Wonder why manhattan has such a severe case of blue balls with all his powers?
[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
Wonder why manhattan has such a severe case of blue balls with all his powers?[/quote]
Laurie was a little freaked out.
Best Character
Something I just recently thought about… I didn’t mind when Nightowl and Rorschach didn’t go back to his apartment to pickup his spare costume,… but it leaves out the book scene where he confronts his landlady (prostitute) who has made up lies about him to the news crews. Just when he’s about to dish out some sort of consequence, he looks at the young child clinging to his whore-mother’s skirt and there is an obvious parallel to his own childhood. I always thought that was a great scene, but we missed out on some good character development moments in the movie version.
S
Scott Tipton over at Comics 101 has posted his weekly article with his thoughts on the Watchmen film. Y’all fans of the movie and book might like to give it a read.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
It was actually road warrior on the screens, not mad max, however I agree. I think it was a subtle reference to the removal of the rorshach bit earlier. [/quote]
At the risk of reading into things a little too deeply, the footage of Road Warrior could also could be a reference to the threat of nuclear holocaust. It’s appropriate that Veidt would be watching something that represents the very thing he is trying to avert…
With Watchmen, there is never a risk of looking at things too deeply.
With the Movie… well, I’m willing to give Snyder and Co. Some leeway, but not much. They sapped almost all of the really interesting material from the book, and replaced it with pedestrian social commentary of the Al Gore variety.
What is with you guys and your deep thinking?
They also had Rambo II and Porn on the screen. Yes, porn. The upper right hand corner. I saw boobs. Two girls kissing. With all your deep thinking, you guys didn’t even notice Rambo and Porn.
What a joke.
Who are you talking to? and why do you assume that they didn’t notice those movies as well?
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
What is with you guys and your deep thinking?
They also had Rambo II and Porn on the screen. Yes, porn. The upper right hand corner. I saw boobs. Two girls kissing. With all your deep thinking, you guys didn’t even notice Rambo and Porn.
What a joke.[/quote]
There was porn in Rambo 2?
[quote]roybot wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
What is with you guys and your deep thinking?
They also had Rambo II and Porn on the screen. Yes, porn. The upper right hand corner. I saw boobs. Two girls kissing. With all your deep thinking, you guys didn’t even notice Rambo and Porn.
What a joke.
There was porn in Rambo 2?
[/quote]
Watch the movie again and look up at the upper right hand corner. On one screen, you see Rambo running with his Bow and Arrow. On the screen beside, 80’s porn. And you also see a douchebag watching the TV screens (Ozy).
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Who are you talking to? and why do you assume that they didn’t notice those movies as well?[/quote]
YOU!
Give us an example of how deep the book is? What part in the book made you think : “This book…is so…cries deep”
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Watch the movie again and look up at the upper right hand corner. On one screen, you see Rambo running with his Bow and Arrow. On the screen beside, 80’s porn. And you also see a douchebag watching the TV screens (Ozy).
[/quote]
Snyder has made it clear in interviews that he would be inserting references to various movies throughout Watchmen - the idea was to mirror Alan Moore’s frequent references to other comic-books. It was Snyder’s intention that movie enthusiasts would pick up on these…
Considering that, it is hardly a “joke” or “deep thinking” to discuss the imagery within the movie. I mean, it’s not as if we are attempting a frame-by-frame breakdown of the movie, or trying to link Snyder’s directorial style with the French New Wave.
Whether or not there is actually anything to be found is kind of beside the point really. This thread was created to discuss the movie, after all.
[quote]roybot wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Watch the movie again and look up at the upper right hand corner. On one screen, you see Rambo running with his Bow and Arrow. On the screen beside, 80’s porn. And you also see a douchebag watching the TV screens (Ozy).
Snyder has made it clear in interviews that he would be inserting references to various movies throughout Watchmen - the intention was to mirror Alan Moore’s frequent references to other comic-books. It was Snyder’s intention that movie enthusiasts would pick up on these…
Considering that, it is hardly a “joke” or “deep thinking” to discuss the imagery within the movie. I mean, it’s not as if we are attempting a frame-by-frame breakdown of the movie, or trying to link Snyder’s directorial style with the French New Wave.
The Watchmen movie had to appeal to fans of the book, comic book fans, action movie fans, and assholes who’s opinions don’t matter. He did the best possible adaptation considering the book is devoid of any real action. He maintained some depth that the Watchmen fans wouldn’t kill themselves.
Movie was great. I just want a watchmen book discussion thread. Only a handful of people read the book before seeing the movie.
Whether or not there is actually anything to be found is kind of beside the point really. This thread was created to discuss the movie, after all.
[/quote]
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Who are you talking to? and why do you assume that they didn’t notice those movies as well?
YOU!
Give us an example of how deep the book is? What part in the book made you think : “This book…is so…cries deep”[/quote]
The depth of the book is not in specifics. That is what makes it unique. There is hardly an inch worth of ink in the entire thing that does not possess some relevance, or some reference.The entire book is interconnected with itself, but also with culture, contemporary and historic. With psychology, philosophy, commentary on life the universe and everything. Each panel, each line of dialog, the placement of both. Recurrent motifs and statements are put against other motifs and other statements that either share commonality or stark differences. The depth of the book is in the attention to detail. It is not just a story with some pretty pictures attached to it.
Besides that, who the fuck are you to get one anyone’s case about their interpretation of a book? Does it really offend you if someone likes something you don’t? or see something differently than you do? or comprehends something you don’t? are you so petty? Are you so weak that you become intimidated and threatened by anything that might conceivably have a level of interpretation not immediately present? Do you need help taking a shit too?
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
WolBarret wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Who are you talking to? and why do you assume that they didn’t notice those movies as well?
YOU!
Give us an example of how deep the book is? What part in the book made you think : “This book…is so…cries deep”
The depth of the book is not in specifics. That is what makes it unique. There is hardly an inch worth of ink in the entire thing that does not possess some relevance, or some reference.The entire book is interconnected with itself, but also with culture, contemporary and historic. With psychology, philosophy, commentary on life the universe and everything. Each panel, each line of dialog, the placement of both. Recurrent motifs and statements are put against other motifs and other statements that either share commonality or stark differences. The depth of the book is in the attention to detail. It is not just a story with some pretty pictures attached to it.
Besides that, who the fuck are you to get one anyone’s case about their interpretation of a book? Does it really offend you if someone likes something you don’t? or see something differently than you do? or comprehends something you don’t? are you so petty? Are you so weak that you become intimidated and threatened by anything that might conceivably have a level of interpretation not immediately present? Do you need help taking a shit too?
[/quote]
First paragraph response: Hurm.
Second paragraph response: Yes on all accounts. I also need help wiping my ass. Flush the toilet when you’re done as well.
Simple and to the point.
No, I think I’ll leave you with the shit in your pants.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
No, I think I’ll leave you with the shit in your pants.[/quote]
There’s always next time, Mal. See you in the G.I. Joe movie discussion thread. We’ll talk about the minor details of the Baroness’s boobs.
I would be up for an entire movie about Rorschach. He was awesome.
The rest of the movie was OK, but I wasn’t thrilled about it, and I read the book.
Things I didn’t like: (SPOILERS)
-
The love story b/w Night Owl and Silk Spectre. But I didn’t like that part of the book either. It served no purpose in the story. None. But at least we got to see her naked.
-
The ending change. Uniting against alien aggression is one thing. Uniting against a God is another. I agree that it would have been hard to make the alien thing come off as anything but completely hokey and lame, but I don’t like what they did instead.
-
They cut out all the stuff with the newspaper vendor talking about impending doom with his customers. I realize they had a lot to cram into a short time frame, but I think that was something they couldn’t do without. It would have set the tension much better than all the ridiculous nonsense with Tricky Dick in the warroom.
-
There was enough cock and man-ass in this movie to sink a small battleship. This could have easily been cured by having Carla Gugino topless for at least 5 minutes. I don’t care if that’s not in the book, that’s what had to be done.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
The Watchmen movie had to appeal to fans of the book, comic book fans, action movie fans, and assholes who’s opinions don’t matter. He did the best possible adaptation considering the book is devoid of any real action. He maintained some depth that the Watchmen fans wouldn’t kill themselves.
Movie was great. I just want a watchmen book discussion thread. Only a handful of people read the book before seeing the movie.
[/quote]
Trouble is, the majority of people aren’t going to want to only discuss the GN. I would think that most would want to make at least some comparison between the book and movie versions.
There really wasn’t much point in jumping on us for making two throwaway observations about the inclusion of some footage from Road Warrior, when people have complained about how Doc Manhattan’s dick got star billing (Who knows…Snyder might have included that porno footage to flip the bird to people who whinge about the lack of female nudity in the movie -I’m sure the guy wasn’t scared of throwing a dash of satire into the mix - but then, you’re not prepared to discuss that).
There are plenty of reasons to justify Dr. Manhattan’s nudity in the GN (I’ve already explained most of these, so I can’t really be accused of not discussing the GN), and yet you said nothing. If you want to discuss the GN, then get some posts up about it, instead of trying to make out that the people who have at least sustained some form of discussion, are some kind of uber-nerds who insist on scrutinizing the smallest details.
If you want a debate, don’t sit back and wait for somebody else to initiate it, and don’t start getting abusive when the thread isn’t developing to your liking - especially when your own input has been minimal.
Besides, a debate about the GN alone is going to be damned hard, if we are going to keep this thread spoiler -free. Which is why I didn’t write about five times as much about the revision of the child-killer’s death, because I’d probably end up giving away everything in the movie [/i]and[/i] GN combined…
The podium is yours…