|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 27, 2018 20:10:20 GMT
Agreed on the squid, that was a positive change. And they nailed Rorschach in the film. But I think you'd have a lower opinion of the film had you been more familiar with the source material. Adrian comes across as affable to the point of being obnoxious. For him to suddenly be the villain at the end is truly stunning; it's a shame they turned him into a cardboard cutout in the film. His perspective is also more compelling in the original story because the politicians are more sinister; the rubber nosed Dick Nixon of the film makes it difficult to take the threat seriously. Even still, I appreciate the film more than most. Maybe some of the complaints (including my own) about the lack of depth are unfair, considering the material is dense enough to deserve a mini-series as opposed to a single film. The problem is that the Squid made Ozy's plan work. The subsitution would never have worked. The Squid was meant to be a third party threat that the entire world could bond together to defend against. By using Manhattan, after an initial moment of peace, someone would have gone "Wait a minute, Dr. Manhattan is American, he is an American soldier, America created him. All of our people are dead because of America!" It actually have escalated things so much farther so much faster. Casting Manhattan as the third party villain still makes sense, though. The United States was still targeted in the attacks, and Manhattan immediately skipped town. It looks like he went rogue, especially when you consider everything that led up to it. I just think the giant squid would've looked hammy on screen.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Aug 27, 2018 20:27:46 GMT
The problem is that the Squid made Ozy's plan work. The subsitution would never have worked. The Squid was meant to be a third party threat that the entire world could bond together to defend against. By using Manhattan, after an initial moment of peace, someone would have gone "Wait a minute, Dr. Manhattan is American, he is an American soldier, America created him. All of our people are dead because of America!" It actually have escalated things so much farther so much faster. Casting Manhattan as the third party villain still makes sense, though. The United States was still targeted in the attacks, and Manhattan immediately skipped town. It looks like he went rogue, especially when you consider everything that led up to it. I just think the giant squid would've looked hammy on screen. I don't disagree that the squid needed to change...but using Manhattan as the scapegoat would have made everything worse because he was an American Weapon...at least in the eyes of the rest of the world. "You couldn't control what you created and it killed millions!" "But New York and Los Angeles were targeted!" "Serves you right! This is all your fault and we need to wipe you off the map before more of your inventions decide to go rogue!"
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 27, 2018 20:47:14 GMT
And that is the major problem with Zach Snyder as a director. He creates great moments but is incapable of putting those moments together into a comprehensive long form narrative. not from what I have seen from him. Quite the contrary actually. Watchmen and Dawn were brilliantly and coherently shot films: genre milestones; Watchmen is Top 3 of my favorite CBMs ever (this story was considered as un-filmable, yet Snyder managed it astoundingly well - that alone falsifies the claim). Not exactly. He filmed a story, competently, I'll give him that, and with decent performances, but it was not the Watchman story. It's an empty film that thinks its clever, but it isn't. He barely scratched the surface of what the story really is about. Adaptions aren't replicating panel-to-panel onscreen. Alan Moore's primary motivations in creating WATCHMEN was to deliberately make it unfilmable, in order to show what comics can do as a medium in their own right, as opposed to films. Snyder didn't understand that, and I don't think the TV series will get it either. Not only that, the superheroes, besides Dr. Manhatten, are just regular people in the comic run. Snyder portrayed it in a heavily hyper-stylized and unnecessarily sexualized (especially with Silk Spectre and even to an extent, the attempted rape scene) with no grasp of human anatomy either. They were all doing stuff that's really inhumanly possible. It's very dumbed down and with a nonsensical end. The world uniting in peace because the great American soldier/weapon (Manhattan) going rogue and destroys one of the US's greatest cities. Realistically speaking, especially during that time period, nobody would have joined forces with a nation (the US) who lost control of their weapon who used to menace the whole world, especially the Soviet Union. If anything, they would have taken advantage of that united with all the Warsaw Pact nations to launch an attack. So Watchman does still remain unfilmable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2018 8:23:24 GMT
Has anyone watched this recently at all? I'm convinced that Ben Afflect Bruce Wayne was modeled after Donald Trump. I have re-watched it and I still think it is a terrible movie. The Extended Edition was better but what they did with Doomsday was appalling to say the least and they made Superman too mopey and brooding and continue to make the same mistakes with Batman having him as a vigilante instead of a Detective, team leader and hero that works alongside the GCPD and he doesn't wear the costume enough. I will take the 'Arkham' games any day over the live action movies 'cause they actually 'get' the character and write him the way he is meant to be.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Aug 28, 2018 16:13:08 GMT
Trump? Probably not since most of this was filmed and written prior to Trump's rise, but more than likely they used conservative ideas for Batman here, like xenophobia
|
|