Movies to look forward to

Ramen4ever said:
Your entitled to your opinion. I still think it was one of the better movies of 2006. And it's only common sense that a comic will not transfer to the screen perfectly. That goes for just about any adaption from one medium to another. Anyone who expects otherwise is deluding themselves.

If you liked 300 the movie so much, why haven't you read the comic? This is the problem. Most people that see these comic-adaptation movies, haven't even read the original comics. It's good in a way because it gives the originals exposure, many people will buy the comic because they saw and liked the film. But it could also turn a lot of people off to reading Watchmen, as had also happened with 300 (most my friends didn't really like the film, so they figured why bother with the comic.) Special effects and slow-motion every five seconds just won't cut it to make people actually read the book. Sad as it is, the movie-going population is much much larger than the comic/book reading population. I guess people figure that they don't mind investing two-three hours for a movie, but they don't want to spend a lot of time on one story. I know people who love the BERSERK anime, but won't bother reading the manga because it's too long.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
That's the thing, one would like to think that the book's legacy will live on long after the movie's hype is forgotten, but it's usually the other way around. 300 is now chiefly known as a movie based on a comic book, not as a comic book. That's why people will, and should be upset, be upset by such changes, because this movie is now going to become what "Watchmen" is defined as in our culture.
 
Aazealh said:
And you're not entitled to talk about stuff you don't know about. You don't know what the changes were so why even pretend you have something relevant to say about it? Whether you liked the movie or not isn't the point.

I'm entitled to whatever opinion I choose and my comment was completely relevant. I fail to see what the problem is with accepting the fact that compromises are usually made during transitions between mediums. Or with stating that sometimes the end result can still be good in and of itself. Take the LOTR trilogy and the Count of Monte Cristo (Caviezel) for examples. Good films but hardly great adaptions.
Comics are not as limited by budgets or time constraints. A comic can have multiple volumes while a movie usually has to deal with the content being squeezed into a single film. An artist is only limited by his/her imagination and ability to draw while in a film they have to deal with the fact that CGI generally sticks out like a sore thumb.

aufond said:
If you liked 300 the movie so much, why haven't you read the comic?

I hardly have the time to go chasing around comic book stores in the hopes that they have the material. Nor do I have the money to invest in multiple comic selections.

Lithrael said:
as an adaptation, the movie is complete and utter balls.

I think your comment nailed the problem on the head. I thought 300 was a good movie. Not a good adaption. There's a major difference.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Ramen4ever said:
I'm entitled to whatever opinion I choose and my comment was completely relevant.

No it wasn't. As for your opinion: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people

Ramen4ever said:
I fail to see what the problem is with accepting the fact that compromises are usually made during transitions between mediums.

Why do you think anybody needs to hear obvious generalities when aufond mentioned problems inherent to the adaptation of 300 in the first place, problems you can't possibly know about without having read the original material? You're far too presumptuous.

Ramen4ever said:
I hardly have the time to go chasing around comic book stores in the hopes that they have the material. Nor do I have the money to invest in multiple comic selections.

I'm pretty sure it's in most stores really, and it's a rather short book as well. Amazon.com has it for under $20. It's up to you though.

Ramen4ever said:
I think your comment nailed the problem on the head. I thought 300 was a good movie. Not a good adaption. There's a major difference.

Unlike Lith, you can't tell whether it's a good adaptation or not since you haven't read the original.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Ramen4ever said:
I thought 300 was a good movie. Not a good adaption. There's a major difference.
Seriously man, this comment holds utterly no merit since by your own admission you have not read the source material. Do you see the problem now?
 

SimplyEd

エンシェント カタストロフィ
I'm a bit torn on whether i should risk to watch Max Payne. I mean later on, when it's available on DVD/BR-D or whatever and one of my friends actually ends up buying that thing. I wouldn't want to pay money for it anyway now, would i?
The problem is, i'm actually quite fond of the games and i don't want to ruin some good memories. To give you an impression of what i'm talking about here.....i saw the "Hitman" movie...urrrghh. I'm sacrificed, branded and doomed..it would seem.
Rottentomatoes has some really vocal impressions listed for this one. Meh, it's probably best to leave that one for seriously messed up evenings.

Other than that, i'm still waiting patiently for the new Star Trek flick. Let's see how they end up with reinventing the franchise.
 

Scorpio

Courtesy of Grail's doodling.
SimplyEd said:
I'm a bit torn on whether i should risk to watch Max Payne. I mean later on, when it's available on DVD/BR-D or whatever and one of my friends actually ends up buying that thing. I wouldn't want to pay money for it anyway now, would i?
The problem is, i'm actually quite fond of the games and i don't want to ruin some good memories. To give you an impression of what i'm talking about here.....i saw the "Hitman" movie...urrrghh. I'm sacrificed, branded and doomed..it would seem.
Rottentomatoes has some really vocal impressions listed for this one. Meh, it's probably best to leave that one for seriously messed up evenings.

I never played the games, but the trailer I saw looked pretty interesting. If I remember correctly it had a pretty good cast as well. I'll probably give it a go.
 
Aazealh said:
Unlike Lith, you can't tell whether it's a good adaptation or not since you haven't read the original.

Your right.. I can't tell whether or not it was a good adaption. I'll just take your word for it.
It was still a good movie though. It had very good choreography, CGI, props, acting.. though blunt and even the slow motion was some of the best I've seen on the big screen.

SimplyEd said:
I'm a bit torn on whether i should risk to watch Max Payne. I mean later on, when it's available on DVD/BR-D or whatever and one of my friends actually ends up buying that thing. I wouldn't want to pay money for it anyway now, would i?
The problem is, i'm actually quite fond of the games and i don't want to ruin some good memories. To give you an impression of what i'm talking about here.....i saw the "Hitman" movie...urrrghh. I'm sacrificed, branded and doomed..it would seem.
Rottentomatoes has some really vocal impressions listed for this one. Meh, it's probably best to leave that one for seriously messed up evenings.

I saw it and it's worse than Hitman. It was confusing, there were loose ends, the "bullet time" was improperly timed. If you intend to watch it with the mind set that the game was good. Prepared to be really disappointed. In fact it's a bad movie even if you've never even played the Max Payne games. Also the Valkyr is not handled very well. Especially with
Max
it appeared more supernatural than as a hallucination.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Ramen4ever said:
Your right.. I can't tell whether or not it was a good adaption. I'll just take your word for it.
It was still a good movie though. It had very good choreography, CGI, props, acting.. though blunt and even the slow motion was some of the best I've seen on the big screen.

Well take it from me (and the others as well): it easily could have been even better. And I'm not talking bigger budget or anything, just scenario. Check the comic book someday if you have the occasion and you'll see why. It's a quick read.

Scorpio said:
I never played the games, but the trailer I saw looked pretty interesting. If I remember correctly it had a pretty good cast as well. I'll probably give it a go.

Sorry to tell you, guys, but I've heard only bad stuff about it. :(
 

SimplyEd

エンシェント カタストロフィ
Scorpio said:
I never played the games, but the trailer I saw looked pretty interesting. If I remember correctly it had a pretty good cast as well. I'll probably give it a go.

Ah, on second thought, there's still a bit of cash that desperately wants to leave my wallet, so, why not drop it off at the nearest cinema.
But then again....no. I'll invest into my games collection. That way i won't end up regretting my decision.
I'll go and manipulate a friend to buy the DVD. All is well, that ends well..hopefully.

[quote author=Ramen4ever]I saw it and it's worse than Hitman. It was confusing, there were loose ends, the "bullet time" was improperly timed. If you intend to watch it with the mind set that the game was good. Prepared to be really disappointed. In fact it's a bad movie even if you've never even played the Max Payne games. Also the Valkyr is not handled very well. Especially with Max it appeared more supernatural than as a hallucination.[/quote]

Hmm, now i feel bad for making a friend buy a crappy movie...
 
SimplyEd said:
Ah, on second thought, there's still a bit of cash that desperately wants to leave my wallet, so, why not drop it off at the nearest cinema.
But then again....no. I'll invest into my games collection. That way i won't end up regretting my decision.
I'll go and manipulate a friend to buy the DVD. All is well, that ends well..hopefully.

Save your money. It's VERY disappointing. Frankly even Mel Gibson's Payback was more like Max Payne. :troll:

Edit. Back on topic, I heard there's a new trailer for Star Trek XI coming out in a few days. They were showing it before Quantum of Solace, anyone get a change to see it?
 

Rhombaad

Video Game Time Traveler
Saw Quantum of Solace this morning with my brother. I enjoyed it a lot but Casino Royale was superior. I recommend checking it out while it's in theaters.

Ramen4ever said:
Edit. Back on topic, I heard there's a new trailer for Star Trek XI coming out in a few days. They were showing it before Quantum of Solace, anyone get a change to see it?

Yep, I saw it and it looks awesome. :guts:
 
Rhombaad said:
Saw Quantum of Solace this morning with my brother. I enjoyed it a lot but Casino Royale was superior. I recommend checking it out while it's in theaters.

I heard the shaky cam effect was nauseating??

Rhombaad said:
Yep, I saw it and it looks awesome. :guts:

Apparently there was also some footage that was released at some event.
Spoilers in the link:
http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=313
 

SimplyEd

エンシェント カタストロフィ
Ramen4ever said:
Edit. Back on topic, I heard there's a new trailer for Star Trek XI coming out in a few days. They were showing it before Quantum of Solace, anyone get a change to see it?

As an old (ancient?) Trek enthusiast, i've already soaked up every bit of information present on the internet about that movie (extreme exaggeration, no doubt), and i'm still looking forward to the new movie, which is more than i can say about the last few entries to the movie series, when they were about to get released.

Still, whatever they are up to, there's simply nothing that can top this noteworthy entry to cinematic history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxFQcxy2jFg
 

NightCrawler

Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
The 300 novel was bad, the 300 movie was laughable. Seriously, i was actually trying not to laugh. Thank jebus for free tickets.

I just saw the new Watchmen trailer and i'm loss for words, it looks completely retarded. I enjoyed moderately the previous teaser, and now i know why. Nobody talks in it :ganishka:
Everyone sounds so wrong and amateur. And am i the only one that spotted the obvious mistake of they calling themselves as "The Watchmen" (two or three times in the freakin trailer!), i mean wtf is that all about? There was never a Watchmen group in the novel if i recall correctly. There was no team of superheros, and that name in the novel is obviously derogatory. They're totally missing the point! Are they just condescending on us, because it's the title of the movie and they need to associate it with the protagonists so that people can make the connection? Anyway it's fucking stupid, why are they changing an almost perfect piece of art? :judo:
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
NightCrawler said:
I enjoyed moderately the previous teaser, and now i know why. Nobody talks in it :ganishka

Everyone sounds so wrong and amateur.

Zack Snyder directing actors, "Move slower while acting with the blue screen." And that's just what he does when he's not coming up with elegant solutions to Alan Moore's troublesome writing. Don't worry though, in the final cut everyone actually sounds like this.

NightCrawler said:
And am i the only one that spotted the obvious mistake of they calling themselves as "The Watchmen" (two or three times in the freakin trailer!), i mean wtf is that all about? There was never a Watchmen group in the novel if i recall correctly. There was no team of superheros, and that name in the novel is obviously derogatory. They're totally missing the point! Are they just condescending on us, because it's the title of the movie and they need to associate it with the protagonists so that people can make the connection?

That's probably exactly what it is. I'm hoping it's just edited together lines, possibly even specifically recorded, for the trailer. Stranger things have happened... like, the very real likelihood those dumb lines are in the movie too. Maybe they can all wear W's on their belts.

NightCrawler said:
Anyway it's fucking stupid, why are they changing an almost perfect piece of art? :judo:

C'mon, cheer up, isn't slowmo and CGI just as cool and awesome?
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
NightCrawler said:
There was never a Watchmen group in the novel if i recall correctly. There was no team of superheros, and that name in the novel is obviously derogatory.

The first team of costumed heroes was called "The Minutemen". There were plans for a second team called "The Crimebusters" but it was a failure.

Anyway, while discussing this whole mess with Griffith yesterday I stumbled on this comment by Terry Gilliam, who was first chosen to direct the movie and discussed it with Alan Moore at the time: http://www.empireonline.com/News/story.asp?nid=13532

Fear and Loathing director Terry Gilliam revealed that he has no further plans to bring cult-comic Watchmen to the screen as he doesn’t believe it would be possible to stay true to the spirit of the comic.

6degrees.co.uk, Gilliam expressed his doubts over bringing Watchmen to the screen, saying that the epic story could not be faithfully reproduced as a movie. “The problem with Watchmen is that it requires about five hours to tell the story properly, and by reducing it to a two or two-and-a-half hour film, it seemed to me to take away the essence of what Watchmen is about.”

Having been forced to abandon the project in the past due to funding problems, the director stands by his decision not to try and raise Watchmen from the ashes, “I was happy when I didn’t get the money to make it because I would have been embarrassed if we’d done it.”

Fear not though, Zack Snyder is on the case.
 

NightCrawler

Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
Griffith said:
Don't worry though, in the final cut everyone actually sounds like this.

Ahah, thanks man, that just made my day.

Aazealh i was talking about how in the present of the narrative they never form a new team of superheros, like the trailer implies.

Btw, Terry Gilliam, what a legend.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
NightCrawler said:
Aazealh i was talking about how in the present of the narrative they never form a new team of superheros, like the trailer implies.

Well in the present they're all either retired, dead or criminals (Rorschach), and the second generation of costumed vigilantes never got to form a real group anyway.

You know, the more I think about the different ending, the more I find it a stupid decision. I can't imagine a reason for it other than bias from the people making the movie.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Ramen4ever said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0WNPb8R-40

Uhhh... was that Star Trek? :troll:

Hahaha the Sylar dude is playing Spock? Why is he looking as sinister in that trailer as he did in Heroes?
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
You think Zack Snyder is taking liberties? How about THIS: http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3168969&p=37&sec=PREVIEWS

Watchmen THE VIDEO GAME. What've you got to say now, Alan Moore? Huh? HUH?!

Watchmen (the game) dials back the years to when the game's dual playable characters, Rorschach and Nite Owl, are younger, trimmer, more physically fit versions of their older graphic-novel counterparts. In the demo we saw behind closed doors at E3, both Rorschach and Nite Owl were playable, either as a single-player game with an A.I. partner (whichever character you're not playing is controlled by the CPU) or as a co-op splitscreen venture. Since the game takes place before superheroes were outlawed in the graphic novel's timeline, it allows both characters to do what they do best -- fight crime.

Developed by Deadline Games (Chili Con Carnage, Faith and a .45), Watchmen puts both Rorschach and Nite Owl on the streets in a game set exclusively at night, when most of the nation's crime takes place.
I keep wanting to think this is an April Fools joke.
 

NightCrawler

Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
They might as well adapt this one (as movie/game/whatever)

Watchmenbabies.png
 
Top Bottom