Eh I didn't mind LoEG, just as a cinematic romp. From Hell on the other hand...
― ledge, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:00 (5 years ago) Permalink
Ah, but it "took the liberty to add new ideas to the story, even though not all of them worked."
(Actually, I didn't ming LXG as a BIG BUDGET CRASH BANG POW ACTION FLICK, it just wasn't LoEG. And I re-watched From Hell the other week and it's not as DREADFUL as I remember, although the stars are still piss poor.)
― aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:07 (5 years ago) Permalink
I haven't seen LeOG, so I can't comment on that, but obviously I thought many of the new ideas in the VfV were actually good. Like the Benny Hill tribute, or the unmasking scene in the end, or the fact that Evey questioned V's motives more than in the comic. In the comic she often felt like a puppet for V, which sorta goes against the anarchist theme of the story. I don't think the movie was great in any way, but it had lots of interesting stuff going on, like the whole terrorist theme - I think putting more emphasis on that than in the comic was perfectly valid, when thinking of how world politics had changed in the 25 years between the comic and the movie.
I think that Watchmen site has lot of observations I probably wouldn't have noticed even after several rereads of the comic. For example, someone notes that the speech bubbles in it are different shaped in different eras; the 40s bubbles are more round and bubble-like, innocent in a sense, whereas the 80s bubbles are more angular and edgy, and the 60s bubbles are something in between.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
I think From Hell is better than its given credit for, if you just think of it as a quirky psychological thriller, and don't view it in comparison with Moore's massive, detailed historical study. It was quite obvious the directors couldn't put all that in one Hollywood movie.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:16 (5 years ago) Permalink
wtf, the whole unmasking deliberately undermines any anarchist theme, it places the responsibility under one man (even though other people end up taking up the cause - or, in fact, do they? Some of the people we see in the final sequence are ACTUALLY DEAD (irrespective of the fact V has allegedly asked them to stand DIRECTLY IN FRONT of several tons on building he is blowing up) so may well be a figment of his dying brain or Evey's insanity.
The Wachowskis even went as far as to say they removed as much of the anarchist stuff as possible to get it released. Moore himself has referred to it as a clumsy "Republicans vs. Democrats" analogue.
― aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:21 (5 years ago) Permalink
I thought the point of the unmasking was, that like in the comic, V was not an individual rather than the idea of revolution/anatrchism, and the unmasking shows the variety of people acting under this supposedly uniform idea. So it's not an ideology of the faceless masses. I agree that the movie definitely is less anarchist than the comic, but I was talking about the specific treatmeant of the Evey character. In the comic the way V manipulates him to do what he wants is a bit too smooth and easy. Also, it's notable that in the movie she doesn't take V's mantle after he's dead, like she does in the comic. I've always thought that was one of the most problematic parts of the story... If V is seen as the idea of an anarchism rather than as a real person, then his actions are sorta justified. But Evey, on the other hand, is presented as a real individual, so her becoming "the guardian" of the revolution goes sorta against the idea of anarchism, in my opinion.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:33 (5 years ago) Permalink
they're not doing the giant squidalien explosion in this right? shame
― blueski, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm confused now - why does Evey going along with things undermine the anarchist message?
xpost to Tuombot
― aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
Because anarchism is about free will, but in the comic it seems V has pretty much designed her fate from the beggining to the end.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
This is also why I think the prison cell part of the story, both in the comic and the movie, is problematic, as great an episode as it is. If V wants to make Evey see the point of his anarchism, it should come by her free will and not by force, as it happens.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:53 (5 years ago) Permalink
That's very specific interpretation, and a definite strawman. I mean you could just as easily argue that in the outset (such as with the Bishop) he uses her as a tool, but then realises that with the 'correct' education she will come round to his way of thinking.
Or then there's the film version, where V looks up his ADDRESS BOOK OF ALL THE ANARCHISTS and sends them all a mask whereon ALL OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL they decide to ALL turn up together.
Why am I bothering, this is like arguing with Geir.
― aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 12:59 (5 years ago) Permalink
Saying that something is gonna happen at a specific place, be there if you want to, is pretty different from locking someone into a cell. Or do you think that sending invitations to a demonstration is somehow against free will? You can still decide if you want to come there or not.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:02 (5 years ago) Permalink
At 100% turnout against invitations? WHERE DOES HE GET THEIR ADDRESSES FROM?
― aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:08 (5 years ago) Permalink
How do you know it's a 100% turnout?
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
> they're not doing the giant squidalien explosion in this right? shame
> I'm not sure if adapting to the comic super-faithfully is the same as doing it right.
would also result in a 12 hour film. all the stills and all look great but how can they reduce it to 2 hours without killing it?
― koogs, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
Based on the size of the square they are in (and rough comparison with previous demonstrations there) there are about 50,000 people there. (I seem to recall something in LitG at the time saying there were somethiing like 20,000 extras used and composited in multiplied to make the crowd look bigger). Given he sent them all a mask each, which he was having made somewhere without attracting suspicion despite being under an OH NOES FASCIST state so the scale of production has to be a limiting factor on how many he can send out, even if he only sent them with a first class stamp that's £20,000 not to mention some pissed off Post Office staff.
― aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:22 (5 years ago) Permalink
i can't believe anyone's wasting valuable bytes of bandwidth on the VfV film
― DG, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
Er, maybe the scene was just symbolic, you know? It's not like the movie implied in any way that he forced anyone to come there, so it seems kinda pointless to point out that oh no, maybe this scene in a allegorical sci-fi movie wasn't altogether realistic in terms of the logistics.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
― aldo, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 13:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
― Gukbe, Thursday, 6 March 2008 06:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
Nite Owl looks pretty good but Veidt too obviously 'evil' maybe? It's all looking v Batmanny.
― blueski, Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:25 (5 years ago) Permalink
Comedian and Rorscach are good. Bit iffy on the others.
― chap, Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:26 (5 years ago) Permalink
I think these new suits are way too cool... And too "Batmanny" indeed. In the comic the suits were sorta intentionally silly, to emphasize the silliness of the whole idea of dressing in one.
― Tuomas, Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
RIP Nite Owl beergut
― blueski, Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:43 (5 years ago) Permalink
I think it would have been kind of impossible to pull off the silly suits in the flick. Hopefully they'll be sketching out the characters well enough to make it work anyway.
Morgan as Comedian looks perfect.
Also I think some of these pics are the young, "glory days" versions of the characters.
― Simon H., Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:47 (5 years ago) Permalink
I like the Nite Owl and Comedian - although the Nite Owl one kinda beats you over the head with who he's supposed to remind the audience of. The Rorschach is, well, just Rorschach really; it would have been hard to mess that one up.
The Veidt one just screams Bad Guy; which is a major mistake if you ask me. Just because it's a comic book movie doesn't mean the studio/writers/director has to assume that the typical viewer is going to be a drooling idiot.
― Stone Monkey, Thursday, 6 March 2008 14:00 (5 years ago) Permalink
I guess they're still trying to figure out Dr Manhattan
― blueski, Thursday, 6 March 2008 14:01 (5 years ago) Permalink
I think it may just be the lighting in that picture though, because there's an element of "All American boy" superhero to Veidt.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 6 March 2008 14:06 (5 years ago) Permalink
Looks OK to me, maybe a little too grungy and dark™ for me. Liked the bright colours and clean lines of the original.
― Bodrick III, Thursday, 6 March 2008 15:08 (5 years ago) Permalink
What he said.
― Dr. Superman, Friday, 7 March 2008 06:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 7 March 2008 06:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
Veidt doesn't look gay enough.
― The Real Dirty Vicar, Friday, 7 March 2008 13:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 15 March 2008 07:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
I think these new suits are way too cool... And too "Batmanny" indeed.
There was an interview with Snyder saying something to to the effect his intent with this is to be to superhero movies what the graphic novel was to its own medium.
― latebloomer, Saturday, 15 March 2008 07:44 (5 years ago) Permalink
doesn't mean it'll turn out well, of course.
― latebloomer, Saturday, 15 March 2008 07:45 (5 years ago) Permalink
featurette about the building of the sets, if you're interested.
― latebloomer, Sunday, 6 April 2008 15:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
watchmen really gets better every time you read it. so does cerebus, but that's another thread.
― ian, Monday, 7 April 2008 03:01 (5 years ago) Permalink
> so does cerebus
...if you know when to stop.
― Oilyrags, Monday, 7 April 2008 12:33 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah, book 7 is where i get off the boat. and that's later than some people.
― ian, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:04 (5 years ago) Permalink
I don't know which one book seven is, but I figure you're doing ok to quit at halftime (the end of Mothers and Daughters.) Yeah, the crazy anti-life voids bullshit starts there, but it still isn't the main focus of the book.
― Oilyrags, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:07 (5 years ago) Permalink
I think it's good up to book 10, if you ignore the text sections in 9. There are brilliant moments tucked a way amongst the mentalism all the way to the end, though.
xpost - yeh, like Oily said.
― chap, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
oops - just looked at wiki and I was confused. Yes, quit at halftime, but that's just the end of the first part of Mothers and Daughters, not the whole thing. And it's book seven! So we agree.
"Guys" is worth a look just for its formal invention, though. Plus teh funneee.
― Oilyrags, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
"Guys" is worth a look just for its formal invention, though. Plus teh funneee.
Formal invention and occasional funnies are the main draw of the whole of the latter third.
― chap, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
Hahah! From Wiki:
The Roach, along with Fleagle McGrew and Dirty Drew McGrew, appeared in a Sim-penned story in the anthology title AARGH (Artists Against Rampant Government Homophobia). With the title-sized speech bubbles "Terror in a Turgid Tool!" and "By my Loins- Betrayed!" it indicated the Roach was homosexual.
Oh, the ironing.
― Oilyrags, Monday, 7 April 2008 15:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 04:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
i thought that was gonna be a trailer... video journal? worth watching? is squirrel police in it?
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 7 May 2008 06:07 (5 years ago) Permalink
"The twist is that Mr. Snyder, known for turning the Spartan comic book series “300” into a global hit movie, is also directing a separate-but-related picture that Warner plans to distribute exclusively on DVD.
The second film, tentatively called “Tales of the Black Freighter,” follows a side “Watchmen” storyline about a shipwreck and will arrive in stores five days after the main movie rolls out in theaters. The DVD will also include a documentary-style film called “Under the Hood” that will delve into the characters’ backstories. "
― treefell, Monday, 26 May 2008 13:40 (4 years ago) Permalink
i always found the black freighter sections rather tedious, don't think i actually read the story until the third time i read the whole thing.
― jeremy waters, Monday, 26 May 2008 14:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
I thought the black freighter bit was the glue that held the thing together. What I got from the black freighter storyline was that that was also the storyline all the characters were following in the main story - most clearly Veidt, but also Rorschach and the others.
― AlanSmithee, Monday, 26 May 2008 20:09 (4 years ago) Permalink