Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[sojourner]

Shazam! wrote:

---

Watchmen is the ONE comic in which doing that misses the point completely. It's almost amazing that they didn't realize that.

So being slavishly faithful to the comic wasn't being slavishly faithful to the comic? Yeah, I don't get that. It was pitch perfect to me.

[Shazam!]

sojourner wrote:

---

So being slavishly faithful to the comic wasn't being slavishly faithful to the comic? Yeah, I don't get that. It was pitch perfect to me.

The comic exploited the comic book medium in ways only a comic could. Its sole purpose was to deconstruct and critique. Mindlessly translating panels loses 99% of what's actually going on.

Unless you think that Watchmen is nothing more than some guys in tights fighting bad guys in which case, yeah, it was pitch perfect.

[davejames]

the G-man wrote:

---

But Superman as a character has never really been about being "badass," has he? It would seem to me the Superman character lends himself more to a director like Brad Bird, Joe Johnston, Robert Zemeckis or, in a pipe dream, Stephen Spielberg.

I'm not talking so much about his attitude, but the way he appears on screen-- with the dramatic lighting and the bold colors and the slow-motion camera moves that Snyder is so very good at.

Obviously I wouldn't want the whole freakin movie to look like that (which was where Watchmen and Sucker Punch went wrong), but it would certainly be cool as hell to see SOME of that in a Superman movie, I think.

[sojourner]

Shazam! wrote:

---

The comic exploited the comic book medium in ways only a comic could. Its sole purpose was to deconstruct and critique. Mindlessly translating panels loses 99% of what's actually going on.

Unless you think that Watchmen is nothing more than some guys in tights fighting bad guys in which case, yeah, it was pitch perfect.

No, I got the deconstruction in both the movie and the book. I guess when it comes to live action I can just see more than some guys in tights fighting bad guys.

[Set Harth]

Shazam! wrote:

---

Watchmen is the ONE comic in which doing that misses the point completely. It's almost amazing that they didn't realise that.

In other words, "don't make a movie of Watchmen". That doesn't really work as a critique of the film.

[the G-man]

The problem with Watchmen (well, besides using a song other than Roy Orbison's version of "the Comedians" at the funeral scene), which I did enjoy, was that trying to jam everything into the movie that was in the book, simply because Snyder thought fanboys "demanded it," led to a rushed and disjointed movie in some spots.

For example: the Rorshach origin was shoehorned in. In the novel, you had an entire issue to develop the relationship between Kovacs and the psychologist. It had time to build to something and, as a result the doctor's realization, along with the audience's, of what had happened to the girl was horrifying. In the film, you had Rorschach stating "you can't get in my head, doctor" and then, thirty seconds later, giving the shrink--and us--a blow by blow of his encounter with the child killer and the dogs.

[sojourner]

^Then again, the same could be said for nearly every movie based upon a book.

[Shazam!]

sojourner wrote:

---

No, I got the deconstruction in both the movie and the book. I guess when it comes to live action I can just see more than some guys in tights fighting bad guys.

Yeah, the spectacular adherence to genre conventions was purely ironic.

[sojourner]

Yeah, it's not like they had secret identities, wore tights, used fantastic gadgets, had superpowers, skulked in secret hideouts or anything like that in the graphic novel. How ironic.

[Shazam!]

Yes, in the graphic novel it was ironic.

[sojourner]

As in the movie. Glad we got that cleared up.

[the G-man]

sojourner wrote:

---

^Then again, the same could be said for nearly every movie based upon a book.

Not really. At least not good movies based on books. An effective adaptation realizes that books and movies are different media and knows what to leave out and what to keep.

[davejames]

Donald Draper wrote:

---

Exacty! The whole point of the comic is that in this world Superheroes have no sense of grandeur. Other than Doc Manhattan they are just normal people in costumes. They are not cool, ass kicking badasses. They are actually pathetic. It should have had a simple naturalistic style. Its a character drama and mystery, not an action story. Nolan would have been better suited for it.

This says it best, I think. The very downbeat, naturalistic style of the comic was no where to be found in the movie, and the characters were suddenly presented in the flashiest, most stylized way imaginable. As if they were a bunch of freakin rock stars or something.

It just seemed to completely miss the point of the book.

[Set Harth]

They are not cool, ass kicking badasses.

Except when they are. That's what happens when "translating panels" means that the depicted events are the same in either version.

davejames wrote:

---

It just seemed to completely miss the point of the book.

I think you mean "it failed at the box office", which is all that really matters these days.

[Broccoli]

I liked the Watchmen movie. Actually, I enjoyed it more than the comic. Then again, I was never really "wowed" by the comic to begin with.

the G-man wrote:

---

Not really. At least not good movies based on books. An effective adaptation realizes that books and movies are different media and knows what to leave out and what to keep.

Thus is the problem with fanboys. If Snyder took more liberties with the source material to streamline the comic into a workable movie, then NERDRAGE would happen. Snyder, instead, went to great lengths to make it as faithful as possible (especially with the extended cut [and the extended cut of the extended cut]) and what did he get? NERDRAGE! He was never going to win.