WHERE THE HECK ARE OUR WATCHMEN?
― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Monday, 26 June 2006 01:27 (4 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer aka rap's yoko ono (latebloomer), Monday, 26 June 2006 01:39 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Monday, 26 June 2006 01:40 (4 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer aka rap's yoko ono (latebloomer), Monday, 26 June 2006 01:46 (4 years ago) Permalink
Furthermore, I seem to have woken up (at some point) in analternate universe where otherwise intelligent afficionados oftheater believe that Kevin Costner can act AT ALL. Although to me his acting skills are worse than those of a drunk,mongoloid 19-year-old playing charades. And we're here all week,folks. Enjoy your night.
― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Monday, 26 June 2006 01:59 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:37 (4 years ago) Permalink
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002727033
― latebloomer aka rap's yoko ono (latebloomer), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:45 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:48 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:50 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:55 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:56 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 02:56 (4 years ago) Permalink
1) In order to narrow it down to 2,5 hours, the filmmakers will probably have to stick to the main detective plot which is, to be frank, rather ridiculous, and not really the thing that made the comic interesting.
2) How will they deal with the Cold War aspect of the plot? Will they still make the movie to be in an alternate timeline in the mid-eighties, or will they update it to include the war on terrorism or something? (While this approach actually worked with V for Vendetta, it's hard to imagine it working with Watchmen.)
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 June 2006 03:06 (4 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:01 (4 years ago) Permalink
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:15 (4 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:16 (4 years ago) Permalink
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:17 (4 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:25 (4 years ago) Permalink
― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 26 June 2006 05:29 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Ste (Fuzzy), Monday, 26 June 2006 08:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
-- Tuomas (lixnix...), June 26th, 2006.
there was a recent screenplay by David Hayter that supposedly dealt with all these problems really well (how, i don't know). but even Moore, who quite undestandaby doesn't want a Watchmen movie made but can't legally affect anything, said it was the best possible treatment of the material.
this screenplay is (from what i hear) supposedly the basis for the direction the current screenwriters are using. the producers had this set up at Paramount as recently as last year (with the guy who directed the Bourne Supremcy and that 9/11 movie) but when the studio changed hands the project was shelved and so they took it Warner Bros.
i can't imagine any film version of Watchmen being able to do justice to the souce marterial but this version has a slightly greater probability of actually getting made. the reasons being a. moore enjoying greater stature than ever (despite his fallout with the comic industry) b. the demand for superhero crap at an all-time high c. the stunning artistic and financial success of The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.
ok, kidding about the last one.
― latebloomer aka rap's yoko ono (latebloomer), Monday, 26 June 2006 09:02 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 26 June 2006 14:16 (4 years ago) Permalink
(I remember interviewing Terry Gilliam back in 89 or so, when Munchhausen came out, and him saying Watchmen was his next project.)
― pleased to mitya (mitya), Monday, 26 June 2006 14:18 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 26 June 2006 14:22 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Monday, 26 June 2006 14:25 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 June 2006 16:51 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 26 June 2006 17:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 26 June 2006 17:24 (4 years ago) Permalink
Why?
So newspaper subs in a vague sort of know will do headlines like "Who Watches The Watchmen. No-one, that's who".
― Pete (Pete), Monday, 26 June 2006 17:59 (4 years ago) Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And so... I read the buzz in IGN and superherohype. Please, DO NOT DO THIS FILM. Watchmen is the greatest comic book ever (or graphic novel you can say). Yes, Watchmen is so cinematic and hace a lot of cinematographic language in his form, but please... a two hour film (or three) is so much little time to fully understand, appreciate and feel the characters and his history.
So, excuse my very bad english, and like myself say no to this film.
Thanks
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - futuramafan105 (Fri Nov 25 2005 10:24:45 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I've heard rumors that Darren Aronofsky may direct it, and in that case I'm all for it. He's a terrific director, I think he could do it a lot of good. Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - Frankeeee (Mon Jan 2 2006 02:30:56 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------They would not be able to do it justice. Look at 'From Hell' and 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.' Both terrible movies. 'V for Vendetta' looks like *beep* as well...Although I have been hearing great things...
Aronofsky was in talks, but that idea was scrapped...At least for now.
David Hayter wrote a screenplay for it, and Moore said it was "as close as I could imagine anyone getting to Watchmen."
I think it will be done. And it will suck. Unless someone like Aronofsky or Gilliam got ahold of it, and had Hayter's screenplay to work with.
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - stoner_839 (Fri Nov 25 2005 10:26:29 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------*beep* you. Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - egacebotemes (Fri Mar 17 2006 00:38:23 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------i heard that the project is suspended Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - Prof_Gotham (Fri Mar 17 2006 17:44:34 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse UPDATED Fri Mar 17 2006 17:45:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Apparentely Warner picked it up after V for Vendetta received a strong advance buzz and whether or not it moves forward all hinges on how well V does. Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - Secondhandsmoke (Sun Mar 26 2006 19:02:28 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You know, if they were worried that it would lose its depth, or scope, the movie could just be part of a series. The book could be done justice in two 2 and a half hour filmes.
Also, does a bad movie really harm the source material at all? Batman and Robin is awful, but do any of you like Batman less having seen it? Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - Grapefruit13 (Mon Mar 27 2006 06:16:55 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse UPDATED Mon Mar 27 2006 14:16:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Watchmen is the greatest comic book ever (or graphic novel you can say).
Personally, I've never been that big a fan of Watchmen; in many ways it's a pretty cheesy book to begin with (I pity any actor charged with the task of making Rorschach's absurd staccato dialogue sound any more convincing off the page than it ever was on it). Whenever someone calls it the best comic book ever, I am forced to wonder exactly what other books they've read... To me, it's not even the best Alan Moore comic.
But for those people who do think it's a masterpiece, whatever film is eventually made of it, it's not the end of the world. The book won't suddenly disappear just because a crappy film was made.
Maybe a film adaptation would simply expose the emptiness of the plot - they'd no doubt decide to trim back the subplots and supporting characters until the central core, Adrian Veidt's plan to "fix" the world, was all that remained. In that event, what we'd be left with is a fairly typical superhero film with a really stupid masterplan, a little cod-psychological baggage, and a middle-age spread.
In any case, am I the only one who things that Watchmen's time came and went over a decade ago? It's not novel anymore to show the psychology of a "costumed hero". It's been done too many times. You can't swing a cat in a video store without hitting a film featuring some guy running around with his underwear over his trousers and spewing angst at the camera.
As for Watchmen's storyline of social prejudice against superheroes, and the effect on them of trying to fit into normal society... well, let's say that all the way through The Incredibles, I had a serious case of deja vu...
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - duckfandango (Fri May 26 2006 11:03:47 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------As for Watchmen's storyline of social prejudice against superheroes, and the effect on them of trying to fit into normal society... well, let's say that all the way through The Incredibles, I had a serious case of deja vu...
By God, is that what you think 'Watchmen' was all about? You are an idiot. I pity you. Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - Grapefruit13 (Tue May 30 2006 13:09:17 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------By God, is that what you think 'Watchmen' was all about? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it's not. I would think you might have realised that from reading the rest of my post, but clearly you missed it. Watchmen is a work of many, many threads and storylines weaved together, and the storyline I mentioned is one of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You are an idiot. I pity you.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not an idiot, so you needn't pity me. Just learn to read a whole post, think a bit before you respond in future, and try not to be so pointlessly rude to strangers.
Oh, yes, if a pig comes by Castle Dracula on a Tuesday, playing a banjo… Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - NCurran1987 (Mon May 29 2006 01:49:49 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Alan Moore actually said that Watchmen doesn’t have a plot really. I mean he said at the end of the day a lot of the plot points where used in previous mediums and stories. Watchmen was about the telling more than the tale and you can't falter it for one second there. Its also one of the few comics that can truly be called comics and that have no way of ever being properly translated into a film or a book. Due to its complexities that take advantage of the comic field like no other book has.
And also I though the dialogue in the book was excellent so I don’t know what your getting at there. Also I believe adaptations of books like this DO hurt the source material. Some character like batman’s films being bad doesn’t hurt batman cause he's got just as many incarnations in the comic books field that are of mixed qualities. Batman’s a never ending character who will still be in a monthly comic LONG after were dead. Unlike Watchmen (which is a one off book which can never be re imagined by a new writer) it loses its soul because of that. Batman is a corporate character who is at the whim of an editor or executive so you pretty much know it’s only there interpretation.
Chuck Norris is'nt afraid of the dark, the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris! Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - Grapefruit13 (Tue May 30 2006 13:23:23 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And also I though the dialogue in the book was excellent so I don’t know what your getting at there. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, that a lot of the dialogue was a touch cheesy and b-movie esque, in particular Rorschach's stilted, monosyllabic "crazy guy" speech patterns. I often wonder if the dialogue weren't deliberately cheesy, to echo the superhero comics that Moore was referencing and building on.
But if you don't know what I'm "getting at" - well, that's because it's just an opinion, and you don't feel the same way. That's all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Unlike Watchmen (which is a one off book which can never be re imagined by a new writer) it loses its soul because of that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The book itself would never lose its "soul"; how could it? It will still exist, even if a thousand movie versions are made.
There have been at least three film adaptations made of Wuthering Heights, none of which have managed to eclipse the power of the novel itself. My copy of V For Vendetta is still sitting out there on the shelf, unaffected by the film adaptation, just as it is unaffected by the different interpretations of other readers: one person's interpretation of a book - which is, as you say, what any film adaptation boils down to - does not infringe on my own.
It is possible that people who have never read the book will have a distorted view of what it is about if they see the film first, but then, if they hadn't seen the film they probably never would have searched out the book anyway
Oh, yes, if a pig comes by Castle Dracula on a Tuesday, playing a banjo… Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - luciddream_3 6 days ago (Tue Jun 20 2006 07:01:59 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have to agree with this. The Watchmen movie will eventually get made and everyone who has read the comic knows that it will most likely be a let down due to the difficulty of bringing the sheer magnitude and scope of the content to the Big Screen. However, in the end we must all remember that it is only a movie and essentially, just one (or several writer's) interperitation of the material.
It is unfortunate that a big budget movie will most likely be the way Watchmen is brought to the masses. On the other hand, this might not be bad thing either. Maybe it will inspire those to actually read the book afterwards?
It's pretty much a given that most movies based on books just aren't as good as the source material regardless of the genre. In regards to comic books, this is probably more so due to the difficulty of blending the fantastic visual elements with a great story.
Will the Watchmen movie be terrible? Who knows? Will it ruin the characters, history, etc.? Nah...at the end of the day, it's just a movie, really. Nothing worth losing sleep over.
Re: Watchmen movie?? No, please.. not AGAIN by - NCurran1987 5 days ago (Tue Jun 20 2006 17:15:51 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'm more annoyed with hollywood. They cant come up with there own stories. I hope it crashs and burns some days. There going to make such a sh it movie outta this, its annoys me so much to see the book bastardised. Its like looking at a child you love and watching him from an alternate reality and seeing that hes become a whore. You dont like the way he's turned out in this world. It annoys you. You cant stand to see him travistised in this way. Thats how i feel about movie adaptions.
Chuck Norris is'nt afraid of the dark, the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris!
― ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ (chaki), Monday, 26 June 2006 18:02 (4 years ago) Permalink
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 26 June 2006 18:38 (4 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer aka rap's yoko ono (latebloomer), Monday, 26 June 2006 18:47 (4 years ago) Permalink
― ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ (chaki), Monday, 26 June 2006 18:56 (4 years ago) Permalink
― blueski, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:48 (3 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
― blueski, Friday, 9 March 2007 20:55 (3 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer, Friday, 9 March 2007 21:31 (3 years ago) Permalink
― blueski, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
― chap, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
― chap, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:47 (3 years ago) Permalink
― chap, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:50 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 9 March 2007 22:54 (3 years ago) Permalink
I'd say there are a dozen superhero movies better than Watchmen. The Incredibles, Spider-Man 2, both Nolan Batmans at the very least.
― America's Next Most Disabled Ballerina (WmC), Sunday, 3 January 2010 03:22 (8 months ago) Permalink
xp Why wouldn't you?
I see upthread that the "too violent" talking point took hold early. I could have done without the arm sawing. (Prisoners are allowed to have circular saws now? I'm behind on the news.) Also there were a couple too many cleaver strokes to the child killer's skull. But often I thought the violence worked, and highlighted just how nasty a world this comic inhabits. Loved Manhattan's "explode 'em into goo" method of killing.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 03:27 (8 months ago) Permalink
(Although like so much about Manhattan, it doesn't strictly make sense, esp considering he could just as easily vaporize a body. Maybe it's part of his lingering humanity -- he still likes to have sex, he still doesn't understand why people do what they do. It's only human to want to explode people into goo, right?
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 03:33 (8 months ago) Permalink
)
kenan that is the best explanation of why the squid ending WORKS that I've ever seen.
― I X Love (Abbott), Sunday, 3 January 2010 03:40 (8 months ago) Permalink
The squid ending made me mad, mad, mad so I'm very pleased to see such a lucid repping for it.
I'd say there are a dozen superhero movies better than Watchmen.
At least that many. Superman II, Blade, and Hellboy, to add to your list just off the cuff.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 03:45 (8 months ago) Permalink
i hated the opening credits...the song choice, the stupid montage w/ the terrible fake Nixon, all that shit really kind of got the movie off on a bad foot imo.
― some dude, Sunday, 3 January 2010 03:49 (8 months ago) Permalink
No wai. Best part of the movie.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 03:50 (8 months ago) Permalink
Only bad thing about it was that it made me believe that Snyder knew what he was doing. Turns out, only halfway.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 03:51 (8 months ago) Permalink
Cool. :)
It's a little bit like the ending of "Magnolia." I watched that with my mom, and she was pissed as hell that she sat through three hours of movie only to have frogs fall from the sky.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 03:59 (8 months ago) Permalink
― some dude, Saturday, January 2, 2010 9:49 PM (13 minutes ago)
i agree w/this btw
― America's Next Most Disabled Ballerina (WmC), Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:05 (8 months ago) Permalink
when I saw the Truman Show with my dad the projection-guy knocked the projector over in his sleep, causing the movie to seemingly end about two-thirds of the way into the film, right after an ambiguous scene where Christoff storms out of the control room.
I thought I had seen my first art movie because the movie ended on such a confusing, pointless note. I've liked shaggy dog stories ever since.
― Cunga, Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:11 (8 months ago) Permalink
It occurred to me seeing the fake Nixon and a few other fake-real people near the beginning of the movie that they COULD have made them look less fake, but chose not to. I liked the choice. It was deliberately unreal, or hyper-real, or whatever. The makeup there nearly falls into the uncanny valley.
But like I and everyone else has said, it's an inconsistent movie.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:17 (8 months ago) Permalink
The music cue that really bugged me was "The Sound of Silence" for the Comedian's funeral. I understand him using iconic music for such an iconic comic book, but that one in particular didn't work for me. I've yet to sort out exactly why.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:21 (8 months ago) Permalink
Maybe it works better than I thought, though -- Iconic comic book, with the movie version borrowing an iconic song from another iconic movie, which is a very dark and messed-up comedy, for the funeral of the Comedian.
Maybe I just like the song by itself too much.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:27 (8 months ago) Permalink
Weren't some of the songs listed in the comic?
I think "All Along the Watchtower" was, right?
― Cunga, Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:28 (8 months ago) Permalink
"Watchtower" was, yeah. I wasn't crazy about that, either. He synced the line about "Two riders were approaching" with a shot of the two guys approaching. In the comic, it's a short quote at the end of an issue, so it's nowhere near as much like, "Yeah, ok we get the literal words of the song, yo."
"The Sound of Silence" is played for no irony at all in the movie. The Comedian would not approve.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:32 (8 months ago) Permalink
yeah, there are a few "i c what u did there" moments in the movie with music and symbolism ("Everybody Wants to the Rule the World" is playing when Veidt enters the room, because somebody in the test audience didn't pick up that when movies introduce Aryan-looking leaders talking about utopia via social engineering they're supposed to think of power-mad tyrants).
― Cunga, Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:54 (8 months ago) Permalink
Call me ungracious in my opinion of Zack Snyder, but that didn't feel like something the test audiences made necessary.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 05:31 (8 months ago) Permalink
i haven't even watched this shit yet
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Sunday, 3 January 2010 05:32 (8 months ago) Permalink
The fact that you didn't run to see it in theaters means that you care about as much as is appropriate.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 05:33 (8 months ago) Permalink
Viedt's idea was that peace will continue because the entire planet will be having nightmares about his giant gooey pink-and-green asshole-faced alien for decades.
An idea of Viedt's that I think is easily lost in all the weird of the giant squid: a large part of his plan was not only inventing a horrifying thing, but one from ELSEWHERE. It wasn't just the worst thing ever seen, it was at the same time proof of extraterrestrial life. We're not alone, but the other shit out there, you don't want to see. So we gotta stick together in this deal.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 05:43 (8 months ago) Permalink
Which is part of why shifting the blame to Manhattan works -- the Other is already among us. In a way, it's a bit darker.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 05:44 (8 months ago) Permalink
i read the comic last year and thought it was pretty damn good, but def ultramegalols @ anyone who says that it's one of the 20th century's greatest pieces of literature tbh
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Sunday, 3 January 2010 05:44 (8 months ago) Permalink
xpost
It prob wasn't a test audience thing, I just remember there being a lot of obv. symbolism that was being bludgeoned over audience heads
― Cunga, Sunday, 3 January 2010 05:56 (8 months ago) Permalink
Manhattan exploding Rohrshach and leaving a Rohrshach-like mark in the snow was completely, COMPLETELY unnecessary. It's not even symbolic of anything. I groaned audibly.
Sems to me like Snyder wasn't really smart enough to make this movie well, and anyone who might have been turned it down because they at least knew enough to know that it couldn't be done. Snyder stepped up and said, "You want a lot of shots that look just like the frames of the original comic book? I can do that!" He's an idiot, but he's an idiot savant.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 06:05 (8 months ago) Permalink
I think that's all true. in a cinematic world, where better directors feared to tread...
― Cunga, Sunday, 3 January 2010 06:13 (8 months ago) Permalink
I'm thinking again about the question of the violence. It is indeed a bit much sometimes. But worse than that, he doesn't seem to have the *sensibility* for violence. He seems to think it's about shock or gore. The fact that a lot of the violence in this movie actually occurs in the comic is a thin excuse -- it occurs, but drawn, and far more alluded to and insinuated than graphically depicted.
I think it was Ebert who pointed out that while people talk about "Pulp Fiction" as a very violent movie, if you watch closely, the violence isn't onscreen. It FEELS violent because of the tension, the build, the knowing what will inevitably happen, so that by the time it does, it hardly matters whether there's graphic depiction or not. You're already there. "Watchmen" shows in close-ups a man's arms being sawed off. I don't care that it's gross so much that it's dumb.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 06:23 (8 months ago) Permalink
And oh my fucking god that sex scene. The only thing dumber than dumb violence is dumb sex.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 06:28 (8 months ago) Permalink
Kenan notices that violence is better when depicted artfully, planet Earth experiences dawn of enlightenment.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 06:35 (8 months ago) Permalink
"it's becoming self-aware!"
― lazy cold meat and chocolate seasonal mentality (forksclovetofu), Sunday, 3 January 2010 17:55 (8 months ago) Permalink
Go fuck yourself.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 17:56 (8 months ago) Permalink
"it can hear us!"
― lazy cold meat and chocolate seasonal mentality (forksclovetofu), Sunday, 3 January 2010 17:57 (8 months ago) Permalink
Dr. Mankenan
― lazy cold meat and chocolate seasonal mentality (forksclovetofu), Sunday, 3 January 2010 18:00 (8 months ago) Permalink
I'm very disappointed, forks. Very disappointed. Gathering up my intrinsic malevolence was the first trick I learned.
― kenan, Sunday, 3 January 2010 18:08 (8 months ago) Permalink
What a wretched unwatchable piece of crap.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:15 (3 months ago) Permalink
you watched this why?
― the sound of a norwegian guy being wrong (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:16 (3 months ago) Permalink
hahaha I saw you'd posted to this thread, Alex, and was all "I bet he HATED this" to myself
― it means "EMOTIONAL"! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:17 (3 months ago) Permalink
If it's "unwatchable", by definition he couldn't have watched it.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:18 (3 months ago) Permalink
"you watched this why?"
Someone one told me "well it's not the comic, but it works on its own terms". That person is getting a stern talking to.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:20 (3 months ago) Permalink
Tell Harry K we said hi.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:29 (3 months ago) Permalink
That person is getting a stern talking to.
lol
― the sound of a norwegian guy being wrong (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:31 (3 months ago) Permalink
Even though I liked this movie, there are def. ppl I would never recommend it to.
― it means "EMOTIONAL"! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:32 (3 months ago) Permalink
The thing that kind of baffled me is how completely tone deaf to the material Snyder was. I mean if this is what he saw in it I have no idea why he would think the comic was remotely exceptional.
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:56 (3 months ago) Permalink
it was on that time list dude, just needed more kicking and stuff
― da croupier, Wednesday, 5 May 2010 21:58 (3 months ago) Permalink
I must again defend this movie's excellent jowl-reconstruction of John Mclaughlin.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 5 May 2010 22:02 (3 months ago) Permalink
I'm reading a book about taxidermy right now and it talks about how people love the animals so much that they go out, kill them, strip them down and painstakingly spend tons of money and time trying to make them look like they're alive again.Just saying.
― i never promised you a whinegarten (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 6 May 2010 05:01 (3 months ago) Permalink
If only Snyder hadn't murdered Dr. Manhattan.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 6 May 2010 05:18 (3 months ago) Permalink
could not stay awake through this. kept falling asleep, waking up, not caring, going back to sleep.
― akm, Thursday, 6 May 2010 06:45 (3 months ago) Permalink