Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2161 of them)

perhaps they could make some point about a Super Man

been HOOS, where yyyou steene!? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 5 March 2009 05:03 (fifteen years ago) link

getting butthurt about anthony lanes review misses the point of anthony lane i think

homie bhabha (max), Thursday, 5 March 2009 13:16 (fifteen years ago) link

ppl do like getting angry abt anthony lane, see also when he reviewed sex + the city

just sayin, Thursday, 5 March 2009 13:19 (fifteen years ago) link

you miss good stuffy british zings like

One lord of the genre is a glowering, hairy Englishman named Alan Moore, the coauthor of “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and “V for Vendetta.” Both of these have been turned into motion pictures; the first was merely an egregious waste of money, time, and talent, whereas the second was not quite as enjoyable as tripping over barbed wire and falling nose first into a nettle patch.

and

There is Laurie, who goes by the sobriquet of Silk Spectre, as if hoping to become a top-class shampoo; she is played by Malin Akerman, whose line readings suggest that she is slightly defeated by the pressure of pretending to be one person, let alone two.

homie bhabha (max), Thursday, 5 March 2009 13:38 (fifteen years ago) link

Jim Emerson, who really disliked "The Dark Night," loves Watchmen.

Despite superficial affinities (masked marvels, super-hype), "The Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" could not be further apart in style, ambition, or their approach to storytelling. One is set in a photorealistic Gotham City, shot on location in Chicago; the other in a sprawling fantasy universe that encompasses places called "New York," "Antarctica" and "Mars," but that exists only in the imagination. One takes place in a specific window of time; the other in a distorted, alternative 1985 (Richard Nixon is serving his fifth term as President of the United States) that re-invents the past and the future so as to turn the very concept of "time" inside-out. One is a mechanical, plot-driven action movie, edited in a woodchipper; the other is a dystopian science-fiction satire that doesn't so much spin an intricately tangled web of interwoven stories as create an environment in which its various elements are set bouncing off one another in perpetuity. ("Nothing ends...")

. . . So, you may find yourself wondering what the hell is happening during "Watchmen," but that's built into the very nature of the experience -- and it should elicit an appreciative smiley-smile rather than a frustrated frown. You don't feel (as I sometimes did in "TDK") that you're in the hands of a movie that just isn't very competently made. There's no question this picture knows exactly what it's doing and that it respects your ability to put the parts together. You do not, as in "TDK," have to wonder what the hell is going on between shots (why is that over there now?) because the seams are showing.

Some are saying "Watchmen" has been storyboarded within a micrometer of its life, that it's "too reverent" in its attempt to re-create the comics on the screen and therefore feels like it's been "embalmed" (clever Egyptian reference, that). OK, if that's the way you see it. Not me, though. I was, for the most part, entertained and provoked and amused by a work that stimulated my eyes and my mind, not just my reflexes. I think both Marshall Fine and Roger Ebert make excellent points in what they say above. "Watchmen" is conceived and crafted as an immersive experience, not merely a script that has been illustrated-by-cinema almost as an afterthought.

Let me put it this way: There's a shot of a swinging bathroom door in "Watchmen" (one of countless images that is not taken from the comics), that is imbued with a visual wit, a love of movies, that makes you laugh with delight even as you cringe. I watched "Watchmen" with a big smiley face on the front of my head almost all the way through. It's consistently funny, though not necessarily in a guffaw-out-loud way. Think "Dr. Strangelove," subject of humorous references that, like many things you'll recall from the movie, feel like they had to have been in the comics, but aren't.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:10 (fifteen years ago) link

There is Laurie, who goes by the sobriquet of Silk Spectre, as if hoping to become a top-class shampoo; she is played by Malin Akerman, whose line readings suggest that she is slightly defeated by the pressure of pretending to be one person, let alone two.

This seems to be one of the few common links I'm seeing in reviews, that Akerman is absolutely atrocious. Michael Phillips, writing in the Chicago Tribune, calls her "possibly the worst actress in Hollywood at the moment".

Thnks fr th mammries (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:23 (fifteen years ago) link

what are chance this is going to do huge opening-weekend numbers and then fall off pretty radically immediately afterward

homie bhabha (max), Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:31 (fifteen years ago) link

high

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:32 (fifteen years ago) link

I think thats pretty much a given. Ebert's going to see it again though, says him.

Thnks fr th mammries (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:34 (fifteen years ago) link

lol he so fat he fills enough seats to keep the numbers up?

ledge, Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:46 (fifteen years ago) link

I don't know, I was just struck by how odd it was that he spent a paragraph of his review talking about how he was going to see it again.

Thnks fr th mammries (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:48 (fifteen years ago) link

I'm prob. gonna see this at the weekend with my gf. I'm expecting very little (I didn't enjoy Dark Knight after it was hyped to fuck) so I may be alright.

NotEnough, Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:07 (fifteen years ago) link

I'd say it does great opening week and then barrels downward, but makes back its money in theatrical release and becomes a serious cashcow in dvd

not like i know what the fuck I'm talking about tho, I suppose

gooder dan a mug, lol (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:10 (fifteen years ago) link

im done being mad at zach snyder and alan moore and have moved on to being mad at the idiots at WB or whoever is making this retarded movie for thinking that blowing a bazillion dollars or an extended fanboy jackoff sesh is a good financial desizsh

homie bhabha (max), Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:19 (fifteen years ago) link

* on an extended fanboy jackoff sesh

homie bhabha (max), Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:19 (fifteen years ago) link

new poll

blowing a bazillion dollars

or

an extended fanboy jackoff sesh

abebe¿abebe (and what), Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:51 (fifteen years ago) link

http://www.slate.com/id/2212884/

Here's a review that doesn't piss me off. The guy actually seems to know what's good about the book, for one thing.

Thrills as Cheap as Gas (Oilyrags), Thursday, 5 March 2009 16:06 (fifteen years ago) link

Hmmm, I'd argue that Watchmen had more of a positive influence on comics than that guy reckons, it's just that it took a decade or more for that influence to properly assert itself on the mainstream.

chap, Thursday, 5 March 2009 16:22 (fifteen years ago) link

I like the Ebert review. He gets the strangeness and the "fearsome beauty" and understands what the book and film are really about: "the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope."

Slate guy's right, too, but only because Watchmen couldn't really be followed. How many books about impotent, confused, in-the-way superheroes do you need? Re: focusing on ordinary people in a superhero world, there was a great, beautifully painted series in the 90s (I forget its name) which viewed all these major events in the Marvel Universe through the eyes of ordinary New Yorkers sick of their relatives getting crushed by debris knocked loose by the Fantastic Four fighting Galactus or whatever, and their insurance premiums going up, and a general sense that the fate of the world was being decided by well-meaning but arrogant and clumsy beings they had no control over. [Insert satirical zing here]

I can see Watchmen becoming a cult film in the same way as Fight Club - a big, weird, failed blockbuster which attracts some fanatical followers. (Not that it's like Fight Club in any other respect.)

Dorian (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 5 March 2009 16:57 (fifteen years ago) link

Actually I've misread the argument of that Slate piece - he's calling for comics that only feature real people. But then you've got Ghost World, Fun Home, Persepolis, etc, which do exactly that, so I don't really get his point.

Dorian (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 5 March 2009 17:08 (fifteen years ago) link

I think he's saying that the key storytelling innovation of Watchmen was it featured regular people alongside the capes (which is debatable but not unreasonable), and that the film has failed to pick up on that. He doesn't really apply his argument to the world of comics on the whole.

chap, Thursday, 5 March 2009 17:16 (fifteen years ago) link

Have you guys all seen this film already?

gooder dan a mug, lol (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 5 March 2009 17:27 (fifteen years ago) link

there was a great, beautifully painted series in the 90s

Busiek. Marvels.

One of the Most High Profile Comedy Directors of the 90s (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 5 March 2009 17:31 (fifteen years ago) link

wasn't that ross?

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, 5 March 2009 17:33 (fifteen years ago) link

Busiek wrote it. Ross did the artwork

One of the Most High Profile Comedy Directors of the 90s (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 5 March 2009 17:34 (fifteen years ago) link

oh right, duh

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, 5 March 2009 17:34 (fifteen years ago) link

Chris Barrus (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 5 March 2009 17:59 (fifteen years ago) link

excited for the movie tomorrow night...but really this week, rereading the trade paperback has just been such a joy, if you would allow me a brief fanboy jackoff sesh of my own...just such great, imaginative storytelling and characters

straight up, you're payin' jacks just to hear me phase (M@tt He1ges0n), Thursday, 5 March 2009 18:01 (fifteen years ago) link

I want this version to get a full run on kids' TV: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

James Mitchell, Thursday, 5 March 2009 19:15 (fifteen years ago) link

^^^^^
Genius.

chap, Thursday, 5 March 2009 19:19 (fifteen years ago) link

Silk Spectre keytar = A+

One of the Most High Profile Comedy Directors of the 90s (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 5 March 2009 19:20 (fifteen years ago) link

loooool

banned what?! (latebloomer), Thursday, 5 March 2009 19:22 (fifteen years ago) link

"fuck your recognition. he doesn't get it."

been HOOS, where yyyou steene!? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 5 March 2009 19:24 (fifteen years ago) link

ebert's updated thoughts:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus.html

banned what?! (latebloomer), Thursday, 5 March 2009 19:46 (fifteen years ago) link

Although Glenn Kenny seems mezzo-mezzo on it, his thoughts are worth reading just for the slaps at Jeff Wells in the last couple of paragraphs.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 5 March 2009 23:20 (fifteen years ago) link

Brutal from A.O. Scott: http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/movies/06Watc.html?8dpc

Dr. Manhattan’s existence is busy and fairly melancholy, but I do envy him his ability to perceive every moment of past and future time as a part of a continuous present.

If I had that power, the 2 hours 40 minutes of Zack Snyder’s grim and grisly excursion into comic-book mythology might not have felt quite so interminable. (“It will never end,” says Dr. Manhattan. “Nothing ever ends.” No indeed.) Also, an enhanced temporal perspective would make it possible to watch “Watchmen” not in 2009 but back in 1985, when the story takes place, and when the movie might have made at least a little more sense.

Mordy, Friday, 6 March 2009 01:26 (fifteen years ago) link

"The comic was written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, and became to comic books what The Sopranos is to TV: an intellectual fig leaf concealing the vast wasteland of Two and a Half Men reruns."

This seems pretty wrongheaded about the effect of the respective works on both mediums.

urban-suburban hip-hop settings (hmmmm), Friday, 6 March 2009 03:14 (fifteen years ago) link

after reading ebert's second thoughts I have to say "thank god" that the themes of the book seem to have been emulated to the film - and the story probably won't be told differently (with extra emphasis on this or that). it's interesting that ebert's favorite character is most likely dr. manhattan, but I imagine every character will get it's chance to shine for what they are, do, and stand for. as someone who had never read the book, ebert probably has a fascination with dr. manhattan because his decisions/thoughts have a lots of impact towards the themes in the book... but after watching the movie a third time, ebert may find a different favorite character because he will notice the more subtle nuances that make up the other characters and realize that they are just important in portraying the theme, or vision, of watchmen (just as I had changed my attitude about favorite character after putting more thought towards the underlying themes in watchmen). (my favorite is definitely a bastard of a character :)

so anyways, maybe ebert didn't discuss the underlying themes specifically, but I believe that his understanding and interest in dr. manhattan shows that motifs have been replicated faithfully - without any extra theatrics. and that's what we all want, right? a movie that excels at staying true to the book.

in the end though, as others mentioned above, what lots of casual moviegoers want in this film is probably action, awesome artistic direction, and fascinating characters that will elicit empathy in the viewers - so much that movie viewers care about the ultimate fate of these characters and excite themselves with the suspense of what's going to happen with them. since the watchmen characters are obviously flawed (and wear tights or nipple suits), we can only hope that the director is able to elicit that empathy in the viewers, and in a way that gibbons and moore did, because connecting with the characters while meeting moore's standards is probably the hardest thing to capture on screen. for instance The Spirit failed at connecting characters with the viewer (while they may have been engrossing in the book (I never read it)).

CaptainLorax, Friday, 6 March 2009 04:49 (fifteen years ago) link

am I hyped about seeing the movie tomorrow or what? :)
I'm going to a 8:30 showing and it wont be on an i-max screen - I'll try to get a centered low balcony seat though

CaptainLorax, Friday, 6 March 2009 04:53 (fifteen years ago) link

"The comic was written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, and became to comic books what The Sopranos is to TV: an intellectual fig leaf concealing the vast wasteland of Two and a Half Men reruns."

Kinda feeling this.

Snagged free tickets to this tomorrow, so...

i got 51 sbs on my profile (forksclovetofu), Friday, 6 March 2009 04:54 (fifteen years ago) link

(“It will never end,” says Dr. Manhattan. “Nothing ever ends.” No indeed.)

LO freakin L

kenan, Friday, 6 March 2009 04:57 (fifteen years ago) link

I'm catching this early before work tomorrow, since I have no other free time this weekend to see it.

Will report back with my geekpinion.

lstebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 6 March 2009 05:03 (fifteen years ago) link

watchman's playing at the imax downtown... I should probably go see it before it disappears in a week

鬼の手 (Edward III), Friday, 6 March 2009 05:04 (fifteen years ago) link

what's this watchman movie you speak of

lstebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 6 March 2009 05:06 (fifteen years ago) link

u know - two and a half men can be hilarious sometimes, i think the fig leaf would better conceal vast waste of will and grace reruns.

CaptainLorax, Friday, 6 March 2009 05:07 (fifteen years ago) link

i'm pretty sure i can see u in there

i got 51 sbs on my profile (forksclovetofu), Friday, 6 March 2009 05:08 (fifteen years ago) link

Tighten up that grip

i got 51 sbs on my profile (forksclovetofu), Friday, 6 March 2009 05:08 (fifteen years ago) link

Two and a Half Men is not ever at all hilarious ever, nor at all.

kenan, Friday, 6 March 2009 05:11 (fifteen years ago) link

Dreadfully beside the point, tho.

kenan, Friday, 6 March 2009 05:12 (fifteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.