| REGISTERIT'S FREE! |
 |
 |
 |
RECEIVE custom news |
 |
 |
TRACK your favorites |
 |
 |
BUILD your fan profile |
 |
 |
POST messages |
 |
| LOGIN | SIGN UP TODAY |
|
| BOARD |
 |
Home
 The Watchmen Forum |
|
 |
| Who's
Here? None in this thread.
56
users total online. Moderators: Nobody yet!.
|
Watchmen Is Dissapointing...
[1] 2 3 4 |
 |
| POSTED Monday , March 02, 2009 11:13:13 PM |
|
I was thinking that this would turn out like the dark knight but, many fans came out REALLY UNHAPPY. I thought it was an okay film but, I would not bother watching it again like I did countless of times with the dark knight. I was expecting this film to blow me away but, sadly it didnt. Also a review below from Brian Micheal Bendis from his myspace page blog.
Bendis saw watchmen...
its not the disaster the trades are making it out to be, but it is a fascinating failure.
it has some truly great parts to it. all the rorshach and niteowl stuff, moloch... it's all great.
but when it slavishly holds to the book it falls flat on it's ass. humorless, flat, passionateless. when it decides to be a movie, it sings.
but it is the victim of some truly bad choices made in pre production. as seen on the movie posters and trailers, dr. manhattan does not work. it looks like a rejected character from soul caliber circa ps2. it's a distractingly bad effect that hurts what looks like a pretty great turn by billy crudup.
same with some of the costumes, or at least how they were lit. every ten minutes or so it veers into sci fi channel original programming bad. only to be saved a few minutes later by some visual kick assery.
i was not bored. not even for a second. but as we walked out of the movie the words: too long, too long, too long echoes through the theatre. i didn't care. it only points out that the movie shouldn't have been a movie, maybe a longer mini series.
maybe the director should have gone with his first instinct and not even bothered.
like chinatown 2 and godfather 3, this movie was inevitable. none of those movies are bad btw, just judged by thier weakest parts.
alan moore's name is not to be found, and that is truth in advertising.
at least we'll get an end ot the alan moore: i don't read comics or go see movies because i know they all suck interviews. they make me feel bad for him.
i will now take these lessons and apply them to the powers pilot.
i'm not dc bashing, loved dark knight.
YoUr fRiEnDLy nEiGhBoRhOOd sPiDeR-MaN
http://www.myspace.com/th e_daily_bugle |
 |
Edit Reply w/quote |
 |
 |
| REPLIED Monday , March 02, 2009 11:44:55 PM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 03:28:16 AM |
|
Honestly, go to HELL.
Seriously.
EVERY COMIC BOOK FAN SHOULD LINE UP AND KISS ZACK SNYDER'S ARSE.
I'm not joking.
Yeah, Silk Spectre II and Ozy's costumes are different.
Yeah, I hear the giant vaginal squid isn't in this.
Yeah, I hear this and that.
Again, GO TO HELL.
WE SHOULD ALL BE SO LUCKY THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE GRAPHIC NOVEL.
Don't get me wrong. I am the first to call out bullshiznit on costume changes and character changes over NOTHING.
For example, I will forever argue that the X-Men can and should wear their colorful costumes (hell, movies like Watchmen and Hellboy who hold true to the VISUALS prove it more than possible), HOWEVER, when you look at the STUDIO history of Watchmen and the endless IDIOTIC possibilites that COULD have been, you should relax and thank whatever God you pray to that the end result isn't as bad as it COULD have been.
I mean at one point the IDIOTIC STUDIOS were going to make this movie set in a post- 9/11 world!!!
So who gives a flying-F if the costumes are slightly off!!!
BE GODDAMN GRATEFUL FOR WHAT YOU HAVE!
BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT WORSE!!! I've been here since 2000 and have undergone six-seven personas, but I am still me...Tiffany, I love you. |
 |
Edit Reply w/Quote
|
 |
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 04:11:43 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 04:18:37 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 04:31:30 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 04:36:27 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 04:57:07 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 05:30:25 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 05:48:04 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 05:49:06 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 08:01:02 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 08:54:05 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 09:09:46 AM |
|
BatSTUDVII said: Honestly, go to HELL.
Seriously.
EVERY COMIC BOOK FAN SHOULD LINE UP AND KISS ZACK SNYDER'S ARSE.
I'm not joking.
Yeah, Silk Spectre II and Ozy's costumes are different.
Yeah, I hear the giant vaginal squid isn't in this.
Yeah, I hear this and that.
Again, GO TO HELL.
WE SHOULD ALL BE SO LUCKY THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE GRAPHIC NOVEL.
Don't get me wrong. I am the first to call out bullshiznit on costume changes and character changes over NOTHING.
For example, I will forever argue that the X-Men can and should wear their colorful costumes (hell, movies like Watchmen and Hellboy who hold true to the VISUALS prove it more than possible), HOWEVER, when you look at the STUDIO history of Watchmen and the endless IDIOTIC possibilites that COULD have been, you should relax and thank whatever God you pray to that the end result isn't as bad as it COULD have been.
I mean at one point the IDIOTIC STUDIOS were going to make this movie set in a post- 9/11 world!!!
So who gives a flying-F if the costumes are slightly off!!!
BE GODDAMN GRATEFUL FOR WHAT YOU HAVE!
BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT WORSE!!!
i hate it when people bash movies just because its not the EXACT same as the original *coughdragonballcough* but i also hate it when peoplevehnemently defend a movie that they havnt even seen yet just because they WANT it to be good, witch it appears you seem to be doing, i didnt hear anything about the costumes or the squid not being there, it was more that the film acted to much like a comic book and was only good when it acted like a movie, so yea chill le **** out and wait for the movie before you make an ass out of yourself defending it |
 |
Edit Reply w/Quote
|
 |
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 09:09:46 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 09:09:55 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 09:26:31 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 09:30:15 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 09:30:49 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 09:37:49 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:03:12 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:07:26 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:10:09 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:13:34 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:18:31 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:22:29 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:25:24 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:27:47 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:32:37 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:33:54 AM |
|
 |
| REPLIED Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:41:19 AM |
|
|
|
|