Ebert* (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997) really liked it, and HR (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/film-review-watchmen-1003945726.story) apparently didn't. Thanks, Snyder, for alienating and/or scaring off the non-fans of this brilliant source material...
Quote
*In a cosmic sense it doesn?t really matter who pushed the Comedian through the window. In a cosmic sense, nothing really matters, but best not meditate on that too much.
^ omg, Roger
actually gets it! (The novel, I mean -- not commenting on metaphysical philosophy etc. ;)
Quote
The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I?m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It?s not as entertaining as ?The Dark Knight,? but like the ?Matrix? films, LOTR and ?The Dark Knight,? it?s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don?t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again.
I for one -- having recently read it, and starting to re-read it -- am DEFINITELY seeing it on IMAX before the end of March. Who's with me?
I'm hoping to see it tomorrow at the 4:10 showing at the City Centre theatre. Mr. A will probably be along as well.
Why such an odd time and location? I have my heart set on seeing it ASAP. Plus the roads and streets are bad which means my mobility is even more limited than usual. This'll be a big one whether or not it stays true to the themes of the comic on top of what I've already seen as impressive visuals.
Clever use of the Abbreviation tag to mutter out a spoiler below. Don't hover over it with your cursor if you don't want to know.
Enk.
Quote from: Tonnica on March 05, 2009, 04:07:40 PM
Enk.
WWWwwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaattt! Not going for sure now!
Quote from: Melbosa on March 05, 2009, 04:30:08 PMWWWwwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaattt! Not going for sure now!
lol
That's the most major diversion from the original I've heard about so far. It may affect things, it may not if they get the point of it across using a different method. Either way it'll be interesting to see what they've done.
Quote from: Tonnica on March 05, 2009, 04:07:40 PM
I'm hoping to see it tomorrow at the 4:10 showing at the City Centre theatre. Mr. A will probably be along as well.
Why such an odd time and location? I have my heart set on seeing it ASAP. Plus the roads and streets are bad which means my mobility is even more limited than usual. This'll be a big one whether or not it stays true to the themes of the comic on top of what I've already seen as impressive visuals.
Clever use of the Abbreviation tag to mutter out a spoiler below. Don't hover over it with your cursor if you don't want to know.
Enk.
dammit, I can't make it this weekend, would have to be next week at the earliest.
fine, go without me -- surely you will want to see it again (maybe first time non-IMAX, second one IMAX?)
Sure "it" might not be the "cause" of the "event" at the end of the story -- but I thought the psychic-terror aspect of the "event" was more fascinating anyway, so hopefully they'll show that in some kind of detail rather than just bodies and blood.
And don't forget one other major omission -- the Black Freighter story, completely not mentioned (although a separate DVD (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1295071/) coming out like next week, apparently)
Other than that, sounds like Snyder went the "Sin City" method and just used Gibbons' frames as his storyboard... with waaaaaaay too much slow-mo, apparently :P
I can't wait to see it, you'd think I'd have read Watchmen all the way through by now, but no!
the (theoretical) SCIENCE behind Dr. Manhattan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmj1rpzDRZ0
and the FX behind him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrwAfJSZLY
'Watchmen' Reviews Are In: Everyone Disagrees! (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1606477/story.jhtml) (lol)
Quote
What's the consensus on Zack Snyder's adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' universally lauded graphic novel?
Predictably, there isn't one. Critical reaction to the film has been split into three camps: those who immediately loved the book and now immediately love the movie (our own Kurt Loder called it a "monumental accomplishment"), those who love the book so much they believe the movie should never have been made, and those who never read the book and now are wondering, "Really? This junk is what everyone's so excited about?"
And so it goes. Will you love it? Hate it? Have you somehow never even heard of it? MTV News did the investigative work and now presents to you the good, the bad and the ugly "Watchmen" reviews.
The Good
"Fans of Alan Moore's landmark graphic novel, concerning a ring of Gotham superheroes brought out of retirement by an impending nuclear threat, will thrill to every pulpy line of dialogue and bloody act of retribution retained in director Zack Snyder's slavishly faithful adaptation." -- Justin Chang, Variety
"Honestly, if I have a complaint it is that the film feels brief to me. Two hours and 40 minutes and it went by like a blink for me. I easily would have patiently sat for another 2 hours, but that's me." -- Harry Knowles, Ain't It Cool News
"Another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It's a compelling visceral film -- sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it's not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope." -- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
The Bad
"Even 'Watchmen' fanatics may be doomed to a disappointment that results from trying to stay this faithful to a comic book. The opening-credit sequence has a marvelous audacity ... [but] once the film proper begins, Snyder, who did such a terrific job of adapting the solemn Olympian war porn of '300,' treats each image with the same stuffy hermetic reverence. He doesn't move the camera or let the scenes breathe. He crams the film with bits and pieces, trapping his actors like bugs wriggling in the frame." -- Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly
"Alan Moore was right. There isn't a movie in his landmark graphic novel 'Watchmen' -- at least not a really good one. What we get instead is something acceptable but pedestrian, an adaptation that is more a prisoner of its story than the master of it." -- Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times
" 'Watchmen' is a lighter version of very dark material. On its own, the movie is an efficient adrenaline delivery machine, occasionally taking flight and occasionally sputtering, but most often just motoring down a long road with colorful scenery to pass the time." -- Peter Martin, Cinematical.com
The Ugly
" 'Watchmen' features this year's hands-down winner of the bad movie sex award, superhero division: a moment of bliss that takes place on board Nite Owl's nifty little airship, accompanied by Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah.' " -- A.O. Scott, The New York Times
"The bad news about 'Watchmen' is that it grinds and squelches on for two and a half hours, like a major operation. The good news is that you don't have to stay past the opening credit sequence -- easily the highlight of the film." -- Anthony Lane, The New Yorker
"Whenever a fight begins (and there's one about every 15 minutes in this 160-minute movie), brace yourself for an abundance of narratively pointless bone-crunching, finger-twisting, limb-sawing, and skull-hacking. These extreme sports are often filmed in 'Matrix'-style slow motion, a technique that tends to grind the story to a halt. Like the money shots in porn movies, Snyder's action scenes are an end in themselves -- gratifying if you like that sort of thing, gross if you don't." -- Dana Stevens, Slate
Reviews are all over the place. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you really don't. I've already written up my walls of text elsewhere about the movie but in short: read the book before I saw it, liked it, will see again.
I'm totally up for seeing it at the IMAX, it's a good venue for this movie. It's the kind of movie to be surrounded by for a few hours.
There are parts in Watchmen that reach the point of over-the-top violence and that applies to both the book and the movie. The grittiness of the comic translates directly to exaggerated blood on the big screen. Those who don't like gore, be prepared to do some looking away.
There are bits and pieces that were glossed over to compact the story in to the time frame. The Black Freighter story is no longer part of the main storyline (but it is hinted at), the news stand scenes are trimmed down to a few short shots, Hollis Mason's death is not present, Rorschach's origins and psychoanalysis are trimmed down, he no longer jumps out of the fridge the first time he meets with Moloch, and he doesn't swipe sugar cubes from Night Owl. You bet your sweet butt the walls of text at the end of each chapter aren't present either.
These are all little niggly things that help to complete the book. give it and the reader a sense of dipping in to something more than just a comic with a blue dude that doesn't like pants. The movie while robust only manages to provide so much but what it does provide is visually faithful and does try to be reverent of the source material. Zack Snyder did a pretty good job. I'd challenge anyone else to do better.
And yes the sex scene in Archimedes is pretty bad looping all the way back to funny.
(Of course I would challenge others to do better. That would mean more Rorschach. But I digress, I'm just one of "those" fans.)
Quote from: Tonnica on March 09, 2009, 09:15:25 AM
And yes the sex scene in Archimedes is pretty bad* looping all the way back to funny.
(Of course I would challenge others to do better. That would mean more Rorschach. But I digress, I'm just one of "those" fans.)
heh, based on the first bolded text above, the second bolded text was not necessary to be said ;)
Also, * "Matrix Reloaded" bad or just "would fast-forward when watching at home with family members" bad?
IMAX this week anyone?
Quote from: Darren Dirt on March 09, 2009, 09:54:02 AM
heh, based on the first bolded text above, the second bolded text was not necessary to be said ;)
Also, * "Matrix Reloaded" bad or just "would fast-forward when watching at home with family members" bad?
lol busted. My propeller, it spins with
great force. I did whisper RRAAAARRL as Rorschach jumped through the window. Sigh.
A Saturday or Sunday showing would be ideal. They don't have the times posted for this weekend yet but I'll bet they'll have it starting between 12:00-2:00 PM.
Quote from: Tonnica on March 09, 2009, 10:23:51 AM
lol busted. My propeller, it spins with great force. I did whisper RRAAAARRL as Rorschach jumped through the window. Sigh.
hurm.
and on a "slightly silly" note...
Watchmen photoshop contest (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/03/06/how-do-you-ruin-watchmen-photoshop-contest-offers-a-good-place-to-start/) -- Gizmodo encourages its creative regulars to make obvious jokes visually come alive (http://gizmodo.com/5164202/104-ways-to-hilariously-ruin-the-watchmen-movie):
lolroxbury'd (http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/ruinedwatchmen/1007486553)
lolironman'd (http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/ruinedwatchmen/1007486679)
lolswayze'd (http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/ruinedwatchmen/1007486578)
lolnicholson'd (http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/ruinedwatchmen/1007486349)
lolwalle'd (http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/ruinedwatchmen/1007486469)
lolLHC'd (http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/ruinedwatchmen/1007486684)
lolzod'd (http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/ruinedwatchmen/1007486444)
^ saved you some time :)
and, elsewhere... loleasteregg'd (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1606068/20090227/story.jhtml)
Saturday Morning Watchmen (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797) (I changed my mind, I no longer "miss the 80s*")
also, apparently Directors Cut Theatrical Release (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/022009-watchmen-movie-directors-cut-dvd.php) might be coming... and it even includes dialogue between the Bernies (!)
*I really really don't. (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/022009-watchmen-viral-video-mtv-spoof.php)
a glowing, motivating review: http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/030609-watchmen-movie-review.php
Also more of the viral marketing: "being vigilant isn't a crime, being a vigilante is" (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/02/05/new-watchmen-viral-video-hits-the-net-get-to-know-the-keene-act/)
(more here (http://www.youtube.com/user/thenewfrontiersman) and, not surprisingly, here (http://www.thenewfrontiersman.net/))
...and for you Moore purists...
Alan Moore talks: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CD8A370BD4702DB9
As a fan of the graphic novel, I've been pretty excited to see it. It fulfilled all my nerd dreams, and then some, but then again, I'd watch traffic if Zack Snyder directed it.
My aside rant:
In the opening-night screening I went to, I saw several famillies with young (5-10 year old) children in tow. Apparently the 18A rating didn't set off any warning bells. How clueless can a person be? I thought to myself "Nice work, parent-of-the-year. Hope you pencilled in some time for questions about murder, rape, and Dr. M's generous endowment later on this evening".
Quote from: HandsomeDevil on March 09, 2009, 03:18:55 PM
In the opening-night screening I went to, I saw several famillies with young (5-10 year old) children in tow. Apparently the 18A rating didn't set off any warning bells.
Reading the sentence "2-minute slow-motion love scene that is borderline pornography" convinced me my 13 year old son can wait until DVD wherein the FFWD button will come in handy. I mean, the broken-bones-through-the-skin, and the boiling-fat-in-the-face I think he's seen worse on CSI, but the extremes Snyder apparently went to, a few might be a bit *too* unnecessary...
Quote from: Darren Dirt on March 09, 2009, 04:20:54 PM
Quote from: HandsomeDevil on March 09, 2009, 03:18:55 PM
In the opening-night screening I went to, I saw several famillies with young (5-10 year old) children in tow. Apparently the 18A rating didn't set off any warning bells.
Reading the sentence "2-minute slow-motion love scene that is borderline pornography" convinced me my 13 year old son can wait until DVD wherein the FFWD button will come in handy. I mean, the broken-bones-through-the-skin, and the boiling-fat-in-the-face I think he's seen worse on CSI, but the extremes Snyder apparently went to, a few might be a bit *too* unnecessary...
Your son's lucky. Mine'll have to wait to watch 18A movies until he figures out how to properly fake ID, like I had to!
Well, I made the mistake of getting him the graphic novel in February before I heard about the final rating/contents, and now he is so totally wanting to see it "on the BIG screen" ... dang, my fault...
The movie is raw, honest and to the point.
I've read a lot of user reviews that found the movie confusing... it ain't. I've read a lot of reviews that compare it too the graphic novel and say it falls short. Not having read the graphic novel I will say two things; nerds will always prefer the source over a movie, the movie will always cut out some stuff you like.
I quite enjoyed this film on a number of levels, it has a pretty good story in itself, the acting is pretty good given the subject matter, the special effects are well done and not overplayed. In fact I really didn't find much to dislike about the film (well, the "humour" at the very end made me roll my eyes).
It's full of great characters that you will love, some thought provoking stuff in between about the nature of the American ego and maybe man's nature itself. Without gushing everywhere, I really liked this film and I look forward to finishing the graphic novel. I urge everyone to see this if you like action, humour, storytelling and a fresh, intriguing mythos to explore.
This is definitely one of those films you will kick yourself for not seeing in the theatre later.
Watchmen inspired Roger Ebert to teach you about quantum theory...
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus.html
Looks like there's a very detailed Wiki for all those who have only briefly skim-read the graphic novel (i.e. didn't take the time to read all the "book" excerpts etc.)
http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Under_the_Hood
http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Rorschach%27s_journal
etc.
I feel like a bit of a goofball as I didn't answer your earlier question directly Darren. The sex scene in question does visibly and clearly portray sex. It does not cut away or hide anything for the 20 seconds-or-so long scene and if someone were to walk in to a room they would think you were watching as a friend of mine put it
"Skinimax". If he's already read the book he knows the scene is in there but on the big screen it's very explicit (read: Nite Owl II's butt you won't be able to un-see it).
Quote from: Darren Dirt on March 10, 2009, 02:11:10 AM
Watchmen inspired Roger Ebert to teach you about quantum theory...
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus.html
This is an interesting article that's a bit stream-of-consciousness after Ebert's second viewing. He's reaching deeply in to the story and pulling out some interesting thoughts. I'm pretty convinced that Mr. Ebert is a member of the targeted audience of this movie simply due to his reaction of digging deeper.
I also find it
hilarious and maybe a subtle statement that he's mostly talking about Manhattan but the images in the article are mostly of Rorschach. It seems to me that Manhattan has made him think via dialogue and Rorschach's image has stuck with him due to the scenery-chewing visual accuracy.
(Also not a dig at you Mr. Dirt but I appreciate that you're putting these articles in to new posts. It's easy for me to tell when you've posted something new because of the post count. :D)
Quote from: Tonnica on March 10, 2009, 12:04:25 PM
(Also not a dig at you Mr. Dirt but I appreciate that you're putting these articles in to new posts. It's easy for me to tell when you've posted something new because of the post count. :D)
No dig taken, in fact clearly it's a compliment, and a hard-earned one at that... cuz after years of OCD forum spamming, it goes against my nature to (mostly) resist clicking the "modify" button ;)
wow, considering his age and health issues, it's amazing that Roger Ebert manages to 'reply' to SO MANY of the comments on his blog. The following is among the lengthier, and deeper, of those replies, and its intelligence and sincerity is what moved me to comment on this unexpected gift Mr. Ebert provides to his readers...
Quote
By Eric M. Van on March 6, 2009 11:11 PM
Me: "[according to David Bohm's alternative to Quantum Mechanics] every particle in the universe is connected to and influences every other particle simultaneously."
Roger: "Connected to and influences," okay. But how?
I dreamed Roger Ebert asked me to explain nonlocality to him . . no wait, that really happened!
...the EPR thought experiment has actually been performed in the lab, by Alain Aspect and others. And now that nonlocality has been established as real, there is no longer any objection to some version of Bohm's theory being correct. And the physics community has embraced the notion; many top physicists are now adamant that QM will be replaced by some "hidden variable" theory (the generic term for Bohm-like theories, where you add something previously unrecognized to QM to get rid of the randomness and fix its other paradoxes and problems).
So, to answer the question: there may be a force which connects all particles instantaneously; it would have to be mediated by tachyons (particles that travel faster than the speed of light). Or perhaps space-time is nothing like what we think it is, and there is a layer of reality deeper than space-time in which widely separated points in space are actually next to each other. I actually think both of these things are true, to some extent. But whoever nails down the details will be a big-time physics hero (for one thing, I think there will be no progress in theoretical physics at all until this problem is solved, and that once it is solved, the floodgates open).
Ebert: Your writing has such clarity that I now understand the nature of my question, and I comprehend why no one can be expected to have the answer, although many are engaged in the search. I had an editor who said that if a journalist cannot explain something clearly, he doesn't understand it. You have taken that another step, by clearly explaining what it is that no one understands.
I have learned so much from these comments. One thing I learned is that QM existed in the first place as a series of mathematical equations. Now you tell me that the EPR thought experiment has been performed in the lab. I believe I read about that in the NYTimes.
I suppose it was too much to expect the universe to be Newtonian right down to the bottom, under all those turtles. Below things like atoms and their parts, something else lurks, and if the lurkers are what somehow constitutes matter , then they must not themselves be matter. What, then, is left but space and time--which, neither one being matter, do not number "location" among their attributes? So to describe them as being connected or not being connected is beside the point. Even though it seems they may be.
It works for me as an idea. A rather beautiful one. I am still completely in the dark, but now I have something to think about, to pass the time.
300+ comments, most of them thought-provoking and extremely non-rude, in response to a movie critic's review of a "thinking" comic book movie... 2009 is looking to be a great, challenging, and overall progressive and positive year!
For those that can't get out to the theater and want some thing more passive than reading a book you might want to checkout the motion comic
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/watchmen-motion-comics-episodes.php
I am just about done it. It is done very well. Sort of like a hybrid between an audio book, comic and a cartoon.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on March 09, 2009, 04:20:54 PM
Reading the sentence "2-minute slow-motion love scene that is borderline pornography" convinced me my 13 year old son can wait until DVD wherein the FFWD button will come in handy. I mean, the broken-bones-through-the-skin, and the boiling-fat-in-the-face I think he's seen worse on CSI, but the extremes Snyder apparently went to, a few might be a bit *too* unnecessary...
Having seen the movie now, I have to say the various attempts at copulation isn't what would keep me from letting my child see the movie. Whoever compared that one successful copulation to nearly porn obviously hasn't been on the internet long enough to see what porn really looks like.
For me, it's the violent spurts in the movie, especially when people are simply exploded or meat-cleaver'd in the head.
That's something that will give younger kids (8-13ish) nightmares and older kids (14ish+) ideas of what to imitate when adults aren't around. Throw in that the violent spurts are separated by long "character/plot-building" segments that may well bore the kids, and all they'll remember is when the bad guys explode from the inside out and their bloody skeletal remains are stuck to the ceiling.
Hell, I'd much rather that kids see and learn how to have sex than that they see and learn how to properly meat-cleaver someone in the head.
I don't think it's a film for children anyway, I believe they'd be bored to tears not understanding what's going on or how everything's related.
Subtlety is not for kids, this movie is all about subtlety clenched in a fist.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on March 13, 2009, 12:30:13 AM
I don't think it's a film for children anyway, I believe they'd be bored to tears not understanding what's going on or how everything's related.
Subtlety is not for kids, this movie is all about subtlety clenched in a fist.
My son absolutely
loved the graphic novel... Last week he and I were "fighting" over who gets to re-read it first ;) but yeah, I presume most "normal" kids who aren't familiar with character-driven "action" movies will not enjoy it. ...of course, I found out last night that most of his friends have already seen it (!) and some even did it the on-the-internets way ::) So am I sheltering my son too much? Will it be pointless just waiting for the DVD? ...unsure... Saturday matinee anyone? So I can judge for myself?
Quote from: Darren Dirt on March 13, 2009, 09:39:59 AM
I found out last night that most of his friends have already seen it (!) and some even did it the on-the-internets way ::) So am I sheltering my son too much?
While attempting not to sound like an over-obsessive judgemental parent, I would suggest the following questions for these friends' parents:
1. My son says your child has seen this 18A movie. Is that true, or is my son simply trying to manipulate me into letting him go? (for those that supposedly saw it on the Internet) Did you know that your child claims to have watched it on the Internet?
2. Have you seen this movie yourself?
3. Are you okay with exposing your child to the following concepts or graphic images:
a. (concept) Women are nothing but whores, men are nothing but filth
b. (concept) Men will abduct children, kill them, and feed them to their dogs
c. (graphic image) Other men will avenge said children by meat-cleavering the Bad Men in the head repeatedly
d. (concept) Men will beat women up and then rape them whenever they feel like, and laugh about it
e. (graphic image) This is what a beaten-up woman about to get raped looks like: submissive
f. (graphic image) Soldiers with their hands in the air should be burned alive for the fun of it
g. (concept) Highly pregnant women demanding help from the man that impregnated them should be shoved aside
h. (graphic image) See g. -> He kills her when she gets pushy about demanding that he stick around
etc
4. Does your child understand the movie's concept and the many intricate moralities at play?
Research has shown that young kids' brains work in such a way that a lot of what they experience lays the foundation for how they will think and moralize as adults. Young kids' brains soak everything in, and adapt and change to the stimulus being entered. This adapting and changing decreases around age 8 (7 to 9), and picks up again at the onset of puberty.
When a child watches a movie like Watchmen and then discusses it at length with a caring parent or other adult, the child garners a lot of information, much of it affecting how they think and how they moralize. When a child does not discuss the movie with adults, they miss out on most of the morality lessons as they
don't know to look for them. Instead, they watch what happens in the movie and think this is normal behaviour - after all, the adults in the movie are
doing it, and the adults in the theater seem
excited and happy when watching it. When these children become adults they may seem callous based on the morals they picked up during childhood. The same argument is made against children watching porn movies.
So to return to your question about friends who claim to have seen it, I would surmise that:
a. Many friends are lying about having seen it (it's junior high, they gotta look cool!),
b. Some friends have parents that don't care about/have time for instilling their children's moral compass,
c. Some friends have parents that are completely unaware or uncaring about their child's internet activities, and
d. One or a few have parents that
do care, let their child see the movie, and then discussed the concepts and morality lessons in the movie
Kids
are able to think critically, but it's
hard and kids on the whole prefer to do things that they find
easy unless the hard thing has some kind of reward (generally social status or money or feel-good vibes, in that order). Thus if we want them to think critically we have to encourage it as adults. And many adults just don't bother because they're too busy with their own lives.
good list of questions.
Sunday matinee better for anyone?
Quote from: Darren Dirt on March 13, 2009, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on March 13, 2009, 12:30:13 AM
I don't think it's a film for children anyway, I believe they'd be bored to tears not understanding what's going on or how everything's related.
Subtlety is not for kids, this movie is all about subtlety clenched in a fist.
My son absolutely loved the graphic novel... Last week he and I were "fighting" over who gets to re-read it first ;) but yeah, I presume most "normal" kids who aren't familiar with character-driven "action" movies will not enjoy it. ...of course, I found out last night that most of his friends have already seen it (!) and some even did it the on-the-internets way ::) So am I sheltering my son too much? Will it be pointless just waiting for the DVD? ...unsure... Saturday matinee anyone? So I can judge for myself?
Your boy is a teen though isn't he? I'd be surprised if he wasn't interested.
Anyone up for a matinee today? I'm kid-free and still wanna see it on IMAX.
edit: ...aw crap, I think MONSTERS has taken its place hasn't it? >:(
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 04, 2009, 09:11:54 AM
Anyone up for a matinee today? I'm kid-free and still wanna see it on IMAX.
edit: ...aw crap, I think MONSTERS has taken its place hasn't it? >:(
Phone man... doesn't anyone call anyone anymore? I must admit, I check the forums erratically on weekends. Didn't even see this post till Monday morning (obviously I didn't even check these forums since Friday night).
Quote from: Melbosa on April 06, 2009, 08:16:08 AM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 04, 2009, 09:11:54 AM
Anyone up for a matinee today? I'm kid-free and still wanna see it on IMAX.
edit: ...aw crap, I think MONSTERS has taken its place hasn't it? >:(
Phone man... doesn't anyone call anyone anymore? I must admit, I check the forums erratically on weekends. Didn't even see this post till Monday morning (obviously I didn't even check these forums since Friday night).
lol -- sorry, I found out 7pm on Friday that I might actually have Saturday afternoon free. Then I found out about 2pm on Saturday that I was wrong, so glad I didn't go (ended up seeing MvA with the kids on Sunday, though... and looks like I was right, that the 3D Watchmen is an opportunity missed).
Quote from: Melbosa on April 06, 2009, 08:16:08 AM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 04, 2009, 09:11:54 AM
Anyone up for a matinee today? I'm kid-free and still wanna see it on IMAX.
edit: ...aw crap, I think MONSTERS has taken its place hasn't it? >:(
Phone man... doesn't anyone call anyone anymore? I must admit, I check the forums erratically on weekends. Didn't even see this post till Monday morning (obviously I didn't even check these forums since Friday night).
Actually, I'm not all that sure I have your phone number anymore... :noes:
LOL my number hasn't changed in years! Shame on you not keeping those contact records between phones. I'll pm you my numbers.
Quote from: Melbosa on April 09, 2009, 08:23:34 AM
LOL my number hasn't changed in years! Shame on you not keeping those contact records between phones. I'll pm you my numbers.
Well, I have your old cell phone from like eight years ago but it don't work no mo'
Saw it over the weekend.. Seems rather faithful, at least compared to the motion comic I have for reference. I think the changes to the ending made more sense in a real world setting.
I have it, but haven't watched it... I'll weigh in on it after I have had a chance myself.
Quote from: Melbosa on July 06, 2009, 01:49:07 PM
I have it, but haven't watched it... I'll weigh in on it after I have had a chance myself.
You still haven't seen Watchmen? Is it even in theatres still?
Well the women and me sat down to watch it last night. I've never read the graphic novel or seen the motion comic.
As a movie itself, it was alright. Maybe I've been spoiled by the new Star Trek, Dark Knight and Transformers 2, but I think they were by far better movies. This one, although as I said was alright, just seemed a bit slow and awkward.
Meh, each his own. My weigh-in as promised.
Quote from: Melbosa on July 07, 2009, 08:14:53 AM
Well the women and me sat down to watch it last night.
I'm assuming "womEn" was a typo... Although it would be grammatically correct if you now have a harem. :P
Or you're assuming that by saying women, I was talking about multiple women I was intimately involved with. The GF and her friend was over when we watched it, so women is the correct term. :P ;)
You know two girls? Unpossable!
But yeah, you're right, I was assuming you were referring to women you're intimately involved with.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on March 05, 2009, 05:23:46 PM
And don't forget one other major omission -- the Black Freighter story, completely not mentioned (although a separate DVD (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1295071/) coming out like next week, apparently)
Looks like "Motion Comic DVDs" are becoming more popular... at last in geek-friendly content:
http://www.cinemablend.com/dvdnews/Buffy-Season-8-Is-Becoming-A-Motion-Comic-Series-Coming-To-DVD-Has-A-Trailer-26003.html
remember the "Saturday Morning Cartoon" version of "The Watchmen"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
Check out some other "what would they be like, cartoonified" iconic film treatments...
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_182_if-every-movie-got-saturday-morning-cartoon/
semi-related -- especially check out #2 and #1 (if you dare!)
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_143_if-every-website-got-dramatic-movie-adaptation/
Millhouse holding up the "Watchmen Babies" comic -- coming true to a theatre near you?
http://www.avclub.com/articles/watchmen-prequel-to-explore-character-backstories,68628/
Okay maybe not a THEATRE, but a comic store, yes, apparently.
(http://cdn.ientry.com/sites/webpronews/pictures/alanmooreispissed_320x245.jpg) (http://www.webpronews.com/before-watchmen-prequel-2012-02)
lol: some really funny parody* comic cover art here:
http://ifanboy.com/articles/dc-announces-before-watchmen/
edit: *oh wait, those things are REAL?
It's been A DECADE.
So... watch "Watchmen - Ten Years Later" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg46bZsdhng
Then, to wash off the #SeriousBusiness face, for lulz flash back to this classic https://www.youtube.com/user/HarryPartridge/search?query=Watchmen
PS: yeesh, my son at the time of this thread was 13... and right now looking back, I can't say for sure if I was sarcastic or not in some of my posts in the thread above. #WhoAmI
PPS:
Kinda weird after all these years that most of us still basically never use this BB code -- especially would be useful as a spoiler, like it was used ITT