Watchmen

I'll throw this out there - Watchmen does have one of the most groundbreaking and detailed panel layouts in comic history. There's so much going on there it's insane. It seems pretty basic at first glance, yeah, but once you start piecing together mirrored pages, lighting tricks, etc. - your mind will melt.

Now back to Demon Head's fanboydom.
 
From the cast link:

According to the Hollywood Reporter, actors Tom Cruise, Keanu Reeves and Jude Law were interested in appearing in Snyder's film, but refused to participate when it became clear that Warner Bros. were holding strong in regards to the budget.
Click to expand...

Whew... dodged a bullet there :D

Re Fanboy-ness/faithful adaptations: unless the movie gets made by an inspired obsessive who loves the source material (i.e. Peter Jackson), the movie will not equally appeal to both those who saw the movie first and those who read the source first. LoTR was a windfall. Not gonna happen again these next decades.

Edit re panels: Once I figured out what was going on with mirroring and symbolism in the panel layout, I stopped where I was and started straight from the beginning again. Talk about an eye-opener!
 
Overman said:
Fanboy is not a derogatory term. It is a term used to describe fans of something who nitpick and complain about any change to an adaptation. You have proven yourself to be this time an time again...Why don't you just accept it? At least wear the label proudly!
Click to expand...

You're using the term in a derogatory manner.

It sometimes gets a derogatory nature because of the lack of reason and rational the fanboys use when forming their arguements.
Click to expand...

Lack of reason? Please.

To put it simply in an example...if you cannot see how using organic webshooters in the Spiderman movies greatly simplified the story at little to no cost to the superheros origin or character then you are probably a fanboy.
Click to expand...

The removal of the web-shooters was just plain wrong. Apparently, you don't think so. That is a real big departure from the source material.

Seriously...WTF is the difference? It saves the directer about 15 minutes of explaining the invention. Thats 15 minutes that the director can progress the story and have other cool things that fans want to see in there. 15 minutes is millions in the movie world.
Click to expand...

Apparently, what you're saying is the origin of Spider-Man is uninteresting and should be ignored.

Oh BTW....Spiderman also currently has Organic webbing in the 616.
Click to expand...

I'm am fully aware of that. And it is a stupid change.
 
The Demon's Head said:
Again, you must be joking.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Do you really think that the 'specialness' of the spider makes a whit of difference to the character? Do you really think it makes any difference if it is 'radioactive' or 'genetically engineered'? Just go with the buzzwords of the day. It's not like the spider becomes his sidekick or something.

Let's start with the organic webbing. First of all, it is completely wrong to remove the web-shooters and the rest of his equipment (the utility belt) when those have been a part of the character's mythos for most of the character's existing history.
Click to expand...
Again, we can agree to disagree on this point. I think the idea that a kid could come up with this miracle substance, but make his living from taking blurry photos of himself, to be even more absurd than the whole spider powers thing.

I've answered that question several times already. If you were pleased with the adaptations, then you don't care to see it improved or rebooted and properly adapted.
Click to expand...
By 'answered' you must mean 'dodged'. Because this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I haven't said the Spiderman movies were perfect and untouchable. I want to know what changes you think would have made it better - and more faithful - at the same time. Your stance is like telling someone if they like one particular pasta recipe, there is no point telling them how it could be improved.
 
DH...Unless I have read it incorrectly, your reply to my post only continues to prove my point...

Either way this is a horrible derail. I would love to sweep it aside and continue to venture into the masterpiece that is the Watchmen.
 
Thanz said:
Again, we can agree to disagree on this point. I think the idea that a kid could come up with this miracle substance, but make his living from taking blurry photos of himself, to be even more absurd than the whole spider powers thing.
Click to expand...

You'll suspend your disbelief with regards to spider-powers but not for webbing?


Also,
RERAIL:
Is it possible to recreate some of those panel effects in the movie? With the right staging and art direction the cinematography of the Watchmen movie could be something fit for film school dissection.
 
Subtle things will be interesting to see if they do...Not one shadow falls on Dr. Manhatton the whole book...it adds to the weirdness of him...will they incorporate things like that?

Will they include Rorshach's love of Truman? Is a 'mainstream' American movie willing to debate the morality of Viedt's actions with Trumans?
 
I read Watchmen years ago and have pretty much completely forgotten everything other than I thought that it was mind blowingly brilliant. So now I have a dilemma. Do I reread it before or after I see the film? Pros and cons, anyone?
 
Reread it before. I'd gamble that the movie just won't measure up. You'll have lost nothing. If you can't enjoy a movie unless you have or have not read the source material, the movie has been made incorrectly.
 
Just from what I've read here, I'll have to go read it again. And I just only re-read it a few months ago for the first time since its debut. Mirrored pages? Really?

alfaniner said:
Studio Executive: "Hey, pirates are really big right now. Let's make it more about the pirates. The whole superhero thing can just be a hallucination or something."
Click to expand...

I wrote this just before having seen Kevin Smith's lecture on what happened with his Superman script. "A few rules -- he can't fly, he can't wear the suit, and he has to fight a giant spider. Oh, and have Brainiac fight a few polar bears before he breaks into the Fortress of Solitude."
 
MelBrooksfan said:
Reread it before. I'd gamble that the movie just won't measure up. You'll have lost nothing. If you can't enjoy a movie unless you have or have not read the source material, the movie has been made incorrectly.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If you want to enjoy the movie as a movie, resist re-reading the comic. Especially if it won't measure up. I have never had a good book ruined by having seen the movie first - but I have had a potentially good movie ruined by having read the book first.
 
MelBrooksfan said:
You'll suspend your disbelief with regards to spider-powers but not for webbing?
Click to expand...
I know. Weird, isn't it? When I read the comics/watched the animated series when I was a kid, I didn't give it any thought. Now, though, it just seems so odd that he could be a super genius inventor but make his living taking grainy photos. Organic just makes more sense.

I think that it is just that certain things you take on faith for these kinds of stories - super powers, etc. But the rest of it I like to remain consistent.
 
Overman said:
DH...Unless I have read it incorrectly, your reply to my post only continues to prove my point...
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

If you think that there should be significant changes and can't imagine the material to be faithfully adapted then find another genre.

And Raimi's Spider-Man is nothing like the real Spider-Man from the comics.
 
RollsEyesComeback.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom