I actually really liked Watchmen i thought it told the point of the movie in a filmic way which was quite good. The sex scene is a little bit ridicilous but i can bear it.
I actually really liked Watchmen i thought it told the point of the movie in a filmic way which was quite good. The sex scene is a little bit ridicilous but i can bear it.
Don't get how people can take V for Vendetta seriously. It's so absurdly heavy handed and one dimensional I thought it was intended to be a send up.
That's Moore's shtick though; he's a deconstructor of notions. V for Vendetta was fairly obvious, but then it carried a clearer message of the two and I thought it was Watchmen that came off worse. (Film versions only here)
Just saw The Avengers (or 'Marvel Avengers Assemble' as it is stupidly titled here) and was totally floored by it.
First film in a while that I'd actually consider going back to the cinema to see a second time. Really enjoyable.
Also my first experience with this '3D' nonsense. I didn't even realise the film was in 3D until I the moment I bought the tickets, so I had to grudgingly fork over extra cash for the glasses.
I can't say it added much to the experience, as I stopped noticing it after five minutes. I'd rather have watched a non-3D version just to see the film without looking through a grey filter.
The fact they force you to watch it in 3D is absurd, it's distracting and it's surely not the 2 extra bucks worth.Originally Posted by airtekh
But also just seen the Avengers, Amazing, funny jokes and even the dialogues are interesting and funny. The new Bruce Banner is also great.
And that after the credits part blew my mind and am pretty sure the only one in the group who knew who it was.
Steam | Origin: xRavelle | Skype: TheRavelle | PSN: Voltburn | Watch me struggle through my backlog
Ju-on: The Grudge is an awful movie. I re-watched Tale of Two Sisters the other day, and now I want to watch that again just to get the taste of Ju-on out of my mouth.
Why, you ask? For starters, the monster's trademark is the Ol' Dirty Bastard creak... Quite possibly the least terrifying noise in the world to me.
ditto. Especially the last words spoken in the movie and that badass smile after he heard them. such a massive nerdgasm
Why are you blaming Moore for something he had no hand in?
Personally, since I've all but stopped watching movies in theaters, I'm currently watching The Bridge on the River Kwai on Turner Classic Movies.
I thought it worked well, but obviously it's quite a divisive film. While not in keeping with all the content, I thought it was the more faithful of the two adaptations. I don't know why, I guess something about Watchmen just left me missing something.
I'm not, simply commenting on the fact that of the two films, I personally thought that V was more in keeping with the graphic novel, yet it was the one Moore disowned. Besides, Moore seems quite antagonistic anyhow. I imagine he wouldn't be truly happy with a film version unless it was someone reading out the novel, shown on screen, in real-time.
Moore "disowns" all adaptations*, because he feels they can't be adapted. It's not "we should show someone reading the novel," it's "don't fucking bother."
*You can't disown something you never owned. He never had anything to do with any adaptations.
Oh? I thought he was just particularly vocal about V and at least consulted with both. Fair enough then, I stand corrected on that front.
That being said, it's a shame he holds that view in a sense. Obviously graphic novels have greater movement than straight up novels, but there's a vibrancy that film does capture and I think arguably can show you a little bit more. I'm not saying everything should ever be adapted, but especially works like those that Moore have done would surely stand to being the better ones for it considering how layered they are.
Of course, but from that you can derive levels of faithfulness. I'll use Scott Pilgrim as an example as I think it highlights my point well; the graphic novels obviously have a lot more content in them, but they are unquestionably brought to life by film. Colours (completely absent in the novels) and sound makes the world vibrant and alive. It obviously tells a different story, it has to because those 2 hours couldn't compare with the, say, 6-8 or so it took to read, but the concepts, the characters were utterly faithful and near-enough the same story, but in a different manner. I feel the same can be said of V for Vendetta, that it captures the spirit more-than well-enough to convey the same points as in the graphic novel.
If anything, I think trying to stick to the source material too closely results in boredom. You either already know the story or you severely limit the imagination and creativity you provide as your own entertainment while reading. Anyhow, this is going slightly OT and I really should get back to my dissertation! (Once this is all over, perhaps I can find a laughably-bad horror film about lack of sleep to make myself feel better. Go, Pepsi, go!)
I don't think so (but then I would say that!). Like I said, I strongly believe faithfulness is an important aspect. You are not going to be telling the story 1:1. I cannot argue that, it simply isn't possible. So that's a given. What I am saying is that in the different story you tell, you expand on the pre-existing material so that it becomes a differing expansion that is accurate to the universe the original material is in. That, for me, makes a good adaptation. Changing the character, atmosphere, etc. negatively impact and at that point, I think you miss the point of doing an adaptation.
To simply highlight that is reductionist of my argument; I'm talking about faithfulness to the canon, not a 100% conversion. Now, with V for Vendetta, I believe that it feels as part of the universe as the graphic novel it is from. In comparison, I felt Watchmen didn't quite do it justice. I think it was the small things; Night Owl is more of an attractive person in contrast to a significantly older and less...groomed as he is in the novel.
Was it the adaptation or the original? The adaptation's boring as fuck while the other gave me a few jump scares, at least.
But I gotta say, Thai horror movies are much better than the Japanese horrors in my experience
Bah! My blog is fulla bollox! What? Don't believe me?Here! Just look at it!
Was that sound suppose to be scary? Horror movies today aim either for shock reaction or shock value, which are most of the time Slashers or Ghost Hunter movies which I both consider not being horror movies.
Steam | Origin: xRavelle | Skype: TheRavelle | PSN: Voltburn | Watch me struggle through my backlog
Saw the Avengers with friends the other day. I think I would have been bored by it had I been watching it alone though but making light of it with friends made it very enjoyable. The movie gets enjoyable when you begin to revel in the ridiculousness on display. The bad acting, corny one-liners you see in comics and humor were pretty fun but what was funnier was Samuel Jackson butting into every scene without actually doing anything except scowl. The scene where he tried to take out a nuke carrying fighter with a bazooka had us in splits.
I think Avengers is a superhero movie done right and is much better than the third Transformers movie which has the same storyline. I guess the reason for this is that The Avengers does not try to pull any pretense over what it really is. You have the director unabashedly use the tropes and conventions of the genre, with a certain panache of course and the tone of the movie remains light throughout rather than one-liners between having lots of people die in every other scene. The large cast is distinctive and doesn't end up being a confused and disjointed mess.
I'm no expert on Moore or his works or even their adaptations, but as I understand it one of the objections purists had to V for Vendetta was that it misrepresented the original text, which was more about contrasting two forms of extremism and painted neither of them in a particularly flattering light, whereas the film, in its rush to incorporate contemporary events and themes, definitely sided with one over the other. This strikes me as a very reasonable basis for objecting to the adaptation, although it has no force for me personally.
I don't get how one can miss the basic relationship between non-realistic renderings and their utility in communicating themes in ways which in more realistic contexts would seem heavy-handed, trite, or one-dimensional ... but apparently it is possible.
I am interested to know what you mean by this; I am not terribly well acquainted with Baz Luhrmann (although I have seen Strictly Ballroom and Moulin Rouge!) but Zack Snyder is now quite solidly on my radar following Sucker Punch.
Last edited by Rii; 06-05-2012 at 05:26 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
