May 7, 2024
BYOB
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I didn’t miss the squid.
I liked what Snyder kept. I understand what he cut. The “alternate” ending is fine. Wilson, Akerman and especially Haley bring the heat. Crudup and Goode played it too safe. But in all, I thought it deftly compressed 12 issues of material into one visually arresting feature.
The sdtk doesn’t work, though. The material screams “Revolution!” The obvious Dylan and S&G tunes didn’t have to.
Still, solid.
“Solid” is a good word. I agree about the over-familiarity of the soundtrack — “Hallelujah” again? Really? — although I thought the Dylan worked great under those spectacular opening credits. I actually thought Crudup was fantastic, Akerman not.
I thought the over-familiarity of the soundtrack was the point. It is set twenty years ago, before they became cliches, and many of the songs used are directly referenced in the book.
The ending worked better than I thought, because they did think through all the ramifications of the change, specifying how the Comedian would view it as a joke, etc. Still, wouldn’t Russia launch immediately on seeing Moscow explode?
As new endings go, if Snyder really wanted to comment on the modern comic book movie, he would have had Adrian find a way to transform himself into a giant evil version of Dr. Manhattan. Glad that didn’t happen.
And the line “How did you know Edward Blake was the Comedian?” doesn’t work any more — that little domino mask really doesn’t conceal his identity at all, especially since he has a big distinctive scar on his face (hence the gimp mask in the comic).
That said, I loved the casting. Thought everyone pretty much nailed it.
Disappointed just a tad by Karnak — the giant glass vivarium dome opening is one of the coolest visuals in the book, as is the 2001 homage with Adrian eating dinner.
Who wants to bet the first sentence of David’s review includes the word “oy”?
I wrote 2400 words… which will be up at 4p, along with voynar and pride… and not an “oy” to be found.
Forget Watchmen.
To steal from Lex, this is going to OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWN: http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/publicenemies/large.html.
Very surprised DP hasn’t posted yet. Perhaps he’s still scarred by the dreaded “all-media” screening!
The opening credits were great. The first real indication, in my mind, that, “Hey, maybe Snyder does sort of get it, and will try to breathe life into the Moore/Gibbons template.”
And best line, while obvious, has to be “You’re locked in here with me.” Even though you know it’s coming, it still brought geek chills (and received deserved applause in our “disgusting” all-media screening. Even the unwashed of the critical community can appreciate a well-timed nod to fans.)
LYT, I’m sure Comedian’s mask is just as effective as Clark Kent’s glasses. Of course it’s a joke, but it’s a very familar comic book (and comic book movie) motif.
I thought the ending made more sense, logically, by providing a common enemy for the world, but considering how shitty the movie was, I would have preferred it if they kept the squid because the one (and only) thing Snyder seems to good at is visuals, and the squid would have made a hell of a visual.
That’s my big blue head David just posted, btw…
Haven’t seen it yet, but I’m just relieved to hear that the comic’s last scene (in the New Frontiersman office with Rorshach’s journal) is in the film. I don’t give a shit about the squid as long as this ambiguous conclusion was kept in.
Sorry, I have to comment on the Superman glasses thing.
Something from the ’30’s comics that has never been used in any of the film incarnations that makes the whole Kent, hiding behind glasses and keeping his identity secret thing work is…..
In the original comics the lenses in the eyeglasses were made of Kryptonian crystals that were psychic, and would mentally convince whomever was looking at Superman as Clark Kent, they would perceive Kent as looking totally different than Superman.
Kinda like Dr. Who and psychic paper.
As comic-booky as that is, it fit within in the rules set in the universe by the narrative and would effectively kill the much more idiotic idea that nobody can tell that it’s Superman behind Kent’s glasses.
Any WB suits that are working on the next Superman, if it happens, you should clarify that so the whole world can stop thinking how stupid it is that no one can recognize Superman behind normal eyeglasses.
End of rant. Thanks.
Wow. I was never a Superman fan to begin with, but that glasses explanation is absolutely retarded.
Thank god they never used it in any of the films.
More retarded than Superman walking around with just eyeglasses on and nobody can tell it’s him?
Laz, It’s almost 4:20, I would love to try what you’re smoking…
I never heard that Kryptonian thing — but I did hear them explain it once as he actually uses super-speed to vibrate his body at a slightly different frequency so that pictures of Kent always come out blurry.
Watchmen is supposed to be more realistic about such things, though, which is why in the comic Blake dons a full-hood mask after being scarred, and Veidt’s domino mask is bigger and more masquerade-ball-like than the tiny one he wears onscreen.
the krytonian lenses thing was introduced in one issue of action back in the 70’s and never brought up again…
*ahem* kryptonian…sorry
my bad..it was superman #330 12/78…and it’s here:
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/pre-crisis-reviews/pre-crisis-mmrs-intro.php?topic=c-review-pc-sup330
It misses in a very interesting manner. It’s visually great (as expected) but it’s so slavish to the source that it forgets to be a movie and entertain in its on medium. There’s no propulsive momentum and so therefore no thrill ride feeling. If it wants to truly be a meta breakdown of superheroes and themes like the novel then it needed to be more heady but the narrative structure and some of the acting rob it of that potential accomplishment as it
“… and then making a horribly placed comic reference about monologuing.”
To be fair, Luke, that’s a direct lift from Moore’s text. Like 95 percent of the film. But I’m with you on the final grade. 3.5 out of 5. Seems fair.
You are right about the lift but to my ear it played all wrong in the context of how that scene was playing out on screen. In juxtaposition I loved the Rorschach prison lift line and thought it was perfect. I think because of The Incredibles and the many other film references to bad guys monologue tirades that you have to leave it out. Similar to how the molester was handled. He didn’t get the saw to get himself out because we’ve seen that…in Saw. It’s no longer original so a change was made and he got the cleaver.
Not direct enough a lift for my liking.
When Ozy in the comic says “I’m not a Republic serial villain,” he is being accurate, pointing out how he improves upon such characters’ fatal flaw.
But in the movie, he says “I’m not a comic book villain.” Sorry, Ozymandias, but yes you are. The comic’s called Watchmen. It’s a cheap laugh line now.
Granted, “Republic serial” is a reference possibly lost on most of the public. If he could have said “James Bond villain,” for instance, that would have been better.
Oh, the cleaver. Right. Why couldn’t Rorschach burn him to death, as in the book? Wonder why Snyder changed that. It’s marginally less brutal than the cleaver to the skull. It just seemed like, of all things to alter from the book, Snyder would off the perv with blade over fire. Thoughts?
TMJ – because the way he does it in the book, taken from Mad Max, where he gives him a hacksaw and says he can’t cut the chain in time, has since been done to death in the SAW films. I’m guessing Snyder didn’t want to invite a comparison.
hey lyt, why not a proper homage with the full blue monty? 😉
HOLY SHIT I DIDN’T KNOW LOU FROM CADDYSHACK WAS A WATCHMAN.
“why not a proper homage with the full blue monty?”
Because shaving my head is a whole lot easier than, uh, other areas.
I WONDER IF DR. MANHATTAN SHOOTS A BLUE LOAD.
Not going to see it until it hits DVD, can someone tell me how they changed the ending? Even though it is a spoiler thread put a big spoiler warning on it. I am very curious about what they changed but not enough to actually see the movie.
LOVED it.
The best part was after we got to see a little girl that had been eaten by dogs, and then the guy getting the cleaver to the head…some father escorted out the seven year old kid that he brought. Too bad that kid didn’t get to see the sex scene!
hcat, about the ending, I haven’t read the novel but here’s how the film ends
SPOILER
Veidt is behind everything. He knows that the only way to stop the world from destroying itself in a nuclear war (Nixon was about to nuke the USSR) is to united the nations by giving them a common enemy. He fools Dr. Manhattan to help him build a machine that gives out the same kind of energy the good doctor has. Veidt then uses this machine to destroy 15 cities around the world. The world blames Dr. Manhattan who recently left Earth for Mars. Rorschach and Nite Owl II figure this out and meet Veidt in Antarctica. Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre II join them, returning from Mars. Dr. Manhattan understands why Veidt did this. Rorschach refuses to keep quiet. Dr. Manhattan kills him (Rorschach screams to the Blue Man to kill him because he will not compromise). Rorschach is killed (Nite Owl dramatically screams ‘Nooooo’). Dr. Manhattan leaves this galaxy. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre continues their romance. Then, at a newspaper office, the editor is complaining that there is nothing to write about because the world is peaceful. A writer tells him that he’ll fish something out of the crank files. Pan to the basket containing said files and on top is Rorschach’s diary which reveals everything.
Not sure which of the 9000 Watchmen posts would be the best place to put thoughts after seeing it:
BIGGEST PROBLEM is the complete lack of NEW YORK CITY as a character in the film. The GRAPHIC NOVEL has a sense of escalating tension THAT IS NOT THERE IN THE FILM. All the street corner rage and paranoia and panic is GONE. New York is not convincingly portrayed at ALL, and the film’s metropolis is as generic as any other budget-pinching ’00 era superhero movie.
Without the cutaways to REGULAR PEOPLE being consumed by paranoia and attacking each other, we’re left with a generic future world and a handful of TERRIBLE Nixon scenes to convey one of Moore’s best bits of business in the book: That doomsday hostility that puts the ENTIRE NARRATIVE OF THE STORY into effect.
Without all that, the movie is sluggish and rambling; At like 100 minute mark when Night Owl and Rorschach finally teamed, I had ALMOST COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN about the pulpy conspiracy investigation that is the book’s propulsive through-line.
Just very little momentum or energy, some great setpieces, and Haley is AWESOME, but by excising a lot of the book’s cool, nihilistic tangents, Snyder’s vision seems… kinda generic and clunky, almost second unit.
I agree with you, Lex. And I’d add that part of the problem is simply that Snyder didn’t really ‘adapt’ the novel as much as he just sort of traced it (that’s a nod to Don Lewis), rather slavishly in some areas, but without grappling with the material’s thoughts and emotions or trying to make them particularly relevant to a 2009 audience.
I liked lots of moments within the movie, like the opening and the Dr. Manhattan flashbacks, and I thought Haley, Crudup, and Morgan were all terrific. But the movie, as it stands right now, is more of an ossification than anything else. The last half hour was especially rushed and perfunctory.