|
Electromax posted:The next Avengers should involve an Ant Man accident so they're all shrunk down accidentally and must cross the front yard before the lawnmowers turn on and Nick Fury gets home. But uh oh, Thanos also got a dose of the shrink ray...! Widow, I shrunk the Avengers!
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
The MSJ posted:David Harbour as Hellboy That looks really, really good, and I love me some David Harbour, but I'm also kind of disappointed that it basically looks the same as Perlman's Hellboy. That makeup was drat-near perfection though, so what else can you expect? Was a little surprised that they didn't just give him the glowing eyes like in the comics. Deadpool and Spider-Man: Homecoming showed how much emotion you could get out of pupiless peepers. Might have been nifty to see them give that a go here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:David Harbour as Hellboy Either prosthetic muscles have gotten really good now, or David Harbour has spent the last three months living in a gym
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
The long hair gives him a Conan vibe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
935 posted:Either prosthetic muscles have gotten really good now, or David Harbour has spent the last three months living in a gym Yes, that's the main difference I noticed here. Ron Perlman's Hellboy body was clearly prosthetic unlike this one. It could just be the lighting and digital touch-ups, though. Other than that, the new Hellboy has longer hair (it made me think of Disney's Beast) and the Hand is now metallic instead of stone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:David Harbour as Hellboy Too human, needs more  to make it hellboy
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Years later, I finally got around to watching the Director's Cut of Watchmen. I thought the theatrical version of Watchmen was fine, probably the best that any 2.5 hour adaptation could be, but the DC is definitely an improvement. That being said, I feel like trimming it down for the theaters was probably a good move. I can't imagine audiences sitting through an over three hour comic movie. And I don't know if it was stuff in the DC or not (I honestly can't remember off the top of my head what exactly was new) but the performances of both Malin Akerman and especially Patrick Wilson really grew on me. I feel like Wilson in particular was really ideal for this role. I remember reading somewhere that Nolan once told Snyder that Watchmen was ahead of its time and I do wonder if, had it come out now rather than in 2009, it would have gotten a better reception. I feel like not only its critique of superheroes (and superhero media as a result) is more in the zeitgeist now, but stuff like police violence, vigilantism, the cult of the "tech genius disruptor" figure, fear of apocalypse, and the desperation of searching for a savior to grasp at to avoid apocalypse are all more timely. To that end, I thought it was funny how much of it felt like a presaging of Batman v Superman, even down to some very specific visual references: -Dreiberg's desert nuclear apocalypse nightmare -Laurie saving people of color from a burning building, as a girl asks her mom if Nite Owl is Jesus -Dreiberg going through Ozymandias's secret superhero files on his computer -Dreiberg increasingly-ineffectively punching Veidt against the wall -Veidt's company building scaffolding around the crater in New York at the end And speaking of the end, as much as I liked the DC, I still feel like the ending was flubbed. Not that I felt it had to be a giant space squid specifically (though I did like the storyline of the Indian woman artist in the comic, and I feel like her story inadvertently became a metaphor for what Moore feels like with how his own creations are adapted by others) but replacing it with Manhattan just doesn't feel as effective. He attacks New York along with the other cities, but he's still the symbol of American superpower superiority for a generation. Ignoring all the armchair diplomatic analysis of what would "really" happen in that case, I just don't feel like the symbolism is the same. Plus, the fear of an alien invasion and belief that the US and USSR would team up to fight one is something that Reagan talked about constantly at the time, so it even worked with the existing Cold War environment Moore was writing in (though obviously not as applicable today/in 2009). There are a few other things about the ending I don't like, but they're less major. Bubastis getting killed didn't really have the impact since she wasn't as big as in the comic, so should have been left out since as it is, having a giant mutant He-Man cat was kind of a distraction. I also missed Veidt's one emotional moment of shouting "I did it!" and likewise, Manhattan being the one to say the "Nothing ever ends" (and to Veidt, rather than Sally of all characters) was a major missed opportunity. The ending with the New Frontiersman is something that like Bubastis kind of loses impact without the buildup it had through the comic, but I'm a bit more forgiving here since I honestly have no idea what else they could (or should) have ended it on. Though speaking of the New Frontiersman, one change I did like from the ending was switching Reagan in for Robert Redford. Also Dreiberg being there to see Manhattan blast Rorschach. Are Tales from the Black Freighter and Under the Hood worth watching?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
 Okay, I'm liking this. He looks a little more cro-magnon here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
New Mutants to finish filming this week. Angela Robinson and Terry Moore team up to adapt Strangers In Paradise. And now, a trailer for season 2 of Dark Archie Fucks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdH_NL35Nbw
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:And speaking of the end, as much as I liked the DC, I still feel like the ending was flubbed. Not that I felt it had to be a giant space squid specifically (though I did like the storyline of the Indian woman artist in the comic, and I feel like her story inadvertently became a metaphor for what Moore feels like with how his own creations are adapted by others) but replacing it with Manhattan just doesn't feel as effective. He attacks New York along with the other cities, but he's still the symbol of American superpower superiority for a generation. Ignoring all the armchair diplomatic analysis of what would "really" happen in that case, I just don't feel like the symbolism is the same. Plus, the fear of an alien invasion and belief that the US and USSR would team up to fight one is something that Reagan talked about constantly at the time, so it even worked with the existing Cold War environment Moore was writing in (though obviously not as applicable today/in 2009). The problem with doing a 'USA/USSR team up to fight the aliens' end in 2009 is, of course, that we now know they didn't and the real ending was that America just 'won'. The change to having it be Manhattan is probably meant to evoke the dominant mover of the last twenty years of world events, America's chickens coming home to roost. It doesn't quite work both because Watchmen is still steeped in Cold War imagery which doesn't match up with that ending, and also that in 2009 a pop culture film which ends with 9/11 being the US's direct fault was probably too out there to portray explicitly. Now, in 2017, kitsch 9/11 imagery is everywhere in film and BvS goes much further with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:I remember reading somewhere that Nolan once told Snyder that Watchmen was ahead of its time and I do wonder if, had it come out now rather than in 2009, it would have gotten a better reception. I feel like not only its critique of superheroes (and superhero media as a result) is more in the zeitgeist now, but stuff like police violence, vigilantism, the cult of the "tech genius disruptor" figure, fear of apocalypse, and the desperation of searching for a savior to grasp at to avoid apocalypse are all more timely. You might be happy to know that Watchmen is being adapted for HBO as a miniseries by Damon Lindelof, so you might get a longer run time and current events lens version after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
I thought the general reaction to Watchmen was positive, it wasn't until recently that people turned on it. Probably because of their Snyder bias.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:I thought the general reaction to Watchmen was positive, it wasn't until recently that people turned on it. Probably because of their Snyder bias. I remember the reaction being pretty mixed when it was released. I actually think it's only recently gotten a positive re-evaluation by some people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
I remember back when it was released the consensus online was lukewarm. Since then the thing I've seen people say over and over again is that "Snyder copied the comic but completely missed the point of it", and no one has ever elaborated to me what they think the "point" actually was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
It's been a while so I could be completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
I've heard people say the movie doesn't understand Rorschach because it made him look cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
^ snapGorn Myson posted:I remember back when it was released the consensus online was lukewarm. Since then the thing I've seen people say over and over again is that "Snyder copied the comic but completely missed the point of it", and no one has ever elaborated to me what they think the "point" actually was. People think that he missed that the point of the space squid was to unite the USA and USSR against a common enemy, and that he missed that the superheroes were meant to be pathetic and instead made them 'too cool'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
I'm not saying having Dr Manhattan take the blame is perfect or even good, but the space squid if unfilmable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:I remember back when it was released the consensus online was lukewarm. Since then the thing I've seen people say over and over again is that "Snyder copied the comic but completely missed the point of it", and no one has ever elaborated to me what they think the "point" actually was. The fights in the movie are far more exaggerated than those in the books (with the former's being far more violent) and it leads to the characters feeling more like superheroes than their comic book counterparts. Whether or not that's a good thing is a different matter. I think it's a difficult book to adapt and outside of Ozzy's casting Snyder did a good job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
josh04 posted:The problem with doing a 'USA/USSR team up to fight the aliens' end in 2009 is, of course, that we now know they didn't and the real ending was that America just 'won'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
The new Hellboy is set for for release on 11 January 2019.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I'm not saying having Dr Manhattan take the blame is perfect or even good, but the space squid if unfilmable. "Unfilmable" is exactly the right word. In the comic, the space squid doesn't actually come out of nowhere, but was actually quite well set up in the prose sections of the comic. It's the literature of the comic invading the sequential images and dialog section--the film--of the comic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
I guess you could do... like... an ARG that actually invades the film? Everyone would hate it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
'Unfilmable' sounds like a complete cop-out to me. We've seen plenty of crazy poo poo on film, it could be worked in easily enough. Likely with a sequence featuring the horrible death of nearly the entire supporting cast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:The fights in the movie are far more exaggerated than those in the books (with the former's being far more violent) and it leads to the characters feeling more like superheroes than their comic book counterparts. Whether or not that's a good thing is a different matter. Another thing people had a problem with is that the costumes don't look like rejects from the 70s. There is no way any studio was ever going to make a Watchmen movie where the costumes deliberately look like absolute poo poo. Making costumes reminiscent of the Schumacher Batman films was a brilliant way to strike the balance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
The whole point is that the Watchmen film was a commentary on other superhero movies, not on old superhero comics, so of course its costuming and fight scenes and so on were unpleasantly realistic take-offs on how we make our movies look.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The film fights drive home the point that, for example, despite being a lovable schmuck Dan is a hosed up person who gets off on giving people compound fractures. If anything it emphasizes that they're not very different from Rorschach, whose brutal violence is sanctioned by the same comics audience. It's not like that one fight between the knotheads and Dan/Laurie didn't exist in the comic. If they were useless pathetic losers they could not have taken all of them down in the space of an interview program while suffering no injury.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
I liked Watchmen, but the Dr. Manhattan ending really made no sense thematically or otherwise. The idea that the world will unite with the United States against the American Superweapon - that literally fought for the American army in Vietnam - after every major city in the world is nuked because "Well, New York got nuked too!" is really bad. It seems like they didn't want to do the alien squid ending because the movie was already stuffed and they just had to find something to put before the credits rolled. And nobody in the world except the audience and Spectre know about Dr. Manhattan's Mars monologue and thought process. So, it is even more implausible to the average person. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
They're already planning to dump it in january?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
The guy says "A live body and a dead body contain the same number of atoms; structurally, there's no difference" and then throws a temper tantrum on live television. And outside of that, he's been an aloof and mysterious force since the end of Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:They're already planning to dump it in january? It probably does not cost much, given the box office performance of the previous Hellboy movies. It's actually facing a threat from M Night Shyamalan's Glass, the sequel to Split which releases the week after, although probably not as much as The Dark Knight was to Hellboy 2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The guy says "A live body and a dead body contain the same number of atoms; structurally, there's no difference" and then throws a temper tantrum on live television. And outside of that, he's been an aloof and mysterious force since the end of Vietnam. Yeah, I guess if I was the Soviet Union that a single American TV interview would be enough to convince me that a super weapon from an enemy nation killing 14 million of my citizens and nuking my capital was an oopsie and that I should ally with the American warmachine and global capitalism to defend against the weapon created by the American warmachine and global capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:It probably does not cost much, given the box office performance of the previous Hellboy movies. It's actually facing a threat from M Night Shyamalan's Glass, the sequel to Split which releases the week after, although probably not as much as The Dark Knight was to Hellboy 2. Is that a Mr Glass prequel?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Is that a Mr Glass prequel? No it's the sequel to Unbreakable and Split.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:"Unfilmable" is exactly the right word. In the comic, the space squid doesn't actually come out of nowhere, but was actually quite well set up in the prose sections of the comic. It's the literature of the comic invading the sequential images and dialog section--the film--of the comic. Yup that's it. It was very much a commentary on comic books and comic book tinged literature (pulp) and the horror and sadness of it existing in a real like setting. The movie tried to faithfully translate that, but you don't directly translate a piece commenting on the media it is delivered by. You make your own (meta) statement instead. Watchmen was devoid of that. Music was nice, and some of the acting/effects (Nightwatch, Manhattan). It didn't catch people's imagination and eventually faded into obscurity in the greater public's consciousness. Snyder basis, lol. e: and things like the nine panel outlay, the purposefully limited colors, the static shows centering on people's faces as their environment changes.....that's what we mean by untranslatable, along with the more metaphorical points made by the comic. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
So there are two things that aren't resolved in the questions regarding why change from an alien squid thing to Dr. Manhattan. The first is the presumption that a lot of readers apparently make that the propaganda of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. uniting in the wake of the New York attack should be accepted as authentic just because a notorious mass-murdering megalomaniac thinks this. But all we ever see is propaganda. That's the point: Veidt spends all day interpreting the world through television screens, presuming he's smarter than everyone else. If you're listening to this same guy saying, "What the world needs to avoid mutually assured destruction is one cataclysmic event to unite them," you should already be thinking, first, "That's hosed up Veidt," and, two, "You're a loving idiot, Veidt. The propaganda machines of the Western and Eastern hegemony are not 'objective' portraits of ideological movements. They are calculated attempts to manipulate consciousness, and you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker." So to the criticism that, "It makes no sense that the world's governments would just unite in solidarity with New York because Dr. Manhattan attacked it," we're behooved to note that it makes no sense to assume that either the U.S.S.R. or the U.S. are entirely convinced that they have been the victims of an alien attack, and not some horrific counter-intelligence/terrorist op. which is totally plausible in-universe, and which only a bunch of sadist costume fetishists insist nobody else could possibly imagine. To wit, the squid monster was always a parallel image of Dr. Manhattan, this apocalyptic being that is manifested not through any scientific rationalism, but through the sheer force of imagination, and which actually represents a projection of a completely different character: Dr. Manhattan is the immortal, god-like projection of Osterman, while the squid-monster is the finite, diabolical projection of self-made god Veidt. The Snyder film is streamlining the symbolic order of the comic through adaptation, making it clearer that Veidt is specifically attempting to emulate Dr. Manhattan, while also removing any element of power fantasy. Veidt does not produce a diabolical abomination in a misguided attempt to become a god - he more or less recreates what Dr. Manhattan is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:So there are two things that aren't resolved in the questions regarding why change from an alien squid thing to Dr. Manhattan. This is literally the same "Actually, it was bad on purpose as a meta-commentary" defense that has been used to defend bad Snyder decisions before. Even Zack Snyder disagrees with you: quote:The reason that the squid got taken out of the movie was so there'd be more Rorschach and a little bit more Manhattan. Because we did the math, and we figured it took about 15 minutes to explain [the squid's appearance] correctly; otherwise, it's pretty crazy. So, with the studio's requests that we keep it to a reasonable length we had to use a different monster. We just happened to have one already established in the story. This is a serious question, and so I want to take it seriously. The most important thing for anyone who picks up a camera and decides to film any sort of story is that they feel strongly about it. The most important thing is to just do it your way, because no one knows that perspective but you, and it's the point of view of a movie that makes it cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:This is literally the same "Actually, it was bad on purpose as a meta-commentary" defense that has been used to defend bad decisions before. But he doesn't. He says that the Dr. Manhattan approach is already established in story. You are reading neither K. Waste's post NOR Snyder's quote. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:This is literally the same "Actually, it was bad on purpose as a meta-commentary" defense that has been used to defend bad Snyder decisions before. Watchmen is remarkably prescient. Moore predicted American capitalists looting the Soviet economy, with Veidt subbing in for Lloyd Blankfein.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:This is literally the same "Actually, it was bad on purpose as a meta-commentary" defense that has been used to defend bad Snyder decisions before. K. Waste said that Zack Snyder streamlined the story and its themes. Zack Snyder said that he streamlined the story in the quote. So yes, there is technically disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:52
|
|
