The Watchmen

[Evantime34]

that rant was not directed at anyone who posted on this topic, more at one of my friends who said he didn't like the movie because it glorified violence (how ridiculous a movie about warriors would glorify their bravery and ability to fight).

[Pawtucket Pat]

that rant was not directed at anyone who posted on this topic, more at one of my friends who said he didn't like the movie because it glorified violence (how ridiculous a movie about warriors would glorify their bravery and ability to fight).

As I said, my problem with '300' was just that it was kind of boring. There were some great scenes, even some great lines in it, and there is absolutely no disputing that the cinematography was incredible. But the plot just dragged, and things happened veeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slloooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllly in between battles. I hope Snyder can do better with 'Watchmen', but, as I said, the trailer leaves me very, very skeptical.

[LarBrd33]

that rant was not directed at anyone who posted on this topic, more at one of my friends who said he didn't like the movie because it glorified violence (how ridiculous a movie about warriors would glorify their bravery and ability to fight).

Eventime... I think in general people adored "300".  Pawtucket and myself are more the exception than the rule.  300 was a huge hit.  Which is why I call it vastly overrated.   I mean there are movies like "Gladiator" which still make the mindless action genre at least a little interesting.  But I thought 300 was crap and I was really pretty bored by it.  I thought the dialogue was horrible. 

But I mean in general people loved it.  My roommates have watched it at least a dozen times.  They actually threw a "300 party" the day the movie came out on DVD.  But I thought it was really mindless and weak.

Maybe they do a better job with Watchmen since it's more than just mindless action...   Again, I haven't read "The Watchmen", but isn't the appeal the depth of the storyline and the maturity of the material?  So they pick a director whose credits include "Dawn of the Dead (2004) and 300?  Ick... My hopes aren't very high.

Edit:  Looks like 300 only got a 51 on Metacritic.  Pretty mixed reviews.  I guess I'm not alone in thinking that movie was garbage.

[cbccagle]

Alan Moore is one of the more interesting personalities in the comics industry.  He is unbelievably talented but more than a little petulant.  He reinvorgated comics in general with his scripts for Swamp Thing back in the '80s, the comic which eventually led to an entire line, Vertigo, being created as a DC imprint. It published Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Preacher by Garth Ennis, and The Invisibles from Grant Morrison, among others.

Alan's present demeanor probably started shortly after WATCHMEN was first published as a graphic novel (it was originally a 12-part monthly series).  The contract he signed with DC Comics provided for Moore's full ownership of the characters and book upon the ending of publication.  To his chagrin, WATCHMEN is enjoying its 18th printing (at least!) and shows no sign of slowing down.  Due to the complexities of work-for-hire contracts, Moore is also not getting his fair share of royalties due him for WATCHMEN merchandise and action figures, something DC executives have stated they've tried to fix over the years -- but are probably being stymied by their parent company, Warner Brothers.  Those problems caused Moore to leave DC in disgust after singlehandedly reinventing the medium with sophisticated storytelling techniques and more mature content.  He joined Wildstorm (at the time, an Image imprint) and created ABC (America's Best Comics), often portraying thinly veiled copies of DC and Marvel Comics characters.  (Ironically, DC bought Wildstorm years later, and Moore found himself working for his old nemesis again, and had to be courted by Wildstorm's president, Jim Lee, to stay).

Moore also has his troubles with Marvel Comics, and has blocked reprints of the English version of Captain Britain that contain his scripts, although rumors persist that this area has been cleared -- still, there are no reprints.

All this and other things paint Moore as the little guy fighting Big Business for rights to his personal creativity and vision.  And while that's true to a certain extent, Moore sees nothing wrong in writing "literary ****ography" (his term) and using three characters he DIDN'T create as his main protagonists: Wendy from Peter Pan, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, and Alice from Alice in Wonderland, in a graphic novel called "Lost Girls."

Nowadays, a lot of comics fans who originally championed Moore's cause against DC are turning against him.  He seems to have a problem with EVERYBODY.  No one denies his genius, they're just getting tired of his rants.

[incoherent]

But the plot just dragged, and things happened veeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slloooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllly in between battles

Sorry buddy, I just watched this movie again for the 4th time a few days ago and in no way is this movie 'slow' as you claim. You want a slow movie, sit through "The Good Shepard" or "The Aviator".

If you want to pick apart an obviously awesome movie to sound elite then make sure you know what your talking about. 

95% of the film that comes out of Hollywood is crap.  300 is in the other 5% no matter how you wanna spin it.

[Evantime34]

that rant was not directed at anyone who posted on this topic, more at one of my friends who said he didn't like the movie because it glorified violence (how ridiculous a movie about warriors would glorify their bravery and ability to fight).

Evantime... I think in general people adored "300".  Pawtucket and myself are more the exception than the rule.  300 was a huge hit.  Which is why I call it vastly overrated.   I mean there are movies like "Gladiator" which still make the mindless action genre at least a little interesting.  But I thought 300 was crap and I was really pretty bored by it.  I thought the dialogue was horrible. 

But I mean in general people loved it.  My roommates have watched it at least a dozen times.  They actually threw a "300 party" the day the movie came out on DVD.  But I thought it was really mindless and weak.

Maybe they do a better job with Watchmen since it's more than just mindless action...   Again, I haven't read "The Watchmen", but isn't the appeal the depth of the storyline and the maturity of the material?  So they pick a director whose credits include "Dawn of the Dead (2004) and 300?  Ick... My hopes aren't very high.

Edit:  Looks like 300 only got a 51 on Metacritic.  Pretty mixed reviews.  I guess I'm not alone in thinking that movie was garbage.

I think a rating of 51 is about right only because most people have a strong opinion on it. 50 is exactly in the middle so a lot of people thought it was in the 20s but just as many people thought it was in the 80s which averages to about a 50. Yet a Superhero movie should have to do with their powers not with crazy battle scenes so I hope the plot is a little bit better in Watchmen.

[LarBrd33]

Alan Moore is one of the more interesting personalities in the comics industry.  He is unbelievably talented but more than a little petulant.  He reinvorgated comics in general with his scripts for Swamp Thing back in the '80s, the comic which eventually led to an entire line, Vertigo, being created as a DC imprint. It published Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Preacher by Garth Ennis, and The Invisibles from Grant Morrison, among others.

Alan's present demeanor probably started shortly after WATCHMEN was first published as a graphic novel (it was originally a 12-part monthly series).  The contract he signed with DC Comics provided for Moore's full ownership of the characters and book upon the ending of publication.  To his chagrin, WATCHMEN is enjoying its 18th printing (at least!) and shows no sign of slowing down.  Due to the complexities of work-for-hire contracts, Moore is also not getting his fair share of royalties due him for WATCHMEN merchandise and action figures, something DC executives have stated they've tried to fix over the years -- but are probably being stymied by their parent company, Warner Brothers.  Those problems caused Moore to leave DC in disgust after singlehandedly reinventing the medium with sophisticated storytelling techniques and more mature content.  He joined Wildstorm (at the time, an Image imprint) and created ABC (America's Best Comics), often portraying thinly veiled copies of DC and Marvel Comics characters.  (Ironically, DC bought Wildstorm years later, and Moore found himself working for his old nemesis again, and had to be courted by Wildstorm's president, Jim Lee, to stay).

Moore also has his troubles with Marvel Comics, and has blocked reprints of the English version of Captain Britain that contain his scripts, although rumors persist that this area has been cleared -- still, there are no reprints.

All this and other things paint Moore as the little guy fighting Big Business for rights to his personal creativity and vision.  And while that's true to a certain extent, Moore sees nothing wrong in writing "literary ****ography" (his term) and using three characters he DIDN'T create as his main protagonists: Wendy from Peter Pan, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, and Alice from Alice in Wonderland, in a graphic novel called "Lost Girls."

Nowadays, a lot of comics fans who originally championed Moore's cause against DC are turning against him.  He seems to have a problem with EVERYBODY.  No one denies his genius, they're just getting tired of his rants.

Thanks for the info cbccagle.   Moore definitely seems like an odd character.  I guess that's to be expected from someone so creative.  Thanks for the rundown though.  I didn't have the patience to read his full wiki

The guy even looks a little goofy.  

[crownsy]

So my point with 300 is that it was definitely faithful to the comic, but I think it was faithful to a fault.  Every image and line was like a direct port from the comic.  I like when films are properly adapted from a comic source, but I think just doing a direct port (line for line, image for image) can be a problem.  What would be considered heavy and weighty in comic form can become pretty shallow and cheesy as a film.

So I just read a little about Alan Moore (the creator of Watchmen).   He also created "The LEague of Extraordinary Gentlemen", "From Hell", "Constantine" and "V for Vendetta".  All were turned into movies.  Apparently since "League of Extraordinary Gentleman" came out and some legal dispute about alleged plagiarized content, Moore has hated the process of seeing his work adapted to film.  He was outraged by several parts of "V for Vendetta", refused to be credited in the "Constantine" movie, and also refuses to be credited in "The Watchmen" film.  That's rather interesting to me.

Moore's reaction was to divorce himself from the film world: he would refuse to allow film adaptations of anything to which he owned full copyright. In cases where others owned the rights, he would withdraw his name from the credits and refuse to accept payment, instead requesting that the money go to his collaborators (i.e. the artists). This was the arrangement used for the film Constantine

So maybe having a hack director who meticulously ports the graphic novels scene by scene/image by image/line by line might make Moore happy.  But in general I have pretty low expectations for this movie.

I thought V for Vendetta was great, do you think he was fed up with the process or do you think the book/graphic novel really was that much better than the movie?

There is a lot of info on his wiki.  Specifically about V for Vendetta it says: 

The last straw came when producer Joel Silver said at a press conference for the Warner Bros. film adaptation of V for Vendetta that fellow producer Larry Wachowski had talked with Moore, and that "he [Moore] was very excited about what Larry had to say."[37] Moore claims that he told Wachowski "I didn't want anything to do with films... I wasn't interested in Hollywood," and demanded that DC Comics force Warner Bros to issue a public retraction and apology for Silver's "blatant lies", even though Silver appeared to have been lied to himself by Larry Wachowski. Although Silver called Moore directly to apologize, no public retraction appeared. Moore was quoted as saying that the film had "plot holes so big, you wouldn't have gotten away with it in Whizzer and Chips" and complained about the addition of things like "eggy in a basket", which he saw as an ill-researched attempt by Hollywood screenwriters to make an American dish sound English. Moore once again announced that he would no longer work for DC, which is owned by Warner Bros.

And this is an interesting blip about the creation of this "Watchmen" film:

Warner Bros. confirmed in June 2006 that Zack Snyder would direct a film adaptation of Watchmen,[52] which is set for release on March 6, 2009.[53] The cast includes Patrick Wilson, Malin Akerman, Jackie Earle Haley, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode and Jeffrey Dean Morgan.[54] Previously, directors including Paul Greengrass, Terry Gilliam,[55] Darren Aronofsky,[56] and screenwriter David Hayter have been attached to the project over the years.[57] While Moore believes that David Hayter's screenplay was "as close as I could imagine anyone getting to Watchmen," he asserted he did not intend to see the film if it were made.[58] Moore "refuses to have his name attached to any...films"[59] However, Gibbons has stated he feels Snyder can make a good film and is supporting him.[60]

I personally liked V for Vendetta, but I think anytime a comic/novel/graphic novel gets adapted to film, there is always the chance that the author of the original work is going to despise the contamination of his work.  They invest so much time and effort into it and hate to see someone misinterpret sections, leave out considerable plot points or just mess the entire thing up.  

You ever see the TV show "Californication"?  They take that concept and make a joke about it.  The main character's backstory is that he wrote a novel called, "God Hates us All" and it was adapted to crappy hollywood film called "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" starring Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. 

Anyway... maybe Alan Moore just doesn't want to see his work ruined... but with something that is considered to be the "greatest graphic novel of all time", I imagine it's going to be pretty difficult to pull it off as a film.  Especially from the hack director who did 300. 

Am I the only one who liked 300? I enjoy movies with good plots like most people but I think there is also something to be said of a testosterone pumping battle fest. It seems that a lot of people are not into those type of movies these days.

Nope, I liked the 300 alot too. A TP for a fellow "simpelton"

I don't understand why people feel that you can't be an intellectual but still like things that inspire base emotions. I can enjoy a good indie film, a good mystery, and a politcal message movie but that doesn't stop me from loving a knock down drag out butt kicking. TP back to you for being smart enough to enjoy something that's good.

I feel exactly the same way. A good example of this i got into recently was over the rundown. does anyone remeber the rundown? if was dumb, goofy fun, but a good action flick. One of my friends was saying how horrid it was and i said i liked it, and she procceded to tell me about all the plot holes. I was like "yea, it stars the rock and chistopher walken....i didn't really go in looking for good will hunting 2."

sometimes i just want to sit back and watch some ass kicking.

[LarBrd33]

But the plot just dragged, and things happened veeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slloooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllly in between battles

Sorry buddy, I just watched this movie again for the 4th time a few days ago and in no way is this movie 'slow' as you claim. You want a slow movie, sit through "The Good Shepard" or "The Aviator".

If you want to pick apart an obviously awesome movie to sound elite then make sure you know what your talking about. 

95% of the film that comes out of Hollywood is crap.  300 is in the other 5% no matter how you wanna spin it.

Incoherent.  I hear what you're saying man.  There is always going to be a place for some mindless action... like Rambo or something... or some random kung fu movie.  I hear you on that.   Any Excuse to see some visually stunning action sequences.  It gets the viewer's heart racing and it makes for a good popcorn flick.

But I think the whole genre taht 300 belongs in... where you have like Gladiator, Troy, Alexander, whatever  (you might even to be able to throw movies like Braveheart into that category)... there are better movies than "300".  Aside from the cool visuals it was a bad movie.  *shrug*   ... which is why critically it's considered pretty average.      

[LarBrd33]

crownsy.   The Rundown was better than 300, in my honest opinion.  I'm fine with some good ol fashioned fun.  Some goofy action and such.  That's fine.   I think my beef with 300 was that it took itself way too seriously.  It thought it was Braveheart, but it was just a bunch of really bad comicbook lines over a bunch of mindless action.

If we're just talking about seeing a movie with some good ol fashioned action and fun, I can handle that.   It's not like I'm an elitist.   I liked "Don't Mess with the Zohan", which is considered a pretty bad movie.  In fact, if given the option right now to watch "Don't Mess with the Zohan" (goofy comedy and dumb action) or "300", (pretty boring movie with some nice visuals)... I'm going to go with "Don't Mess with the Zohan".   At least that movie knew it was stupid. 

I mean when you eliminate plot, dialogue, storyline, character development... and merely focus a movie on eye candy... it just ends up kind of boring to me.   It's just a personal opinion.   Yes, I admit the eye candy in "300" was pretty great.   But heck, I'll admit the eye candy in "What Dreams May Come" was pretty impressive too.  It didn't make it any less boring.  It was a movie about Robin Williams going through heaven and hell to save his wife.  But it was really just an excuse for them to have some pretty images flashing on the screen.   I don't see the difference between that movie and "300"... except that 300 has more testosterone and violence associated with their mindless visuals.   (not surprised at all that they both got comparable ratings)

[crownsy]

crownsy.   The Rundown was better than 300, in my honest opinion.  I'm fine with some good ol fashioned fun.  Some goofy action and such.  That's fine.   I think my beef with 300 was that it took itself way too seriously.  It thought it was Braveheart, but it was just a bunch of really bad comicbook lines over a bunch of mindless action.

If we're just talking about seeing a movie with some good ol fashioned action and fun, I can handle that.   It's not like I'm an elitist.   I liked "Don't Mess with the Zohan", which is considered a pretty bad movie.  In fact, if given the option right now to watch "Don't Mess with the Zohan" (goofy comedy and dumb action) or "300", (pretty boring movie with some nice visuals)... I'm going to go with "Don't Mess with the Zohan".   At least that movie knew it was stupid. 

oh no doubt, i was just using that story to point out that sometimes people put to high a standered on every movie. I don't think thats what you've doen with 300 btw, you bring up some good points on why it wasen't super good in its genere.

what i was getting at, and mabey its a whole nother topic, as we've lost the watchman somewhere along the way, is that We've all met the people who think that if the story isn't epic, it can't be a good film though. I know several of those people. but sometimes you have to look at a movie in context of what its trying to do.

[Evantime34]

crownsy.   The Rundown was better than 300, in my honest opinion.  I'm fine with some good ol fashioned fun.  Some goofy action and such.  That's fine.   I think my beef with 300 was that it took itself way too seriously.  It thought it was Braveheart, but it was just a bunch of really bad comicbook lines over a bunch of mindless action.

If we're just talking about seeing a movie with some good ol fashioned action and fun, I can handle that.   It's not like I'm an elitist.   I liked "Don't Mess with the Zohan", which is considered a pretty bad movie.  In fact, if given the option right now to watch "Don't Mess with the Zohan" (goofy comedy and dumb action) or "300", (pretty boring movie with some nice visuals)... I'm going to go with "Don't Mess with the Zohan".   At least that movie knew it was stupid. 

I mean when you eliminate plot, dialogue, storyline, character development... and merely focus a movie on eye candy... it just ends up kind of boring to me.   It's just a personal opinion.   Yes, I admit the eye candy in "300" was pretty great.   But heck, I'll admit the eye candy in "What Dreams May Come" was pretty impressive too.  It didn't make it any less boring.  It was a movie about Robin Williams going through heaven and hell to save his wife.  But it was really just an excuse for them to have some pretty images flashing on the screen.   I don't see the difference between that movie and "300"... except that 300 has more testosterone and violence associated with their mindless visuals.   

The Rundown was better than 300? Really? Have you been hanging out with Josh Howard lately? Maybe chilled with the Birdman a little bit?

[Pawtucket Pat]

But the plot just dragged, and things happened veeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slloooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllly in between battles

Sorry buddy, I just watched this movie again for the 4th time a few days ago and in no way is this movie 'slow' as you claim. You want a slow movie, sit through "The Good Shepard" or "The Aviator".

If you want to pick apart an obviously awesome movie to sound elite then make sure you know what your talking about. 

I don't know why you have to get so angry and defensive. It's not like I said, "300 is a crappy movie and anyone who thinks differently is an idiot." I didn't like '300' for reasons I've already stated. It had some merit, but it wasn't a great film. More like a C+ sort of movie in my opinion.

If you take that to mean I'm trying to sound like an elitist, maybe you should explore your own insecurities. I like mindless action flicks as much as the next guy ('Shoot 'Em Up', 'The Rock', etc.), but '300' just wasn't that great.

[LarBrd33]

crownsy.   The Rundown was better than 300, in my honest opinion.  I'm fine with some good ol fashioned fun.  Some goofy action and such.  That's fine.   I think my beef with 300 was that it took itself way too seriously.  It thought it was Braveheart, but it was just a bunch of really bad comicbook lines over a bunch of mindless action.

If we're just talking about seeing a movie with some good ol fashioned action and fun, I can handle that.   It's not like I'm an elitist.   I liked "Don't Mess with the Zohan", which is considered a pretty bad movie.  In fact, if given the option right now to watch "Don't Mess with the Zohan" (goofy comedy and dumb action) or "300", (pretty boring movie with some nice visuals)... I'm going to go with "Don't Mess with the Zohan".   At least that movie knew it was stupid. 

oh no doubt, i was just using that story to point out that sometimes people put to high a standered on every movie. I don't think thats what you've doen with 300 btw, you bring up some good points on why it wasen't super good in its genere.

what i was getting at, and mabey its a whole nother topic, as we've lost the watchman somewhere along the way, is that We've all met the people who think that if the story isn't epic, it can't be a good film though. I know several of those people. but sometimes you have to look at a movie in context of what its trying to do.

Crowny, but that's why it is relevant to The Watchmen.  "The Watchmen" (according to the public) is the "greatest graphic novel of all time" due to it's depth and maturity.   And they picked a director who succeeded in relying on mindless visuals to carry "300".  (Previous to that it was the 2004 version of "Dawn of the Dead" which I haven't seen, but... how much can you expect from a zombie movie).   I think the fear people have after watching the teaser trailer for "The Watchmen" is that the director will dumb down the entire brilliance of "The Watchmen" to create another mindless, dumb action film.   I'd be worried if I were a fan of "The Watchmen" that this guy would turn the whole experience into a bunch of "oOOo... slow mo fighting..."  "ahh... beautiful set!".   I guess the fear is that Zack Snyder is like a poor man's Tim Burton using digital means, but without the ability to craft a story as well.

[incoherent]

Well, Gladiator and Troy are good films. Alexander is terrible, awful.

I don't put 300 in the same categorie as either of these movies.