Watchmen on Blu-Ray by OPPYH

Never saw it, but I'll see the Director's cut for the first time soon. 3 HRS????

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:49 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Haven't seen it yet, but it's on my list to rent soon.

Just got Freaks And Geeks for $28, so my weekend is full...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Just got Freaks And Geeks for $28, so my weekend is full...

Great price. A brilliant short lived show that was on Friday nights. Kind of like Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:10 AM

HOLY CRAP BATMAN!!! The flick was AWESOME!!!With the exception of the kid reading the gross story, they pretty much made the graphic novel come alive!!
The movie had me squirming in all the right places.
A few notes: much has been said concerning the nudity- big deal. Blue CGI wee-wees don't bug me.
It was violent in the excess- the fingers-thing was icky, but otherwise I didn't see anything so shocking. A little disturbing, maybe.
3 hours never went by so fast.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 8:02 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

And wasn't it nice of them to include a coupon for ten bucks off the next version of the movie coming out?

Seriously, though, I love this story, and the film is brilliant. I don't say that about many adaptations.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 8:04 AM

Just rented it last night - the "normal" widescreen version (no BluRay, no director's cut).

Pretty astonishing movie. I'm a bit surprised it ever got made. I loved it, my wife didn't much care for it. I'd watch it again.

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying Freaks and Geeks all over again. And yeah, at $28, I couldn't pass it up. It's one of those shows I've been looking for at a good price, and that was the cheapest I've ever seen it, so I jumped. I had good memories of it from when it was on NBC; I was amazed how accurately they were able to capture my senior year of high school (1980).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Just rented it last night - the "normal" widescreen version (no BluRay, no director's cut).

That extra 24 minutes in the director's cut makes quite a bit difference, character-fleshed-out wise.

Edit: Yeah, Freaks & Geeks kinda summed up my HS experience too.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:28 AM

ZEROKIRYU

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Just rented it last night - the "normal" widescreen version (no BluRay, no director's cut).

That extra 24 minutes in the director's cut makes quite a bit difference, character-fleshed-out wise.

It's not just an extra 24 minutes, there's also reworked dialog and scenes.

Oh no, the zombies killed god!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:12 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Yep, it is a great movie though not for mainstream audiences, which, I would say, Hollywood was hoping to tap into.

It cost $130M to make and it made $182.7M, which, by Hollywood standards, is considered a failure (according to Box Office Mojo).
I think it will make lots more in DVD release.
I'll be getting my Blu-ray Director's Cut this coming week (probably Tues).

Hey Chris, you said Blue wee-wee (chortle-snort)
you slay me, LOL.

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:21 AM

Quote:
I think it will make lots more in DVD release.

Definitely. My take on it is that it's destined to be a bit of a "cult-classic", in that it will live on far longer via DVD than its performance at the box office would have indicated, much like "V for Vendetta".

And I'll definitely be one of the ones helping it reach that point, since I anticipate buying at least one copy of Watchmen. It was intriguing enough that I'm considering picking up the graphic novel as well, even though I'm *not* a "comic-book guy" by any stretch of the imagination.

Thinking that Watchmen was going to be a big smash hit at the box office, with mainstream moviegoers and "normal" people was pretty much a risky proposition from the outset. The story just isn't comfortable for the average superhero-movie fan. The good guys aren't that good - downright evil, at times - and the bad guys aren't all that bad. It's a murky moral morass, and that's not fertile ground for making big box-office bucks. (Wow, what a bunch of alliteration THAT was!)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

It was violent in the excess- the fingers-thing was icky, but otherwise I didn't see anything so shocking. A little disturbing, maybe.
3 hours never went by so fast.

When I first heard it was being made into a film, I was thinking no way in hell. It will probably be PG-13 travesty. When I realized it was getting an "R" rating, I felt better. And a hard "R" rating at that. I'm not saying that I like it better than the graphic novel, but it captures the feel of it perfectly.

And while I'm talking graphic novel, what is the deal with the writer Alan Moore?

Here's an article about Alan Moore dissing the movie:

When asked in an interview with ReelzChannel.com about original Watchmen writer Alan Moore's dismissal of his movie, [director Zack] Snyder was quoted as saying "Worst case scenario - Alan puts the movie on his DVD player on a cold Sunday in London and watches and says, 'Yeah, that doesn't suck too bad.'" When this was brought up with Moore himself in a later interview in the British Tripwire comics fanzine, the writer commented "That's the worst case scenario? I think he's underestimated what the worst case scenario would be... that's never going to happen in my DVD player in 'London' [Moore very famously lives in Northampton]. I'm never going to watch this fucking thing."

"I'm not locked in here with you....You're locked in here with me"Rorshack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:58 AM

Moore is cranky, yeah. But after League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I can't really blame him.

I bet he watches it anyway, secretly.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:59 AM

Moore seems to diss every attempt to "mass-market" his work, it seems. He seems to have taken the tack that it's okay with him if Hollywood wants to make movies of his stuff, as long as they don't try to associate it with his work, since he feels comics (or graphic novels) are a completely different world and experience than movies.

And I kind of get that. And if he WERE to get involved with a movie of one of his projects (Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The Killing Joke, etc.), how much input would the studio let him have? How much control? It sounds like he'd want COMPLETE creative control, and I just don't see that happening, ever.

So he says to keep them separate. And I'm okay with that. I gather the movie tries to touch on all the basic aspects of the story, but I also understand that there's stuff that's going to get left out. That's what makes me want to check out the graphic stuff. Same with V for Vendetta.

Also, it should be noted that the ONE movie Ken Kesey refused to ever see was the adaptation of his "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Could be that great artists just can't bear to look at others' interpretations of their work.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:08 PM

He used to be more accomodationg, and din't always have his name removed from the project. But he was apparently very pissed when they made big changes to From Hell, and then with LXG, besides massive changes to the story, and a rather shit movie overall, another writer sued the studio and Moore, as the movie actually ended up closer to a script written years ago, than it was to Moore's comic. Moore was NOT happy being drug into that.

As for the movie, I really like it, though I think they were maybe a bit too slavishly faithfull to the source material, when a little more adaptaion might have been in order.

And it's going to have to sell a shitload of DVDs to make a profit, unfortunetly. The numbers above don't even represent the massive ammount of cash that went into marketing, not the multi-million pay-out WB had to make to FOX for not having sufficiently cleared the rights before starting production.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:20 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's what makes me want to check out the graphic stuff. Same with V for Vendetta.

The Watchmen graphic novel varies somewhat from the movie, mostly in stuff left out and in one major story point. V for Vendetta varies greatly from one medium to another. In every conversation I've had about it, the people who had read the graphic novel hated the movie, and the people who hadn't read it thought the movie was great. And, as far as I've heard, Alan Moore loathed the adaptation of V for Vendetta, and has been pissed off at Hollywood ever since. He was absolutely convinced they would ruin Watchmen, which could well be his greatest accomplishment; how many other graphic novels are ranked as one of the hundred greatest novels of all time? I absolutely don't begrudge him for being an angry artist. I do hope that one day he gives the movie a chance, since most fans of his original work seem to love it, unlike V, but I can hardly blame him if he doesn't want to risk it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I think they were maybe a bit too slavishly faithfull to the source material

To me, that's a big selling point. When I love a book, I want to see a film adaptation bring it to life, not take it off on some random tangent. When said book actually includes graphical representations of scenes, I like seeing that follow through as well. Aside from a couple of the costumes, I think they did that beautifully. They also followed the story beautifully, and where they had to cut things down, some really brilliant bits were written to make it work. I think the people writing and making this movie all loved the original story, and I think that's how film adaptations should be made.
That's the problem with Harry Potter. They started making movies before the series was even complete, and most people working on the films hadn't even read the story, let alone care about it. I guess the goal was to cash in, and that they've done quite well, but they didn't get much of that cash from me...

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

As for the movie, I really like it, though I think they were maybe a bit too slavishly faithfull to the source material, when a little more adaptaion might have been in order.

They DID adapt it a little- they left out the pirate story that sort of framed the big picture, and I think that might have been a wise choice, cinematically, although it works SO WELL in the the graphic novel...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
In every conversation I've had about it, the people who had read the graphic novel hated the movie [V For Vendetta], and the people who hadn't read it thought the movie was great.

Colour me one who didn't read the novel (picked it up at a comic store, wasn't enthralled & put it back down, but LOVED the movie! More than the movie this thread is about, in point of fact. Well, a little more.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Could be that great artists just can't bear to look at others' interpretations of their work.

That's probably it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:12 PM

BIGRICHARD

the 'pirate story' being Tales of the Black Freighter, which is out seperately at the moment as an animation with voice-over by Gerard Butler. Has been out for a while (since the film was in cinemas I think.)

The uber special collectors whatever is coming out in December (I think?) and will feature Black Freighter cut into the film, to make for the 'ultimate directors cut'. Or so I hear. Watchmen hasn't come out on DVD/BluRay in Aust yet.

Glad y'all enjoyed it. Although I had a feeling CiA would. I loved it when I saw it at the cinemas. I did have a FEW issues with it here and there, but overall, it was brilliant. How about that Opening Sequence!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Could be that great artists just can't bear to look at others' interpretations of their work.

Could be that great artists should accept that others' interpretations of their work is a sign of their genius, & just STFU.

LOL...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigRichard:

Glad y'all enjoyed it. Although I had a feeling CiA would.

Not really. Too Right-Wing for me....

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Could be that great artists just can't bear to look at others' interpretations of their work.

Could be that great artists should accept that others' interpretations of their work is a sign of their genius, & just STFU. LOL...

The laughing Chrisisall

Well, yeah... there's that.

Personally, I've always rather enjoyed it when great artists (or ANY artists, for that matter) drop a little "inside joke" homage to their idols into their work. I loved it when I saw Keith Haring's "Andy Mouse" images - an homage to one of his heroes, Andy Warhol, in the guise of a knock-off of Warhol's Mickey Mouse series of screen prints. Roy Lichtenstein paid tribute to virtually ALL of the greats, but did it in his own style. I can understand why some artists might get upset about this kind of treatment, and feel like it's a slight against them, but in all honesty, I feel like it's done as the highest sign of respect, of showing the artist that their imagery is so recognizable that it can be done by another artist in their own style and STILL be instantly recognizable. When it's done well and somewhat collaboratively, it drives all the artists involved to new directions and heights as they enjoy the interplay between each other's works.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:58 AM

And let's just say for the sake of argument that the Watchmen was a jumbled mess. If Alan Moore's name were included on the credits, he would be linked to it. And all the people who watched the film, and never read the graphic novel would associate him with a turkey who couldn't write his way out of a paper bag.

That would NOT be fair.

So in a way, I'm understanding Moore's hesitation about movies based on his works.

Now two of my favorite graphic novels converted to film in great fashion. Bring on my absolute favorite graphic novel of all time:
The Dark Knight by Frank Miller. Not to be confused with last years film of the same name.

Edit: in graphic novel form it is titled The Dark Knight Returns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 26, 2009 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
When it's done well and somewhat collaboratively, it drives all the artists involved to new directions and heights as they enjoy the interplay between each other's works.

Zactly. I think I actually enjoy the movie more profoundly than the graphic novel!
But that's prolly just me.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

Now two of my favorite graphic novels converted to film in great fashion.

Watchmen & League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:08 PM

Quote:

And let's just say for the sake of argument that the Watchmen was a jumbled mess. If Alan Moore's name were included on the credits, he would be linked to it. And all the people who watched the film, and never read the graphic novel would associate him with a turkey who couldn't write his way out of a paper bag.

That would NOT be fair.

True, and that's a real risk. If all I ever knew of Frank Miller's work was the movie versions of Daredevil or The Spirit, I'd have a very dim view of his work.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Watchmen & League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

I thought The Watchmen and Sin City were fantastic(my favorites).
League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen wasn't a horrible movie IMO. 300 was pretty good, and V for Vendetta was very enjoyable. Those are all the graphic novel movies I have seen so far.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:27 PM

I really liked Watchmen and V for Vendetta. V maybe even a little more. I liked 300. Sin City was okay. Never could get through League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I did like League of Gentlemen, a side band project of King Crimson's Robert Fripp. Hard to find it on CD, though. I've got the vinyl from 1981, and a follow-up from a few years later.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:58 PM

SINGATE

The director's cut is at least as good as what was in theatres. Can't always say that about extended versions. I especially enjoyed the extra material pertaining to Hollis Mason. His death, while sad, comes off as very heroic. The follow up scene where Dan interrogates the knothead was also a nice addition. One thing I was really hoping for was the last conversation between Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias. It is one of my favorite parts of the book and serves as an excellent bookend to the story.

Excellent way to spend 3 hours. Now I have to go back and watch it again with the Snyder-along feature.

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 27, 2009 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Never could get through League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Taken strictly as a vehicle for Sean Connery to say goodbye to us in a last heroic role, it's not bad- just don't expect typical Moore edgyness.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 27, 2009 12:27 PM

LWAVES

Well I must be one of the rarer breed that really enjoyed the graphic novel and the movie version of Watchmen. The same also applies to V For Vendetta as well.
And whilst there are some differences (aren't there always going to be changes?) I thought they all worked really well within their media. But then I've always done that with different media. It bugs me a bit when people say it's not as good as the books (Harry Potter), or they changed the characters (LOTR). Of course it's not gonna be the same. If they book could be directly put on the screen it would be many hours long and full of voice over detailing characters thoughts.

I'm kinda sorry to say this but after LXG I can understand why Connery retired. Read any interviews with him where he speaks about it and you can see why for yourselves. Connery was always a fave of mine (even outside Bond) and it was a pity that this was his last film. I can at least see why the film has fans, I'm just not one of them.

Back to Watchmen and the Blu-ray version I thought that the video transfer was immaculate. The contrast in the gloomier scenes was suitable dark but not so much that you couldn't see what was going on. And when they had areas of brighter colours they stood out brilliantly (the reflection of the neon lights from Gunga Diner in a window as Rorschach walks by looked excellent).
The lossless sound was also great but I did find that I had to turn the volume up more than usual as the whole audio track seemed a little quiet. Anyone else have this? It's not my system as another disc sounded fine later the same day.

An excellent release that I will look forward to watching many times to get all the little details and nuances.

"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 27, 2009 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
Connery was always a fave of mine (even outside Bond) and it was a pity that this was his last film. I can at least see why the film has fans, I'm just not one of them.

I watch the film for it's energy, and for the scene where Connery confronts the white tiger... it's his goodbye, and I find it touching (but then, I AM a sap).
I personally forgive the flaying of the graphic novel for the movie, as it wasn't one of my favourites, but had they done that to the Watchmen, I would have been gorram ruttin' pissed to no end, so I can understand hating on LXG if that was an important story to y'all.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 27, 2009 8:22 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
Well I must be one of the rarer breed that really enjoyed the graphic novel and the movie version of Watchmen.

No, that's not the rare breed.

Quote:
The same also applies to V For Vendetta

That's the rare breed

I adored the Watchmen novel and I loved the movie. Just about every fan I've found or heard of likes the film adaptation of Watchmen. I'm sure there are some who don't like it, but the majority are happy with the vast respect shown to the source material.
My boyfriend has a tattoo of Rorschach's signature symbol, and vowed it would undergo removal if the movie offended him. Not only that, he was deeply concerned that it was a distinct possibility. Well, he just bought the bluray and the tattoo remains. So that should tell you something.
When we first started going out, I got a great many points for not having seen the movie V for Vendetta, so that tells you how much that particular adaptation did offend him, and I've seen a lot of that from a lot of fans of Moore's original work. So. Yeah.
Sorry to be one of the people who bugs you, as I also get offended when a different medium bares only passing resemblance to the source material. I thought LOtR was excellent, and only have two minor beefs with it. Again, it was adapted years after the fact, by people who loved and respected the story. When that isn't done, when something on film has no feel of the world from the book version, when the story is slashed and twisted to a point where people who haven't read the books have a completely different view of the story and what it's about... Yeah, then I happen to think they're travesties. If someone wants to make a film version of a story, they should make a film version of the story, not a different story with a few similarities. JMHO.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 27, 2009 10:32 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

The Dark Knight by Frank Miller -
Yes, please.

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 27, 2009 10:49 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Excellent point and I agree. Make the film but make the story the focal point, don't fudge with it. Imagine making the 3 Musketeers without D'artagnan.

But sometimes directors, and all the time H'wood producers and movie moguls, want to give their vision rather than the artist's. Most times with movie moguls they want their POV, but often it's a matter of cashy-money.

There are few exceptions though: Kubrick, for one, is well-known for sticking close to the original source material. A Clockwork Orange, one of my all-time favs, was one genius piece of work by the master filmmaker. I read the book after seeing the film. 2001: A Space Oddyssey was another (didn't read the book). So, it is true that a great film is when it compliments the original medium and creator's vision. Kubrick had a way of injecting his vision within the author's creation. Genius!

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:06 AM

LWAVES

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
Well I must be one of the rarer breed that really enjoyed the graphic novel and the movie version of Watchmen.

No, that's not the rare breed.
Quote:
The same also applies to V For Vendetta

That's the rare breed

I adored the Watchmen novel and I loved the movie. Just about every fan I've found or heard of likes the film adaptation of Watchmen. I'm sure there are some who don't like it, but the majority are happy with the vast respect shown to the source material.

Then it must just be my friends and acquaintances. Those I know who saw the movie without reading the novel really enjoyed it. Those who had read the novel had reactions ranging from an 'It was okay-ish' to outright blasphemy. Never did get that one as I thought it was a faithful adaption myself but he really hated that they changed the ending and that the Black Frieghter story was missing (even though you can get it seperately) - he just couldn't get by it.

And I reread the above posts and nobody did say anything regarding liking one and hating the other. I'll put it down to end of the night sleepyheadedness (yes that's a word).
My bad.

Quote:

Sorry to be one of the people who bugs you, as I also get offended when a different medium bares only passing resemblance to the source material. I thought LOtR was excellent, and only have two minor beefs with it.
When that isn't done, when something on film has no feel of the world from the book version, when the story is slashed and twisted to a point where people who haven't read the books have a completely different view of the story and what it's about... Yeah, then I happen to think they're travesties. If someone wants to make a film version of a story, they should make a film version of the story, not a different story with a few similarities. JMHO.

I'm not doing very well as I don't think I got my point across here either. D'Oh.
What I was on about that bugs me is this:
A particular scene or chapter may work in a book, for instance, but that same scene wouldn't necessarily work on film (or isn't needed to further the plot). So the film makers miss that piece out or change it so that it does work.
Some fans get 'up in arms' and all upset about it (which is their right of course) and claim that the film is a travesty etc etc. That's what bugs me. Minor-ish quibbles and problems that don't change the main plot/story in any significant way.

Take LOTR for example. This is my favourite film of all time (please note 'film' not 'films' as I see it as one). I waited so many years hoping that someone would come along and do a faithful adaption. And I think that the extended editions are about as perfect as they could be.
But some folks didn't like the fact that Glorfindel was changed to Arwen, or that Arwen got a more prominent role. Or that Saruman's death was different from the novel.
Minor points to me. But some folks couldn't get by it. Again maybe it's just posts I read at the time or folks that I know.
My only two problems with the film is that the ending is too long and that we never got to see The Scouring Of The Shire, which is odd as this would have made the ending longer!

I am with you though when little regard is paid to the source. When they keep the title and maybe a few names and basic plot points. If you want a different film call it by a different name.
But having said that if the film works well in it's new form then I can treat them seperately, as different entities, if you like. I gather the Bourne movies don't follow the books (I haven't read them) but I think the movies are fantastic.

Does that clear things up a bit or am I still in the foggy area.

"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:36 AM

Quote:

There are few exceptions though: Kubrick, for one, is well-known for sticking close to the original source material. A Clockwork Orange, one of my all-time favs, was one genius piece of work by the master filmmaker. I read the book after seeing the film. 2001: A Space Oddyssey was another (didn't read the book). So, it is true that a great film is when it compliments the original medium and creator's vision. Kubrick had a way of injecting his vision within the author's creation. Genius!

Well, the genius of 2001 was that Kubrick knew enough to know what he didn't know - and he went to Arthur C. Clarke for collaboration on the screenplay. 2001 really came from the Arthur Clarke short story "The Sentinel" - and you really should read that one. You'll be amazed not only at its brevity, but at all the stuff that Kubrick and Clarke THEN had to think up to follow it, because The Sentinel is really barely a jumping-off point - its entirety is pretty much the stuff that happens on the Moon in the movie, and that's about it. It's about finding something on the Moon that is basically a "burglar alarm" - it requires a nuclear explosion to "open" it, which proves a couple things to those who left it there: 1) that mankind has indeed progressed and become a viable, intelligent species capable of some level of space flight, and 2) that we have reached the capability of having nuclear weapons, and haven't wiped ourselves out with them (not yet, at least). All the rest of the story, the Jupiter mission, the prehistoric monkey-men, the star-child, all of that was just Kubrick and Clarke collaborating, and saying, "...And THEN what would happen?"

The monolith was somebody's messaging system to wake them up when we did something interesting, which would indicate that maybe we were ready to join the larger universe, or at least meet those who'd been out there for so long already...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:11 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
some folks didn't like the fact that Glorfindel was changed to Arwen

I don't mind that. I understand why they wanted to simplify the character base, so to speak.

Quote:
or that Arwen got a more prominent role

Again, I understand why she had a more prominent role. I wasn't all that crazy crazy about it, and all the stuff that wasn't in the books in any form bugged me to a certain extent (her fate being tied to the ring, for example, I thought was a little ridiculous.) My dad can go on whole long rants about how much the film version shouldn't have featured the Aragorn and Arwen story, but he still loves the movies. I didn't mind the things they included from the appendices, but yes, it did bother me a little that they started making things up. I guess that could be a third beef of mine.

Quote:
Or that Saruman's death was different from the novel.

That did bug me, and is tied into the Scouring of the Shire, which I agree with you on wanting to see. This is one of my beefs with the film. The main one, though? This is going to sound absolutely silly, no doubt, but my biggest, hugest problem with the film adaptation was Sam turning back. It made me angry that they put that in there. Sam never turns back. He never leaves Frodo. Not ever. He is the true and indisputable hero of the saga. He doesn't waver and he doesn't leave and he sees the thing through to the end. It certainly doesn't ruin the film for me. I think the film is gorgeous and epic and quite respectful of the story, but that's the one change that made me actually angry.
Gotten a little off-track here, haven't we?

Sorry, everybody.

Quote:
If you want a different film call it by a different name.

Yay verily! We seem to be on the same page, there.

Quote:
Does that clear things up a bit or am I still in the foggy area.

Loud and clear

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:48 PM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
My only two problems with the film is that the ending is too long and that we never got to see The Scouring Of The Shire, which is odd as this would have made the ending longer!

I suspect that is exactly the sort of dilemma that had to deal with when making the film. The problems start in films where changes are made for spurious reasons.

If you look at the (endless) Making Of material, you see that Jackson & co. were making trade offs between what they saw as important in the book and their experience as film-makers. E.g. Elves at Helm's Deep? Jackson explains that otherwise it would have looked like the Elves were a bunch of cowards running off back to the west, but to dump in a load of exposition about other battles they were fighting in would have derailed the plot. If it was really because the studio wanted more Elves to boost action figure sales, then Jackson did an awfully good job of rationalizing it.

Meanwhile, I heard that some nutty Brit artist pre-made the brilliant Watchmen movie as a comic book, and replaced the morally ambiguous ending in the film (which was so in keeping with the whole theme of the story) with some nonsense about a giant space squid. Apparently, he also padded the whole thing out (as if it wasn't long enough already) with some vaguely allegorical pirate story. I mean, the whole thing is an allegory anyway, so why put another allegory inside it? Sounds silly.

I bet they changed the costumes, too!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:10 AM

BIGRICHARD

Just wanted to add for any Aussies that we didn't get the Directors Cut either, just the 2-disc edition. Of course, so excited was I to buy Watchmen on BluRay, that I didn't realise this till I had the damn thing at home. Luckily it was still sealed so I took it back today and will have to import it on Amazon. Bah. Why? What good reason do they have to do this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:35 AM

Why? As state3d above, they need to do everything they can to turn aq profit on this flick. It'll take a while before it's in the black financially, and ge3tting folks to buy as many DVDs as possible is part of that.

I'm sure the Directors Cut will be available overseas about the time they release the Ultimate edition over here, this Christmas.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Never could get through League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
Taken strictly as a vehicle for Sean Connery to say goodbye to us in a last heroic role, it's not bad-

Yes, it is. That movie is shite.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:41 AM

Quote:

I'm sure the Directors Cut will be available overseas about the time they release the Ultimate edition over here, this Christmas.

Risky move, calling something the "ultimate" edition. Where do you go from there?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

Now two of my favorite graphic novels converted to film in great fashion. Bring on my absolute favorite graphic novel of all time:
The Dark Knight by Frank Miller. Not to be confused with last years film of the same name.

Edit: in graphic novel form it is titled The Dark Knight Returns.

It was always The Dark Knight Returns.

And while I wouldn't hold my breath for a live-action version of it anytime soon (there will be at least one more with Nolan/Bale) DC has mentioned it's a possibility for their line of animated films.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

I'm sure the Directors Cut will be available overseas about the time they release the Ultimate edition over here, this Christmas.

Risky move, calling something the "ultimate" edition. Where do you go from there?

I think that three different editions will probably be enough for a while.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
That movie is shite.

Only when compared to the novel- absolutely cold it's a fun little piece of fluff. Be objective, man!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:28 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
I heard that some nutty Brit artist pre-made the brilliant Watchmen movie as a comic book, and replaced the morally ambiguous ending in the film (which was so in keeping with the whole theme of the story) with some nonsense about a giant space squid. Apparently, he also padded the whole thing out (as if it wasn't long enough already) with some vaguely allegorical pirate story. I mean, the whole thing is an allegory anyway, so why put another allegory inside it? Sounds silly.

I bet they changed the costumes, too!

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:12 AM