Topic: The Movie Thread

@KALofKRYPTON Very on point.

@KALofKRYPTON Untrue. Read the GN again: it's not filled with gore and bones snapping through flesh. The violence in the original is very understated, which makes sections like Rorshach's backstory all the more shocking. The movie is so brutal throughout that that scene barely even stands out. And I believe this would have been Moore's deliberate choice even if he hadn't needed to worry about censorship, because the violence in ordinary life is usually under-the-surface as well. Same with the sex in the GN: it was there, but the movie amps up the graphic nature of it in an almost juvenile fashion. It's Watchmen as directed by a 12 year old boy.

Some licensed music is fine, but music (and the sound design as a whole) is an important aspect of a film's feel and identity. It's also uniquely connected to human memory. The lack of a unique soundtrack for this movie robs it at least partially of its identity.

And, with regard to writing, it's all about learning what is crucial and what can and should be omitted. Zack Snyder could have devoted less time to his ridiculous slo-mo acton and sex scenes and used some of that time to add back in some of the foreshadowing he removed, or to not remove themes that were crucial to the story and helped inform the direction it went.

@Ralizah It's been a while (since the film I reckon), and no bone break I think - but understated it isn't.

Avoiding a memorable score in a very unheroic film was a good call I think.

For a two hour runtime, I think he handled the story very well.

@KALofKRYPTON The violence is incredibly over-the-top, and it's problematic in the context of the themes in the wider narrative. Here's a decent write-up on the problem: http://reel3.com/violence-as-fetish-in-zach-snyders-watchmen/

I don't see how not having original music for the film helps it at all. A good score doesn't inherently glorify the characters or what they're doing. And, if anything, the director is already doing that by lingering on the overly-stylized scenes on-screen.

It's not a mess, for sure, but I do think there are ways it could have been improved without massively increasing the runtime.

@Ralizah

I really quite like Snyder's thinking as put across in that article. Alan Moore is punishing us!

I'm a big fan of music in film. It's a character all it's own or only serves to punctuate. In such an ensemble piece, punctuation is really all that is needed from a score. The addition of the licensed music calls to mind the importance of the setting.

@KALofKRYPTON Part of what Alan Moore was deconstructing was the inherent violence of superhero comics, indeed, although I don't see how that extends to Snyder's logic regarding his depiction of violence in the film. The violence was glorified. If anything, it's rewarding the sadism of the audience. I don't mind the idea of "punishing" viewers by making things so gruesome and unpleasant that it makes the audience question why they're watching the film in the first place (Haneke's 1997 film "Funny Games" and Hideaki Anno's "The End of Evangelion" do something similar to great effect). But I don't think that's what Snyder does in his films.

I'll give him this, though: at least his Watchmen is a serviceable version of the story. His remake of Dawn of the Dead, on the other hand, was a complete disaster.

300 wasn't great, either, but I don't like Frank Miller or his fascist narratives anyway, so I don't mind what happened to that story.

@Ralizah Yeah DotD is a stinker. But it was always going to be.
Quite like 300 for what it is.

@KALofKRYPTON You wouldn't believe how many people still say that the remake of Dawn is better than the original. It almost physically hurts to hear people say that.

On its own, as a ridiculous live-action cartoon dripping in maschismo, 300 is OK, but I'm very biased against it, considering I like neither Snyder nor Miller! I don't mind the objectification of muscular male bodies, though. If I enjoy it in the same way most men enjoy porn, I can watch it fine.

@Ralizah It's a terrible film. Barely even popcorn fodder.

The 300 sequel is a far worse affair! 😂
Mind the odd fat bloke who gets kissed in the CGI pass and you'll be fine

@Ralizah I think what Moore was doing most with Watchmen was taking the 'shine', 'super' and 'perfection' out of comic book heroes.

I think Snyder wanted to emphasize that in the film by focusing on the violence. I wouldn't have done it myself, for reasons stated before, but I can understand it as his interpretation. Doesn't make it 'childish'. By showing it he makes these heroes less super as well. I think it's fine, even though it's clearly a result of dumbing it down for the cinema audience. I think it's a lot less immature than you're portraying it to be.

So, yes, it's a dumbed down version of the graphic novel in some parts. But it's still way more intelligent than most Marvel/DC movies I have seen in the last year. Making a Watchmen movie was always going to be difficult, if not impossible to do right. I think Snyder did a lot of stuff right, for which I praise him.

I like Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, I would say it is probably his best film (good James Gunn screenplay). Of course it isn't as good as the original, but this was one of the first films to bring back Zombies in a big way and it does work as a thriller and black comedy.

Watchmen is, to me, a very mechanical adaptation. It is so literal, except the ending change, that the narrative suffers as it follows the narrative of the graphic novel which works in the book but not necessarily in the film. The violence is not a problem to me, clearly an attempt to inject some commercial viability into such a big film. Oh and the intro montage, is honestly great.

@KALofKRYPTON Haha, he looks okay in that image, I guess. But I think that the guy who made it should've chosen a more serious look. I can see a slight smile there.

Aaaaaaaaand Venom is targeting a 12A/PG13 certification...

@KALofKRYPTON I don't have high expectations after watching the Venom trailers. The CGI looks poor and the action sequences didn't look that good either. It looks a bit B-movie-ish. What do you guys think of they're reimagined version of Eddie Brock? Also, I assume there'll be no web slinging as well.:/

@WanderingBullet I not a Hardy fan at all - I think he's pretty miscast here. As to the nonsense of making a Venom film without at least building from a Spider-Man film first ... Well, obvious idiocy - but I was always keen on Venom, and there were some great comics.

I like what I've seen of the effects work myself, Venom looks 'there' - a flesh and bone enormous monster. The design looks pretty good I think - just Ultimate Venom on screen really.

There'll be a version of - just extending symbiote tentacles for traversal.

Anyway - despite my misgivings about a lot of it - I at least thought it would be violent enough to do the character justice. Foolish to think that Sony wouldn't go for the Kiddy £££ first and foremost really.

@KALofKRYPTON They do have a Spider-Man film, Homecoming. As I understand, it’s part of the Spidey universe with that movie, but not part of the MCU. I think, it’s hard to tell as this point.
Anyhow, I’m still excited for the film. I’m willing to give it a shot. Expandables 3 was still a fun movie.

@Jaz007 I mean in terms of Venom's origin. MCU Secret Wars would've been waaaaaay better than Infinity War!

There's been talk of Holland appearing in Venom but nothing confirmed. For all intents and purposes, Venom at the moment, is essentially stand alone.

I'll still go watch Venom but I'm way more hype for Into the Spider Verse.

@Jaz007 Sorry if I've missed something here, but what is Expandables 3 and what does it have to do with the Venom movie? 😕

@JohnnyShoulder I meant to say Expendables 3. You know the series with Rambo (the actor technically) and Jason Statham and a bunch of other stars. It was PG-13 while the previous 2 were R.