|
|
Post by politicidal on May 20, 2018 16:36:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on May 20, 2018 17:09:25 GMT
happy to see the movie get more recognition. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on May 20, 2018 18:12:54 GMT
The ultimate cut is the only version of it that should be watched.
Theatrical version is the worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on May 20, 2018 23:29:11 GMT
I bought the DVD for $1.50 in the bargain bin and I feel like I overpaid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on May 21, 2018 9:03:21 GMT
I think that the Directors' Cut is the better version because I don't think the Tales of the Black Freighter really fit into the movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 2:13:21 GMT
Watchmen Director's Cut is the most underrated CBM of all time. It's fantastic and deserves more credit!
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 23, 2018 14:03:37 GMT
It could've been worth it in the hands of a better director. Snyder as always just went for style over substance.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 23, 2018 17:35:26 GMT
It could've been worth it in the hands of a better director. Snyder as always just went for style over substance. Nah, you're confusing him with yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 24, 2018 8:15:17 GMT
I don't like the Watchmen adaptation, but I don't like Doctor Strange much either.
I know the writer of DS gave Watchnen a negative review during his spill.com days. Seemingly just because they altered the ending. Least of that movie's problems, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 24, 2018 10:35:28 GMT
one of the few times where I thought that CBM movies can actually have mature themes, stakes and substance. I was impressed.
No wonder that the typical CBM manchild hates it - Watchmen sports topics they lack the depth to have experienced or felt, such as losing yourself because not doing the things you are meant to do vs the guilt of an intellectual/workaholic over neglecting his family for his passion. No wonder, no marvel...
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 24, 2018 20:22:12 GMT
one of the few times where I thought that CBM movies can actually have mature themes, stakes and substance. I was impressed. No wonder that the typical CBM manchild hates it - Watchmen sports topics they lack the depth to have experienced or felt, such as losing yourself because not doing the things you are meant to do vs the guilt of an intellectual/workaholic over neglecting his family for his passion. No wonder, no marvel... Lol. None of the characters in Watchmen are "meant to do" anything. They're "superheroes" because of violent tendencies, fetishes, God complexes, and other less than heroic reasons. And their existence has created more problems than not - notably increased nuclear tension, the Nixon administration going unchecked, and Ozy's solution for these things at the very end. You want that higher calling stuff, go to any of the CBMs you ridicule. Not that I blame you for misinterpreting the material. The director did it himself. Of all the people to direct an adaptation of Watchmen, they gave it to the 300 dudebro who thinks violence and prison rape are "kewl". You can't really critique and satirize a genre and its characters when you're too busy fetishizing them. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 25, 2018 9:12:42 GMT
one of the few times where I thought that CBM movies can actually have mature themes, stakes and substance. I was impressed. No wonder that the typical CBM manchild hates it - Watchmen sports topics they lack the depth to have experienced or felt, such as losing yourself because not doing the things you are meant to do vs the guilt of an intellectual/workaholic over neglecting his family for his passion. No wonder, no marvel... Lol. None of the characters in Watchmen are " meant to do" anything. They're "superheroes" because of violent tendencies, fetishes, God complexes, and other less than heroic reasons. You want that higher calling stuff, go to any of the CBMs you ridicule. you are hairsplitting semantics here. Nite Owl and Spectre rediscovering passion and thereby reanimating their vocation (saving people from fire in costumes, and later the world) is either because they feel they are meant to do higher things, or more cynically put, because of "violent tendencies, fetishes, God complexes, and other less than heroic reasons".
thanks for leaving me blameless, but enter dramatic-license fallacy full swing. If those elements I discussed (Dr Manhattan's guilt and isolation, rediscovering one's vocation) were created by Snyder I applaud him for improving the source material by adding mature themes into a kiddy genre movie.
enter the straw man with some random Snyderman bashing. If you get sensitive nipples from the heat, stay out of the R-rated kitchen, raccoon turds are served elsewhere.
You also cannot citique and satirize a film if you do not get the point - this is evidently not meant as a genre satire or critique. It's original and relevant storytelling building on arcs, grey area morals & motivations, with complex characters and high stakes.
Short: It's not a Disney movie, just accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 25, 2018 20:58:58 GMT
You also cannot citique and satirize a film if you do not get the point - this is evidently not meant as a genre satire or critique. It's original and relevant storytelling building on arcs, grey area morals & motivations, with complex characters and high stakes.
Short: It's not a Disney movie, just accept it. Holy f**k. o_0 There's nothing, absolutely nothing, I can say to criticize Watchmen as an adaptation and Snyder as a director more condemning than the fact that you can sit through this borderline panel-by-panel recreation of a comic critiquing and satirizing the superhero genre, and not even know it's critiquing and satirizing the superhero genre. I knew he dumbed it down, I knew his style glamorized the subject matter rather than portray it as ugly, but to not even know it's trying to do these things? And then you're still trying to claim intellectual superiority for liking a movie you don't even understand (but again, I blame Snyder). Purely on the grounds that it's a grimdark edgelord movie with typical superhero movie themes? You know a movie actually about rediscovering one's vocation? The Incredibles...a PG rated Disney movie. And yeah, surprise, Watchmen is cynical. Silk Spectre and Nite Owl got in their costumes and saved some people from a burning building to help him get an erection. The comic even goes into some of his spank material, including an autographed photo of one of his villainesses (posed in her sexy costume, of course). I feel like I'm telling a kid there's no Santa Claus. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 25, 2018 21:53:18 GMT
You also cannot citique and satirize a film if you do not get the point - this is evidently not meant as a genre satire or critique. It's original and relevant storytelling building on arcs, grey area morals & motivations, with complex characters and high stakes.
Short: It's not a Disney movie, just accept it. Holy f**k. o_0 There's nothing, absolutely nothing, I can say to criticize Watchmen as an adaptation and Snyder as a director more condemning than the fact that you can sit through this borderline panel-by-panel recreation of a comic critiquing and satirizing the superhero genre, and not even know it's critiquing and satirizing the superhero genre. I knew he dumbed it down, I knew his style glamorized the subject matter rather than portray it as ugly, but to not even know it's trying to do these things? And then you're still trying to claim intellectual superiority for liking a movie you don't even understand (but again, I blame Snyder). Purely on the grounds that it's a grimdark edgelord movie with typical superhero movie themes? You know a movie actually about rediscovering one's vocation? The Incredibles...a PG rated Disney movie. And yeah, surprise, Watchmen is cynical. Silk Spectre and Nite Owl got in their costumes and saved some people from a burning building to help him get an erection. The comic even goes into some of his spank material, including an autographed photo of one of his villainesses (posed in her sexy costume, of course). I feel like I'm telling a kid there's no Santa Claus. again, dramatic license fallacy: We are talking Snyder's film adaption, not what you think the source material to be. An adaption can be an totally different animal (as is often the case with screen adaptions). 2001 as a classic example. Or: Thor: Fragglerock makes a stake-less CGI-clobber-party out of one of the most epic and lethal end-time mythologies (Ragnarök). Trivial, but one would be foolish to believe MCU-Fragglerock was actually ever intended to be a faithful adaption of the source material tone wise. That's what you are doing with Watchmen now. But you can still prove to me that Snyder's film adaption was meant to be a critique and satire of the superhero genre foremost, ie by furnishing authentic evidence coming from the filmmakers themselves. If they actually did, they failed, and thereby created something much greater than a mere satire of a silly genre could ever be. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 25, 2018 22:56:15 GMT
Holy f**k. o_0 There's nothing, absolutely nothing, I can say to criticize Watchmen as an adaptation and Snyder as a director more condemning than the fact that you can sit through this borderline panel-by-panel recreation of a comic critiquing and satirizing the superhero genre, and not even know it's critiquing and satirizing the superhero genre. I knew he dumbed it down, I knew his style glamorized the subject matter rather than portray it as ugly, but to not even know it's trying to do these things? And then you're still trying to claim intellectual superiority for liking a movie you don't even understand (but again, I blame Snyder). Purely on the grounds that it's a grimdark edgelord movie with typical superhero movie themes? You know a movie actually about rediscovering one's vocation? The Incredibles...a PG rated Disney movie. And yeah, surprise, Watchmen is cynical. Silk Spectre and Nite Owl got in their costumes and saved some people from a burning building to help him get an erection. The comic even goes into some of his spank material, including an autographed photo of one of his villainesses (posed in her sexy costume, of course). I feel like I'm telling a kid there's no Santa Claus. again, dramatic license fallacy: We are talking Snyder's film adaption, not what you think the source material to be. An adaption can be an totally different animal (as is often the case with screen adaptions). 2001 as a classic example. Or: Thor: Fragglerock makes a stake-less CGI-clobber-party out of one of the most epic and lethal end-time mythologies (Ragnarök). Trivial, but one would be foolish to believe MCU-Fragglerock actually ever intended to be a faithful adaption of the source material tone wise, but not a jokey clobber comedy for kids in the first place. That's what you are doing with Watchmen now. But you can still prove to me that Snyder's film adaption was meant to be a critique and satire of the superhero genre foremost, ie by furnishing authentic evidence coming from the filmmakers themselves. If they actually did, they failed, and thereby created something much greater than a mere satire of a silly genre could ever be. As I said, it's a near panel-by-panel (and dialogue bubble by dialogue bubble) recreation of the comic. They even used the comic itself for storyboards. I'm not sure authentic evidence of Snyder even knowing what themes and messages are exists, let alone him talking about implementing them in his films - mostly he'll just wax poetic about "making this and that kewl" and "aesthetics". But his modus operandi at the time was being as faithful to the source material as possible. Thus, he failed. Not to mention the dialogue and story elements that point to meta commentary, satire, and deconstructionism even Snyder couldn't screw up. The antagonist literally says "I'm not a comic book ('Republic serial' in the comic) villain" at one point to lampshade his villainous monologue. Snyder did add one satirical element he didn't need Alan Moore to lay out for him: Ozymandias, the corporate sellout of the group, has a costume parodying Batman & Robin. " thereby created something much greater than a mere satire of a silly genre could ever be." - dude, just stop. First off, calling the comic a "mere satire" is deliberately obtuse. Second, you're judging something you haven't read. Third, you're knocking down something consistently ranked as one of the greatest pieces of literature (let alone comics) to build up a movie because you see in it the maturity of Batman Forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on May 29, 2018 19:37:34 GMT
Shame Alan Moore refused to watch the film. Out of all the adaptions it was the best one.
Then again he is an asshole.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 1, 2018 3:55:17 GMT
Shame Alan Moore refused to watch the film. Out of all the adaptions it was the best one. Then again he is an asshole. Such an asshole that he gives the money he gets from movie adaptations to his collaborators. I don't get why people are obsessed with Moore watching and or not watching adaptations of his movies. It's his life, who cares how he spends it? I love the V For Vendetta movie (which blows this sh*thole out of the water, btw), but I respect that he doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 1, 2018 15:16:49 GMT
Shame Alan Moore refused to watch the film. Out of all the adaptions it was the best one. Then again he is an asshole. Such an asshole that he gives the money he gets from movie adaptations to his collaborators. I don't get why people are obsessed with Moore watching and or not watching adaptations of his movies. It's his life, who cares how he spends it? I love the V For Vendetta movie (which blows this sh*thole out of the water, btw), but I respect that he doesn't. I agree. I'd even say that JLU's adaptation of For the Man Who Has Everything was better than Watchmen. |
|
