status/744610222342279168 Hit Girl solo movie?
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So do you think I should read the comic first and then watch the movie or vice versa?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I'd read first. Just for the nature of the beast. I think it's more worthwhile to go into the book like "what's gonna happen" rather than "how is what's happening different from the movie". Unless you're really good at tuning that sort of thing out, I guess, but still. It tops the lists of comics must-reads for a reason. That's a good point. I'd rather see the story unfold than look at the two as a "compare and contrast" project. I do love comic books, but I've always been wary of Moore's work because he's so popular. I'm sure you guys can understand. All the hype just makes me wary and convinced that whatever it is, it cannot live up to the universal praise I see for it. But recently I have found a few works that have lived up to all the mountains of kudos they get, like Mass Effect 2. I loved that game so completely. So yeah, that newfound hope combined with what I know of Watchmen makes me intensely curious to finally read it. Then I wanna read V but the movie of V sounds like it's an incredibly poor adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:The corresponding scene in Civil War, with them all sitting in a table watching clips from previous movies, was laughably weak in comparison. I kept thinking, who's filming this footage and how are they getting some of these shots? Since it's supposed to be from an in-universe camera-man and all evidently
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I kept thinking, who's filming this footage and how are they getting some of these shots? Since it's supposed to be from an in-universe camera-man and all evidently Did you really? Because 90% of that footage is brand new and filmed to look handheld and from a distance. Sooo...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
In a stunningly effective aspect ratio no less
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Also They're aware that Chloe Moretz isn't a kid anymore right? I feel like the whole point of Hit Girl is the novelty of a hyper-competent 12 year old that swears and kills people. When you make her 18, she's just Black Widow, but she says "oval office" a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Kick-rear end 2 had a bunch of super weird puberty stuff in it re: Hit-Girl.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:They're aware that Chloe Moretz isn't a kid anymore right? The vast majority of teens in film are played by 25 year olds
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Hit Girl and Mathilda should team up. Go on a killing spree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The vast majority of teens in film are played by 25 year olds Hit Girl is less interesting when she's a teen is the point. She loses that edge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The vast majority of teens in film are played by 25 year olds I love that episode of The O.C. where Ben McKenzie sleeps with his adopted grandfathers 24 year old girlfriend mostly because he's playing a character 8 years younger than her, but is older than the actress in real life. Edit: For people who aren't obsessed with teen primetime soaps, Ben McKenzie is currently playing Jim Gordon on Gotham, and looks basically the same as he did 15 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
I could use more Chloe Moretz violently killing people to upbeat music. I just don't expect it to be as Hit-Girl again.Gatts posted:Hit Girl and Mathilda should team up. Go on a killing spree. I was confused since I read that as "Matilda", who is even older. And also really pretty now. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:That's a good point. I'd rather see the story unfold than look at the two as a "compare and contrast" project. Danger fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:I was confused since I read that as "Matilda", who is even older. And also really pretty now. She's also in the storytelling/comedy community and is pretty baller.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Then I wanna read V but the movie of V sounds like it's an incredibly poor adaptation. quote:[...] the film's story has been changed by the Wachowski Brothers to fit a modern political context. Alan Moore, however, charged that, in doing so, the story has turned into an American-centric conflict between liberalism and neo-conservatism, and abandons the original anarchist-fascist themes. Moore states "There wasn't a mention of anarchy as far as I could see. The fascism had been completely defanged. I mean, I think that any references to racial purity had been excised, whereas actually, fascists are quite big on racial purity." Furthermore, in the original story, Moore attempted to maintain moral ambiguity, and not to portray the fascists as caricatures, but as realistic, rounded characters. The time limitations of a film meant that the story had to omit or streamline some of the characters, details, and plotlines from the original story. Chiefly, the original graphic novel has the fascists elected legally and kept in power through the general apathy of the public, whereas the film introduces the "St. Mary's virus", a biological weapon engineered and released by the Norsefire Party as a means of clandestinely gaining control over their own country. I think we can agree, though, that no matter what you think of them neither V nor Watchmen are as bad as the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film. SolidSnakesBandana posted:In a stunningly effective aspect ratio no less
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So do you think I should read the comic first and then watch the movie or vice versa? I think that you shouldn't watch the movie at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
I loved the V For Vendetta movie and though it doesn't go into the political depth of the comics, I'm not sure how you bring in that level of detail without getting bogged down in exposition. I feel like most of the changes do work towards making it work well as a film, with a tighter structure and V setting the "one year from now" goal and so on. The comic had this thing where the magazine running it was cancelled and then DC picked it up and you can feel that gap. Watchmen is easy to think of as a graphic novel since it really is so well composed as a single piece, V you can tell was a limited series. It's good but it's a little rambling. And the aesthetic changes also help fit it in the world of contemporary neoliberal "no really, everything's great now, look at our glossy media" Britain. I know Moore thought they should have just changed it to Washington D.C., but face it, London's way more photogenic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Mostly, the big problem of the movie is the ending: the "viking funeral" and Evie taking on the Mask should definitely have been kept.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
i dunno the league film was pretty okay and everything everyone has ever said about the comic outside of its premise has sounded terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
The V for Vendetta movie is stylish, but in doesn't escape its liberal partisanship. The LXG movie misses the point so thoroughly and systematically that one suspect it started out development as a separate movie, and became a League adaptation to avoid potential copyright infringement. Not to mention that it's what the comic sets out to mock. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:
The irony if that is staggering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dceufacts/status/744897267899850752
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
LOL, how wonderfully wacky and bizarre
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Wheany posted:LOL, how wonderfully wacky and bizarre I'd go as far as to call it "zany!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:The irony if that is staggering. I was being facetious, but then I checked Wikipedia and loving lol: quote:In 2003, Larry Cohen and Martin Poll filed a lawsuit against 20th Century Fox, claiming the company had intentionally plagiarized their script Cast of Characters. According to the BBC, the lawsuit alleged "that Mr Cohen and Mr Poll pitched the idea to Fox several times between 1993 and 1996, under the name Cast of Characters,"[12][13][14] and that Fox had solicited the comics series The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen as a smoke screen.[12][13][14] It noted that the films shared public domain characters who did not appear in the comic book series.[15] Although Fox denied the allegations as "absurd nonsense",[14] the case was settled out of court, a decision Alan Moore, according to The New York Times "took ... as an especially bitter blow, believing that [he] had been denied the chance to exonerate [himself]."[16] I doubt it's true, but drat
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Watchmen is basically a big long argument on utilitarian ethics, normative ethics or pragmatism, and moral absolutism. What's interesting is that despite Veidt's adherence to a antiquarian viewpoint he doesn't actually follow Nichomachean ethics. It questions the ethics of the actions of the people who would be "superheroes". Watchmen asks one question : "Was Veidt Right? " Basically, people who read the book generally come on one side of the equation of saying " Well yea, Veidt did what was necessary for the benefit of the many a few must suffer" which Jon agrees with (this is utilitarianism) " Veidt was a monster who killed millions of people, but he did save lives and while I don't agree with his actions I would not want him punished because that could result in the deaths of more people " Which Dan views as the solution (this is normative ethics and pragmatism) " Veidt is a monster what he did was wrong and he must be brought to justice" which is Rorschach's view. (moral absolutism) The whole book in a way can be seen as a ethics test for the reader and who you agree with says a lot about you as a person. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Is DCEU Facts run by WB/DC rather than actual fans, even though they claim otherwise? Because every tweet I see from them is just completely tone-deaf.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The V for Vendetta movie is stylish, but in doesn't escape its liberal partisanship. Not really sure why that's a flaw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
The Suicide Squad marketing has taken a hard right turn into a wall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I was being facetious, but then I checked Wikipedia and loving lol: That lawsuit was really why Alan Moore decided to burn all bridges with DC. If DC had stood up for him then he might have continued to let his name be in the credits but they didn't and Moore decided that he no longer wanted to be associated with adaptations of his work. It really is amazing how toxic that movie was, it ended bot COnnery's and Norrington's careers and was the last (only?) adaption of Moore's work where he is credited. Hollismason posted:
Alhazred fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:The Suicide Squad marketing has taken a hard right turn into a wall. I'm getting serious "Hey, we can be wacky zany fun like Deadpool, too!" from this marketing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
jared leto joker... he use the cat brush !! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
I love that the Suicide Squad marketing is committing to being abrasive and obnoxious as possible.Elfgames posted:i dunno the league film was pretty okay and everything everyone has ever said about the comic outside of its premise has sounded terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
LOEG has a rough middle period but the later stuff is pretty drat good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
I've only read the first two volumes, so I guess it gets good later? Because frankly I liked the movie more, and I don't mean that as a complement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Not really sure why that's a flaw. Of the two versions, only the film is capable of inspiring Anonymous. It's a movie where the true victim of islamophobia is a rich, white atheist and we entertain fantasies that the NWO/Illuminati are going to shut down The Daily Show with gay Jon Stewart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:That lawsuit was really why Alan Moore decided to burn all bridges with DC. If DC had stood up for him then he might have continued to let his name be in the credits but they didn't and Moore decided that he no longer wanted to be associated with adaptations of his work. Moore is credited in an episode of the Justice League cartoon, where they did an adaptation of "For the Man who has everything." He approved of it because they consulted him beforehand and they did a unique spin, instead of rote-copying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
He's also on record saying that it's his favorite adaptation of one of his works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Of the two versions, only the film is capable of inspiring Anonymous. The scene where the sea of white faces are taken off to expose a multicultural hivemind is basically the equivalent of the end of The Avengers, where everyone's watching the news and seeing little kids celebrating in Iron Man masks. edit: The advertisement for Suicide Squad hasn't taken a "hard right turn," per se - It's just entering that 'four quadrant push' faze of its media campaign. It seems what's tripping them up more than anything is they clearly got slapped with a PG-13 that nobody who was involved in a David Ayer production expected. That's a realistically unforeseen consequence of the MPAA rather consistently down-rating superhero movies. All the comparisons to Deadpool seem kind of inapt, because the way the movie was originally sold was with this operatic frenzy more in keeping with the Nolan Batman films, and it's not like Kick-rear end didn't already establish a prototype of self-referential superhero dark comedy. It seems like all the "Wayne's World" stuff might actually be a more accurate picture of what it always was. Like, come on, who expected the guy who wrote Training Day to not turn in an at least 'above-water' R-rating? K. Waste fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:04
|
|
