BYOB – A New Week
Hopefully, some of the louder people – well, one – will be calmer this week.
Not a whole lot going on these days… maybe y’all have something great to chat about…
April 27, 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
Is it just me, or does Miss March look like the new Sex Drive? Also: Haven’t seen Witch Mountain yet, but I strongly suspect The Rock will smite Watchmen this coming weekend.
Miss March looks awful and stupid. I also think that the Watchmen will drop even lower at the B.O next week, it would be real humiliating if they were defeated by a Disney kiddie remake.
I can’t wade through these hundreds of comments, so did ya’ll talk about the ending like here?:
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2009/03/030609unpacking_the_new_ending_of_watchmen.html
I think there is an audience for Witch Mountain, if I was 9 I’d be pretty excited for it. The Watchmen vs Witch Mountain argument seems a little trite. They are geared to completely different demographics. Is there one person in the country that will be standing in a lobby Friday trying to decide whether to see Watchmen or Race To Witch Mountain?
I’m sure it’s a sucker bet, but I kind of think the “Haunting in Connecticut” trailer makes it look like a movie I’d really like to see. What’s the word on this? Moreover, how away from the actual Snedeker family haunting story are they traveling?
I didn’t get a chance to post this weekend in the thread on Watchmen box office when DP explained his view of potential profit and loss on this film. I had been building my own model. Here are a few thoughts and questions built off DP’s model….
Let
You’re so five minutes ago, Direwolf. CONTEMPORIZE, MAN!!!!
I don’t see a lot of non-Pixar Disney movies, but since Witch Mountain actually looks watchable to me, I have to assume it’ll do very well (Dwayne Johnson would be a big part of the appeal).
Also, just saw the original Gone in 60 Seconds over the weekend – kind of clunky in any scene involving dialogue, but that was one great chase sequence.
Mystery Man On Film has posted a link to an amazing document: a transcript of the RADIERS story conference between Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan circa January 1978.
You’ve got to check it out.
http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2009/03/raiders-story-conference.html
I have modest hopes for “Miss March,” given the quality of The Whitest Kids U Know’s sketch show on IFC. It is, perhaps, the only movie to ever have its title changed exclusively because of a shifted release date (originally “Miss February.”) Wonder how much THOSE re-shoots cost.
and I have another quick question regarding those Watchmen numbers. (Sorry but Direwolf opened the door). Nothing is mentioned about DVD marketing costs. Are you including that in the standard P&A costs because some of these DVD releases get the same blanket commercial blocks as a new theatrical release.
And Witch Mountain looks like the normal 70-95 million range for a mid-level Disney release. It amazes me that Johnson has to slum it in these types of family orientated films while Shia LaBouf is somehow an action star.
Sorry to put Watchmen back in this thread but it is an open thread and I don’t think the specific details I am interested in were ever resolved. I work in money management, specifically managing media stocks, so this stuff matters to me. I also own TWX for myself and clients.
I do not assume any DVD marketing costs as part of P&A but it is true that theatrical marketing is partially designed to raise awareness for later DVD sales. One reason windows from box office to DVD are narrowing is to take advantage of this and save marketing dollars.
For DVDs, I assume so many units times a wholesale price (both are falling) and then assume a 60% operating margin on the revenue. I’m thinking Watchmen could do 4 million units globally at $20 per unit (high price but I am assuming a mix in favor of the extras DVDs) for $80 million which works out to $48 million in operating profit. I think WB splits this evenly with Legendary but I am not sure.
Only a guy could dream up a scenario where a happily writhing chick wakes up and is bothered to discover two clones of her boyfriend are something f’ing her while he works at his desk in the adjacent room and comes running at her beck and call. But a woman conjures up a sparkly guy who might kill her and that gets a pass. My confusion must be at the core of it all.
The Rundown was an excellent throwback to the 80/ early 90’s type action movie and that sadly underperformed in theaters and on DVD.
What I want to know is why Walking Tall cost so much money?
T. Holly – huh?
If you’re referring to Twilight, I didn’t see it getting much of a pass where I was looking.
Dire… I did another run through numbers down towards the end of the Weekend Estimates comments…
Dwayne has a lot of existing 20- and 30-something male fans (i.e. the Watchmen demo) from his WWE days…but he’s done his best to alienate us with kiddie crap like that Disney football movie (although the prison football movie he made prior was decent).
And he was on SNL to plug it…though it seemed like his weakest SNL to date.
I am PSYCHED for SXSW. While I’ll be somewhat more busy than before (I’m now Managing Editor at Film Threat) I still think Austin is the greatest city in the union and SXSW is the best fest.
They have some gerat indies as usual but the midnight films/Fantastic Fest at SXSW slate looks amazing. Then again, anything at a midnight show at the Alamo Drafthouse is amazing and if it’s not, a bucket of Lone Star costs like $12.
Plus…new Demme doc on Neil Young, rough cut of Raimi’s new return to horror, premiere’s of “Observe and Report” and “I Love You, Man”…on and on. It’s gonna be a good week!
I leave Thursday…anyone else going?? Joe- you and I have to catch up this year! I missed you last and most of the year before!
Austin finally has some great pizza too — check out Home Slice on Congress…the bomb.
Did the David Poland-Drew McWeeny debate over Watchmen air yet? I don’t have G4 so I hope it becomes embedded somewhere.
poland is on aots this minute…..
I saw a sneak of I Love You, Man a month ago and I wasn’t all that impressed. There was some funny parts, but it seemed like a pretty patchy effort. I could have used more JK Simmons, though.
the vid isn’t up yet but it’ll be here later tonight:
http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/theloop/66379/McWeeny-vs-Poland-On-Watchmen.html
J.K. Simmons needs to star in something. Maybe the Coens can give him a lead role next time.
And while it would NEVER happen, I’d totally pay to see a J. Jonah Jameson movie. Just him living out his awkward life while superheroic stuff happens in the background that he’s totally oblivious to.
“I’m sure it’s a sucker bet, but I kind of think the “Haunting in Connecticut” trailer makes it look like a movie I’d really like to see. What’s the word on this? Moreover, how away from the actual Snedeker family haunting story are they traveling?”
“Several demonic entities made their evil presence known during the ensuing weeks.
“They were incredibly powerful,” Carmen remembers. “One of the demons was very thin, with high cheekbones, long black hair and pitch black eyes. Another had white hair and eyes, wore a pinstriped tuxedo, and his feet were constantly in motion.””
Well, if they follow it too closely, they’ll be sued by the makers of Beetlejuice.
scoot: re your ‘attack’ link, the vid appears to be up but i can’t get it to play, is it just me being at the ends of the earth? (happens a lot, stuff won’t play for me)
LYT: Would you like Tom Stoppard to script that J. Jonah Jameson movie?
Don Lewis: You’re a managing editor? Damn. Yeah, I’ll hook up with you at SXSW — I’ll want to hit you up for free-lance assignments.
never mind, i got it to play (love the dubious little expression on david poland’s face when whatshisdoodle compares ‘watchmen’ to ‘blade runner’ re: future cult status)
It looked like Dave’s chest hair wanted to leap across the desk to attack Drew’s Star Trek insignia.
Comments from AOTS
Dave,
I enjoyed the piece. You read the book 20 times? We have been discussing Watchmen here for weeks and I don’t recall that ever being mentioned.
I liked your comment about Rorschach and “Big Blue” never having a scene together until the end until I remembered that they spoke at the very beginning when Rorschach breaks into the military facility and Dr Manhattan teleports him out midsentence. I never got the impression those two were close and that Manhattan had a hesitation or second thought about what he did.
Leydon: “Is it just me, or does Miss March look like the new Sex Drive?”
I’m sure you intended this as a positive comment, but in a backwards way you’ve hit the nail on the head.
re: aots
it was as if keven periera invited his uncles to be on the show….those two are so out of the demo for that program….(kinda like leydon on the new ‘at the movies’…no offense, joe…but you mentioned it yourself)….
good debate. healthy, both sides presented good points.
i agree with heat on the relationship between the modern day heroes. its not exactly delved into deeply in the graphic novel, there is little shown of the crimefighters acting as a “group”, so you lose something of the dynamic.
Still, i disagree about caring for characters. Dan Dreiberg was the character i was most interested in. kudos to patrick wilson.
Brian O: Uh, no.
Scoot: Hey, no offense taken. That could be why I haven’t been asked back lately. LOL.
I liked Sex Drive and I’m not afraid to say it.
I probably would never have seen it if I didn’t have to organize a sneak for it, though. It’s actually a lot better than the advertisements made it out to be. That said, I’ve actually skipped out on not one, but two sneaks of Miss March.
Leydon: Thank god. Because both films are awful. Just awful.
Brian O: FYI.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938670.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&query=%22Sex+Drive%22+%2BLeydon
Scorcher: you rock chest hair like a young Dan Fogelberg. Seriously; great appearance but you never once brought up reading Watchmen 20 times. That would have added to something Scorcher. Nevertheless; Drew did not apply a sleep-hold on you. So everything worked out for the best, but stop singling me fucking out. If not: you really do not like me when I am an angry. Hold on. Check that… when I am hungry. That’s right! HUNGRY!
Jeff giving dap to the Rock, is good stuff.
Wow, that G4 thing was lacking. Happy and Darkness go at it for 9 minutes and the moderator cuts them off with CGI penis size doesn’t count.
Ha! That video clip was iced tea on a summer day. If the G4 guys were smart they’d court McWeeny and Poland for their own show. I mean, their different “show” and “business” sensibilities were right there guns blazing. And I have a feeling that in the next ten years that will likely be the big conversation. “How good is it?” vs “How much money did it make?”
Also, Drew… you missed it… “99 Luftballons” is all about the US/Soviet nuclear war threat in the 1980s. It’s placement rings true.
David was “show,” he wanted a movie, not a rendering. Drew saw it as commentary on what a superhero movie is today. (Gay villain 2009?, puh-leeze.)
David always seems to me to have much more of a sense of humor in person that doesn’t always translate into his writing.
Proof that tone doesn’t always come across on the Internet.
‘Mystery Man On Film has posted a link to an amazing document: a transcript of the RADIERS story conference between Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan circa January 1978.’
the big snake: (i swore to myself i wouldn’t make a trouser snake joke about that moniker so i’ll leave it at that)
thanks for sharing that link, i just had a chance to read mysteryman’s condensed version of the discussion with his notes, quite fascinating to see the spit-balling for a film project and characters particularly dear to my heart.
i must concur, tho, with this ‘mysteryman’ person in regards to the creepiness of the segment in which lucas and spielberg talk about marion ravenwood being only 15 (starting off at 11/12!) when her and a 25-yr-old indy hook up, how 16 and 17 would be too old to be ‘interesting’ (when marion says, ‘i was just a child’ in the film i didn’t realise she meant she was LITERALLY a child, gross!), and how she would be the instigator of the affair…so what is tantamount to statutory rape in many places in the world is somehow acceptable? yikes, quite disturbing really, esp. in light of how we later learn spielberg and lucas intend for indy to have ‘moral scruples’ and act as a ‘role model’ – so in their eyes a 25-yr-old man sleeping with a girl of 15 is fine and doesn’t make him a big creepy perv, so long as he doesn’t STEAL the medallion from her, THAT was their worry about his morality? wow, that didn’t sit well with me, sort of tainted the whole thing
Enjoyed Drew vs. Dave, but what bothered me is that neither one seemed to want to budge from their absolute stance:
David: You don’t care about any of the characters.
Drew: It’s all in there!
The reality, which neither wanted to acknowledge, is that the film has both the elements that are going to attract fans and non-fans, and elements that can drive either away. It isn’t even necessarily a case of what you bring with you, as we’ve seen mixed reactions across the board.
Why can’t Drew admit that the characterizations aren’t as fleshed out as they could/should be and that there were a significant number of missed opportunites? And why can’t Dave admit that there’s enough there for many people to latch on to and actually give a shit about what’s happening because of the strength of some of the performances, combined with the imagery and music?
I was pretty pleased with what I saw, nitpicks and all, but then I’m a defender of the Star Wars prequels too.
Again, I completely agree with Dave. It did feel like parts had been taken out and so I never once felt that these people had ever once fought crime together as a group called the “Watchmen”. In fact, I found it hard to believe some of them were ever technically superheroes at all (mainly the Matthew Goode character) because we never see him do anything whatsoever other.
And can I just add that “you need to pay attention”/”you need to look harder”/”it takes two viewings to grasp it” etc excuses are the best thing that ever happened to movie defenders of all kind. They’re also the laziest.
Laz: I just fake unbanned you. You should no way.
Kamel: so you have to see something in order to believe it? Really? Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Moving on. I love the characters in this film more than in the book because they lose Moore’s AMBIGUITY.
Ambiguity is all fine and good with text and images, but once everything starts moving with sound. You have to define who these people are, and Snyder and Co. did it in ways Moore never could. The moment with Dan and Rorschach shaking hands moved me more than one panel of the novel. So did Dan giving Ozymandias the business. It sure as fuck beat his and Laurie fucking as John looks on wistfully, and goes away. I care about these characters. I have no idea how you can sit through this movie, and not care about them.
If David did read the novel 20 times. His complaints can be summed up by this fine fellow right here: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/linkara/at4w/5252-linkaras-take-on-watchmen . David simply took the take of a fanboy, that could not wrap his head around CHANGE. Which is ironic if you ask me, but this film has one hell of a beating heart. Denying that it does, is plain fucking weird.
Ugh, for christ sake. No, I don’t need to see something to believe it, but one of the problems I had with THE FILM was that it didn’t make me believe these character had been a group of superheroes. Instead they felt like a random bunch of people who have some special abilities who know each other in some vague sort of way like the way I know the lady at the corner shop but couldn’t tell you her name if you asked.
Make sense?
International numbers are in and they’re… low. In Australia it made AUS$3.5, only a couple of mil ahead of He’s Just Not That Into You, which is at #2 after a month of release. That would work out as a US opening weekend of $35mil so it’s a big disappointment, yes. But as I mentioned the other day, marketing has been surprisingly quiet here from what I’ve seen.
All up it made US$26.7 at the international box office from nearly 50 countries. Not. Good.
Also: Australia passed the $200m worldwide figure. That’s nice for them. Moving on.
different strokes and all that
further to nothing, i’m really looking forward to ‘the wolf man’. i’m a sucker for werewolves and this incarnation sounds like a stab at the genre proper with a traditional sensibility rather than another new-fangled take on the wolf flick (looong wait till november, tho, damn that pesky space/time continuum)
that ‘different strokes’ remark was re: ‘watchmen’
Poland v. McWeeny = awesome.
I agree more with Poland on this movie, but like both guys A LOT and enjoyed that quite a bit. But who the hell is that HOST? Christ.
It’ll sound like genuine jealousy or pettiness, so I’ll steer shy of that, but still ask: What ARE the qualifications to be a host on like REELZ or G4 or IFC? Even taking myself out of the equation (but not really), there’s no real reason other than lack of industry contacts why a good half-dozen or more of us couldn’t be on one of those “schlubby film geek guy presents shit with hot bimbo chick” kinda shows. If Poland is right and print criticism is dying, where does the queue start for off-tier cable movie show personality? Again, anyone on this blog probably knows more about flicks than that manic dweeb…
Or that KLSX “LEO QUINONES THE FILM FREAK” guy (Is that show still on?) Maybe that’s going back a few years now, but that guy had an L.A. RADIO SHOW ALL ABOUT MOVIES and seemed to have the dumbest, shittiest taste in movies and no film knowledge whatsoever. You guys can bag on BEN LYONS all day long, but you haven’t truly experienced a JOE-SIX PACK IDIOT talking about an artform he knows nothing about till you’ve hard from LEO QUINONES THE FILM FREAK.
Kamel posted this; “Ugh, for christ sake. No, I don’t need to see something to believe it”
YES YOU APPARENTLY DO! Figure out another blasted way to post this sentiment. If you did not feel this way. Seriously… it’s a valid call-out. If you have a problem with it… SPINE! Now available in RED LIKE A CYLON!
“, but one of the problems I had with THE FILM was that it didn’t make me believe these character had been a group of superheroes.”
Again: this reads like you needed to be beat over the head with them being a team. They show moments of them being a team, you have Dan and Rorschach moment, and you even have a moment between the Comedian and John. What more would you want?
“Instead they felt like a random bunch of people who have some special abilities who know each other in some vague sort of way like the way I know the lady at the corner shop but couldn’t tell you her name if you asked.
Make sense?”
No, it does not make a lick of sense, and it’s not “DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS.” It just represents why the discussing of anything online can be such pure and utter bullshit. Here’s why:
1) You obviously did not pay that close attention to the movie.
2) If you did pay close attention to this movie. You would realize that this movie answers this question for you.
3) My stating that you obviously did not pay attention to the movie, will upset you.
4) Your hurt feelings me very little to me because it’s obvious that we received two different perceptions of the film.
5) Perceptions based around me paying attention, and you cutting your own rifftrax.com during the movie.
6) This is all fine and good, but it makes for a bullshit discussion.
7) Why? One actually processed the information on screen. While the other just sort of sat there, bladiblah blah, and so on.
8) This does not make you a dummy.
9) Nor does this make me smart.
10) It just demonstrates why the internet is bullshit because I simply cannot state this opinion to you without you thinking I am belittling you, or attacking your opinion. It’s such frustrating bullshit, that I need to start working on voice conferencing message boards.
io, no matter how much you beat kam over the head with your differing opinion on ‘watchmen’, you are never going to get him to change his mind, so why bother? seriously, it’s an exercise in futility and not much fun for the rest of us
It’s more a problem with the dynamics of the actors. As good as some of them are I just didn’t feel a connection. I am especially not sure why anyone likes Silk Spector II since she’s a bit of a bore.
I’m not even going to comment on what you said though, IO. You’re a lost cause at this stage.
“likes” as in wants to be in a relationship with. Not just likes as in finds her pleasant or whatever.
SILK SPECTRE II = BONER.
End of story, mystery solved.
meh. Granted, I’m not into women, but… she was a bit plain, no?
IO’s huge into her; I wouldn’t rank her at Alba, Johansson, Biel, K-STEW levels of MIND-BLOWING sex appeal and perfection. A little too Xena-esque in some bits.
But she was adequately hot for Patrick “Post-Zack Morris Mark Paul Gosselar” Wilson to find her enchanting.
She was clearly the lucky one in that scenario.
ha, so it’s not just me who thinks akerman’s silk spectre II looks a bit like xena
I personally don’t see it, but yeah a few people have mentioned the Xena-ness, actually.
kam, did you ever figure out who is was that you thought akerman looked like but you couldn’t quite put your finger on it? (shit, does that sentence make any sense at all? oh well)
I’m still thinking it’s Kate Bosworth… but I feel like I’d be able to say that with certainty if it was indeed Bosworth. As it stands I’m still not sure. grr.
Thanks, DP, for directing me to the end of the Weekend Estimates thread for answers to my questions on Watchmen economics. I should have read thought again all the way before posting here.
I am working on a post solely from the TWX perspective for my own website that may get picked up by RealMoney.com and SeekingAlpha.com and will be sure to credit you and link.
The flat brown hair makes Akerman look like she has Portman’s features on Dunst’s pumpkin. She’s better as a blonde. They actually made her look pretty bad.
http://abreka.com/jbn/images/natalie-portman.jpg
http://blog.themavenreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/kirsten-dunst-rehab_575.jpg
http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Watchmen/malin_akerman_as_silk_spectre_watchmen_movie_image.jpg
http://images.starpulse.com/pictures/2007/04/06/previews/Malin%20Akerman-DGG-015033.jpg
RE: The Loop…
Mcweeney is right about Watchmen as Blade Runner. Except the book will be the equivalent to Scott’s film.
Otherwise, McWeeney, like Feraci, was to close to the production to see it for just the movie. Drew’s insight comes from what he already knew, namely Snyder’s approach and intentions. There’s several interviews and “Making Of…” stuff where Snyder goes into his ‘comment on superhero movies’ angle. But this has always been a problem with the AICN approach; the love of Hollywood production erases distance. When you know what someone was intending, you find the Tell signs instantly. So when Drew says it takes two viewings to get it, he’s indirectly admitting it didn’t work.
Dave – you should consider doing more reviews on video. You’re still an amiable fellow on camera.
My favorite:
Drew: It takes two viewings to get what Snyder was going for…
Poland: Oh!
As for the host…when did ‘concentration camp’ become chic?
Lex – re: the hosts. They’re not even real geeks. They’re pertty people who needed a gig and learned fanboyism on the go. AOTS is more a giant informercial than anything.
DP, you’ve read the book 20x and are not completely in love with it? Really?
*hurm*
Holy Crap. Maskatron is here.
Someone hide the Venus Probe, quick.
re: aots hosts
when tech tv got bought out and became g4, they dumped the real geeks (alex albrecht, kevin rose et al) and hired actors…that said, periera and olivia munn are really funny people and have improv skills that allow them to work off book most of the time…
btw– albrecht & rose (diggnation) are on jimmy fallon tomorrow night…..
I think it’s really, really hard to say what will and what won’t be a cult film. When Dean Devlin got up at the Saturn Awards to read Pauline Kael’s evisceration of “Star Wars” in defense of his “Godzilla,” I think he made a case in point. I think he felt audiences would catch up to “Godzilla.” They may still, but I haven’t been able to. I liked “Slither,” for instance, but haven’t revisited it like the cult film it wanted to be – so maybe it’s for the younger generation to discover and I can just kick back and watch “Army of Darkness” a few more times.
To that, of the more recent movies, I kind of see the “Matrix” sequels becoming cult films down the line. I recently re-watched one and now that it’s not in the wash of the difference between the original and the sequels, I kind of got into it. There’s a lot of neat stuff in those movies.
But ten years from now, you wonder if anyone’ll care as they didn’t have that experience of the first film coming out of nowhere.
I don’t know if “Watchmen” will be a cult film as, for me, it’s really hard to define where my interest in the comic ends and the movie begins. I doubt I’ll ever be able to separate the two – like every time Rob Zombie used the John Carpenter score in his remake which seemed to challenge and demand the viewer to recall the original, which I don’t think worked that well. Throughout “Watchmen,” I’d see something that would flash me to the exact panel it was copying from the book – which I thought was cool – but then when a scene was even slightly different (Dan being present at the end of Rorschach – but hell, the fact that Romeo and Juliet see each other alive/dying at the end of the Luhrmann movie still bugs me for really altering Shakespeare’s intent), it worked against me – like “Jaws” coaching the audience into believing that the shark only arrives with the music, until…
But with “Watchmen,” there’s been such a drive to either be or not be Pauline Kael-reviewing-“Star Wars.” Everyone wants to NOT be the person hailing “Phantom Menace,” to be on the right side of history. I get that (I am proud to have been a critic blurbing the fuck out of “The Transporter” anointing Jason Statham as the next big whatever – because I’m a dork), but I don’t think – by definition – we’ll know who’s “on the right side of history” for quite some time.
Should say “his ‘Halloween’ remake”
Devlin and Emmerich’s Godzilla is pretty lame – it’s a better movie, for me, than Armageddon, but that’s just because the bar is so low. Devlin is a fool to think there’s anything that anyone will ‘catch up’ to.
Slither is a fun movie, but it kind of wears its desire to be a 2000s Tremors on its sleeve.
But yeah – this is why we need to judge the movies on their own merits and let all the peripheral garbage – box office, expectations,hype – fall by the wayside.
IOI, there’s a contradiction in your last post that I’m sure you’re not aware of.
If I had to sum what you wrote up above, it would be something along the lines of, “Kamikaze Camel, I’m going to berate you for not paying attention to the movie and not being awesome, like I am…but I mean this in the nicest, most non-contentious way possible…you moron.”
Maybe your intention is pure and noble, but what you actually wrote sounds snide and completely oblivious.
So if they’re cult films, that makes “Star Wars” Christianity and “Godzilla” . . . Atenism? “Watchmen” could be Wicca, but I think Manichaeism might be more appropriate. As for “The Matrix,” maybe Gnosticism. It fits some of the themes in those flicks.
“The moment with Dan and Rorschach shaking hands moved me more than one panel of the novel.”
I teared up. Am I justa sucker or did the moment work because it felt real? And I’ve never read the graphic novel.
One thing I would like David to do is next time he interviews an actor/director/writer, bring up the box-office stats and ruler. See what goes down.
And there’s no way to “catch up” to Devlin’s GODZILLA. It was history the day it premiered.
The guy who thinks he’s a psychologist wrote; “IOI, there’s a contradiction in your last post that I’m sure you’re not aware of.”
Ending a sentence with a freakin conjunction? SHAME!
“If I had to sum what you wrote up above, it would be something along the lines of, ‘Kamikaze Camel, I’m going to berate you for not paying attention to the movie and not being awesome, like I am…but I mean this in the nicest, most non-contentious way possible…you moron.'”
Jeff, the only contradiction is in your own mind. I stated the truth from my point of view. Kamel’s points are his points, but they come across as someone who was not paying attention to the film. It does not make him dumb, it does not make me smarter than him, and I never insulted him.
The only problem you and Kamel seem to have, is believing someone is not insulting. Sorry Jeff, but I am not a sensitive sort in a debate. If I wanted to refer to Kamel as a fucking moron. You should know by now, that I would have referred to him as a fucking moron. I do not think he’s moronic, but I think you always trying to find my REAL MOTIVATIONS is beyond moronic. Lying is a thing for other people, but not me. If you cannot get that sentiment through your thick skull, then I would right kindly ask you to stop putting figurative words into my mouth. When you honestly have ZERO FUCKING CLUE as to how I function on any level.
“Maybe your intention is pure and noble, but what you actually wrote sounds snide and completely oblivious.”
It’s only snide and oblivious to people who are sensitive and believe they are always on the attack. Sorry, I was not attacking him, but you should be attacked in this case. I will just let you slide this time because you do not know any better. You know me about as well as I know you Jeff, and that’s not at all. So stop acting as if we are friends.
Leah: if people are so entrenched in their opinions, then they need an attitude adjustment. There’s ALWAYS another possibility. I disagreed with Jeff and I think Lex’s take about Damon’s character in the Departed being gay at first, then I watched the movie again. Which in turn made their points rather obvious because he was clearly another character hiding, and he just happened to be hiding his homosexuality.
If you go to any blog or have any conversation with anyone, and you hold onto your opinions like Linus’ blanket. Why discuss anything with people in the first place? It seems pointless if you refuse to even consider the possibility of changing your mind even a little.
Oh yeah… Mal Ackerman is just hot. She’s good as a blonde, but I love that crazy 80s hair on her.
IOI, you’re still mistaken on many, many points, and it all comes back to what I said years ago when I first noticed you: Your communications skills are very, very poor. Not your typing or grammatical skills, but your basic ability to understand what others are saying to you and what you’re saying to them. It’s like talking to a wall.
Jeffmcm,
Armageddon is way better than Godzilla. I say this based on cast alone. Put Armageddon’s cast in Godzilla and maybe I’d be able to make it through a second viewing.
I’ll counter with: give Armageddon a different director, and maybe I could get through a second viewing.
Bruce Willis is fantastic in ARMAGEDDON.
“Ending a sentence with a freakin conjunction? SHAME!”
I don’t normally play grammar police, but it’s hard to resist in this case. IO, jeff ended a sentence in a preposition (“of”), not a conjunction. So though you were correct to point out that he was incorrect, your correction was also incorrect.
I’ve long said that if “Armageddon” was a product of 1970’s cinema, it would be a classic along the lines of “Magnificent Seven” or “The Wild Bunch” but modern day film criticisms inability to get past their pavlovian Michael Bay response precludes that.
Joe Leydon- I’d LOVE to have you do some stuff for us! We shall talk about it over merlot and Lone Star. I get there THURSDAY!! Praise the lawd….
I like both ATOS hosts. Olivia can be a GIRL, but she has also become a LexG-ian boner icon of the audience and I get the sense that she follows that thread professionally. I’m not saying she’s going to cure cancer, but I get the sense that if she could afford to be, professionally, she would like to be more engaged that she gets to be on that show.
And with Kevin, this is 100% clear. Every time I have spoken to him on that set, I have found someone who is really engaged and interested in a way that the boundaries of the show don’t really allow for. Like Olivia, I don’t know him well enough to be sure he could do surgery on my brain, even after a night at a Holiday Inn Express, but he’s one of those good looking host guys who I could see moving up in class and ending up in news, a la Campbell Brown or Anderson Cooper. Maybe not. But I get that sense of him.
The joke I thought of about the hair was that he was still wearing the Natalie Portman V for Vendetta hairdo… but it never came up on air.
Yes, Drew and (especially) I are too old for the show on some level. Always amused to watch Chris Gore – who is probably between our 2 ages – with the t-shirts and leather. I’m afraid that I am not capable of that game, even if I dropped every ounce of fat on my body.
As for the wrestling match, it is hard to come out FIGHTING when my passion about this is not quite as severe as Drew’s. I agree that he is Mr. Inside in this case… oh the irony. But I’m not Mr. Outside, arguing, for instance, that the schlong or the sex or the violence is BAD. I don’t think it is. I just think that it will clearly limit the audience. I think the failure to see past the book is what’s bad about the film for me… as has been the case with so very many adaptations of so very many great books for decades and decades of cinema.
I think Malin Ackerman is dead sexy… but not a dramatic actress. She’s a beauty not matter what, but she becomes the kind of woman you really want to touch when she is smiling and goofy, which seems to be her real personality. She is a charming light comedianne who should keep chasing Cameron Diaz’s trajectory.
If asked about whether anyone cares about these characters, my answer would not be zero or “just fanboys.” My answer would be “about 20% of the audience.” And another 20% will enjoy the visuals enough to make the ticket feel like money well spent.
40% happy is not a car wreck. And I have never said that the film is a car wreck.
If The Dark Knight is 88% great, I would say that Watchmen, for all the reasons previously noted, is about 55% – 60% great… Rorshach representing a full 25% of that great.
Putting a number to it is a little stupid of me, since I know that it will become a detail thrown back in my face for years to come by some people. But the number feels about right to me.
I thought Malin Ackerman was better than o.k. in “Watchmen” but agree with pretty much everyone who said Goode wasn’t good(e). He made Ozymandias nothing more than an egotistical douche and in the book he was much more…err…refined? Not sure what word I need….but in the book, he wasn’t a douche. His plan actually made some sense and the way he propsed it made sense as well. In the movie, he just seemed like another big time super hero villain only this time, he wasn’t foiled.
“But I’m not Mr. Outside, arguing, for instance, that the schlong or the sex or the violence is BAD. I don’t think it is.”
Interesting that you don’t seem to much mind the violence in the film Dave, because for me it was BAD – easily its worst aspect, and the one deviation from the book that I really couldn’t get past. I was lukewarm on the rest of the movie, to be sure, but every time Snyder felt the need to pump up the gore (Rorschach cleaving the child killer, the dude in the prison getting his hands sawed off, etc.) I sat there shaking my head and saying “dude, please grow the fuck up.” I just didn’t see the point, and I’m not typically squeamish. It seemed fetishistic. If Snyder really was going for a deconstruction of superhero movie archetypes in line with what Moore/Gibbons did for comics, why make it so that every time a bad guy gets beaten up he has to have his neck snapped, or his entire leg blown off by a single bullet? Rarely do we see this in traditional superhero movies, and I honestly can’t fathom why Snyder would feel the need to overdo it in this one aside from simple immaturity. This really didn’t bother you?
I was very concious of it, Mark… especially in that the most extreme violence was one of the few areas where Visionary Snyder blew off the book.
It was still very, very broad to my eye, so even though I thought arms being sawed off was boy-director fetishism, it only pulled me out of the story for a second… partially because I wasn’t deep into the story for other reasons of the director’s creation.
The shot that did bother me more than others, for some reason, was the big bullet through the woman’s calf. Too real and utterly unneeded.
But you are my point. Didn’t kill it for me. But there are many, including you, who are not extreme righties or hypsersenstive parents or anything that “disqualifies you from being considered normal in offering your opinion” and still find it bothersome and a reason not to reccomend the film to others.
What I think Snyder doesn’t get is that the book is both a deconstruction and a reconstruction of the genre. He’s just working on the deconstruction… and his own issues.
id watch a half an hour of dave and drew each week.
though i think the show needs to be called MCWEENY AND HEAT.
that my friends, is a healthy dose of good marketing.
Watchmen is the geek movie they made in the 1990s (Pulp Fiction/Fight Club/Being John Malkovich) marketed as the geek movie they make in the 2000s (Spider-Man/Dark Knight/Sin City). For that reason alone it’s kind of unique.
I felt the ugly cleaver moment was meant to test the audience about Rorschach’s world view… to ask us, “Does this graphic act feel good when you see it done to a loathsome person?”
The overkill wouldn’t have worked being done to any other character by any other character.
I think the “cleaver in the child killer’s head” moment works very well, even though, as others have pointed out, it’s a deviation from an otherwise faithful interpretation of the novel. It clearly sets up Rorschach’s black-and-white worldview: You are evil scum, therefore you deserve a cleaver in the head.
If anything, I could have done without the graphic view of the child’s leg being eaten by the dogs. Meat cleaver in the killer’s head, though? Looks like he had an quicker, easier end than the kid he killed, so what’s the problem?
I’m generally not a violent person, but if someone did that to one of my kids, I can’t guarantee that I wouldn’t go all Rorschach like that, myself, if I got to the guy first. I probably wouldn’t be as nice about it as Rorschach, though.
I’m wondering if Snyder’s attempt to make Watchmen Movie a comment on superhero movies would have worked better if he used previous superhero-movie talent for some of the roles.
Goode made me perpetually think “Ozy was a role built for Kilmer”, forgetting Kilmer in Batman Forever. Then after re-watching the opening credits, I thought of how easy it would have been to roto anyone from Buster Crabbe to Adam West into the Minutemen.
Would that have worked? I could see Keaton as Nite Owl opposite Kilmer’s Ozy. I’m thinking it depends on what the other characters represent and the possible corresponding actors. IMO, it would have been a more blantant way of getting the message across instead of relying on designs as period references.
yancy: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm
The guy whose about as empathetic as a lobster stated; “IOI, you’re still mistaken on many, many points, and it all comes back to what I said years ago when I first noticed you: Your communications skills are very, very poor.
My communication skills are beyond your level, and they have always been. If anything; you lack the ability to understand anything that does not fit in your worldview. You are so beyond white, that anything that does not fit in your great big white world… unnerves you. I have countless post to prove this. Going all the way back to the DAP days in 2005. When you were so confounded by DAP. It was… charming.
“Not your typing or grammatical skills, but your basic ability to understand what others are saying to you and what you’re saying to them. It’s like talking to a wall.”
How fucking arrogant are you? Like talking to a wall? WE ARE NOT TALKING! Good lord. You have never in your life attempted to type anything other than a one paragraph response on this blog. Thus demonstrating you lack the ability to communicate any idea with any detail… ever. Again: you cannot dispute this, and you state I am like POSTING to a WALL? What does that even mean?
Nevertheless; you are a white guy that wants everyone to talk and type like a white guy. I simply refuse to get caught up in your whiteness, and I am way more understanding of you then I ever should be.
I get your points. I simply vehemently disagree with them, that does not mean I am taking them under advisement.
That does not mean I AM NOT taking them under advisement. I agree to disagree with many of you… vehemently. Mr. Close-Minded over there stating that I am like posting to a wall, is fucking funny.
I forgot the cleaver to the head… twice.
Dave, the temporary ban was probably enough.
Save the cleaver for the third strike.
IOI, you do not have a clue what I am talking about. If you did, you’d agree with me.
Save the condescension for people that are younger and/or dumber than you are.
I don’t see “of” anywhere on that list of conjunctions. It is in the list of prepositions at the same site. From said section on prepositions: “You may have learned that ending a sentence with a preposition is a serious breach of grammatical etiquette.” At least some people think so. As for conjunctions, you really can’t end a sentence with a conjunction, since by definition you need the second clause to complete the thought. Otherwise, what are you conjoining?
Thanks for the grammar link, IO. It makes my point.
arguing about grammar on a message board?
is there officially nothing left for you guys to argue about?
i think grammar threw in the towel online right around the time Bush II was sworn in.
Kim et all;
I too was kind of brought out of the story when Rorschach went ballistic with the meat cleaver and as much as I did love the movie, I agree that Snyder was way, way too heavy-handed there.
Buuuut….when you (Kim) mentioned the half-eaten childs leg (which I agree, was also disturbing and really not needed) it made me think that Snyder was likely, in his heavy-handed way, trying to make a “rorschach test” like point about violence.
Like…the kids leg is gross but are you equally as grossed out by a pedophile child killer getting a meat cleaver to his head? Is violence then acceptable? Again, I don’t mean to position Snyder as a geeky Peckinpah, but still…a case can be made…
Forget the Indian leg wrestling, Drew and Dave should have gone sumo!
This dopey guy that thinks he’s so bright and empathetic when he’s not wrote; “IOI, you do not have a clue what I am talking about. If you did, you’d agree with me.”
You essentially think that I simply argue, and never pay attention to what you write. Bullshit. Again; you have absolutely zero clue about what makes me tick, and lack the ability to understand when someone uses the word “DAP.” So you are about as clever as a freakin opie crab.
“Save the condescension for people that are younger and/or dumber than you are.”
This is why you are such an arrogant and dumb motherfucker. You really think that someone stating something TRUTHFULLY AND HONESTLY to you, is condescending to you. You are so beyond fucking arrogant and dumb, that you have already surpassed talkbacker DrewStirsMyStew as dumbass of the week.
Seriously jeff, you are pointless as poster on this forum. There is no reason why you are still here. I at least bring the post count up. What do you do exactly? Oh I know. Mr. Lex in the back corner. “He acts like a douche!” CORRECT for 1500 dollars and a pair of K-Stew’s stretch jeans! “SWEET!”
yancy: it’s a coordinating conjunction as well, but please be snippy to me. Do you want to be Polanded? I don’t think so.
“You essentially think that I simply argue, and never pay attention to what you write.”
This is correct. Whenever you want to prove me wrong, I’ll be waiting.
anghus: I swear I didn’t think this would turn into a grammar argument. I just thought it was amusing that IO was incorrectly referring to jeff’s preposition as a conjunction.
IO: Now I don’t know what you’re talking about, because, as Blackcloud pointed out, “of” is not listed as a coordinating conjunction on the site you linked to (sorry, the site to which you linked :)). At any rate, jeff used it as a preposition, so why bring conjunctions into it?
OK, I’m done. I wasn’t trying to be snippy (well, not TOO snippy), so no need to “Poland” me.
Yancy: Nice answer. Nice answer. I’ll be keeping an eye on you.
Jeff: I prove you wrong all the time. You simply lack the ability to debate. You cannot fight. You are a towel boy in this equation because all you do is wipe up.
I read what Kamel had to state, and what he stated did not fall in line with the movie. If it did, then the movie would have not included scenes and dialogue explaining how these folks worked as a team.
You really think you have me PEGGED. What are you? Daft? You have to be daft because you continually respond to me as if you KNOW ME. You respond to me as we have been friends for yours, all of a sudden you stopped being my friend, and now have decided you can “SEE THROUGH MY BULLSHIT!”
So… really… you are delusional. You are picking a fight with me based on a viewpoint of me, that bares no resemblance to me. Let’s go through that again in case anyone did not catch on.
1) Jeff thinks he knows me.
2) His scary insights into how my mind work.
3) Have led him to believe that he knows exactly who and what I am as a human being.
4) Even though we have never met.
5) Even though we have never had one conversation.
6) Even though we have never visited a Best Buy together.
7) Jeff believes he knows me.
8) So he uses his KNOWLEDGE of me to create a version of me in his head.
9) Which is not me.
10) It’s a SOLARIS SITUATION.
11) Jeremy Davies rules.
12) Watch LOST.
13) So Jeff belives the version in his head is me.
14) Which explains all of his random quips about my character….
15) My mental state…
16) My motivations as a poster…
17) and the way I discuss things as a poster.
18) Which all leads to jeff spending way too much time trying to figure out me…
19) then I have ever cared to spend try to figure him out.
20) All and all: this creates a rather scary picture of Jeffery.
21) I would go as far as to state that he likes me in a romantic way.
22) Awww.
23) Nevertheless; he still is as clueless as anyone else who does not KNOW ME.
24) Until you know me sweetheart.
25) You do not know me.
26) So stop posting as if you do.
27) Dingus.
28) Dinkleberry.
29) Despicable.
30) Dumbass.
Off-topic but I wanted to say that EMILY BLUNT is on JIMMY FALLON, and EMILY BLUNT IS CHAAAAAAAAAAAARMING. CHARMING. SO, SO, SOOOOO CHARMING, LOVE HER, SO HOT AND FUN AND COOL.
That cleaning movie looks FUCKING TERRIBLE and most of her filmography except WIND CHILL is BULLSHIT, but EMILY BLUNT needs to be in MORE GOOD MOVIES that a MAN can watch.
She should be a bigger star because she is LOVELY and CHARMING and SO LIKABLE, and JIMMY FALLON IS HILARIOUS and this show is INSTANTLY the best thing in LATE NIGHT.
E-BLUNT = CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMING.
And she owns circles around that BORING FIRECROTCH Amy Adams who all the limp dick critics have to pretend is sexy, but she’s not.
I MIGHT MOVE TO ENGLAND.
P.S.
I HAVE A BONER.
— LEXG, 3/11/09, 1:08 AM, on EMILY BLUNT eating a pretzel on The Jimmy Fallon Show.
Update: Even the usually humorless Michael Stipe is fucking SLAYING on this Fallon show; Why isn’t it more of a story how awesome this show is?
FALLON = AWESOME. COMIC. GENIUS.
If I was JIMMY FALLON or OTHERWISE FAMOUS or HAD A TALK SHOW or a SAG CARD, I’d order up 20 of my favorite HOT ACTRESSES and get them to line up, then run down the line rubbing my face on their ass cheeks. That would be HOT.
Come to think of it, if I had any money right now, I’d just order up some LA Weekly whores and do that anyway. ASSES OWN.
“if people are so entrenched in their opinions, then they need an attitude adjustment. There’s ALWAYS another possibility.”
But you’re the one who said I was in the wrong because I didn’t “pay attention”.
I regards to cult movies… my thought is that Watchmen can never be a cult movie. While it’s true that cult hits have emerged out of big box office, to truly become cult you need to be universally reviled except for a small audience. Watchmen is not reviled enough by enough people to count.
Secondly, there needs to be some semblance of absurdity in regards to the talent involved. While Gina Gershon clearly deserved an Oscar nomination for Showgirls, she certainly didn’t achieve legendary status for being boring. None of the performances in Watchmen rise to any level of true awfulness or absurd brilliance to really count as being cultish.
And then there’s just the fact that Watchmen is now too well known now. Yes, a lot of cult movies are well-known in a general sort of way, but not many can claim such universal pop culture awareness.
Watchmen will go down as a movie that will have plenty of fans, plenty of detractors and not much more. Yes, the fans will probably watch it multiple times, but that doesn’t make it cult.
But, then again, I wouldn’t call Blade Runner a cult movie since it was brilliant then and most people have come to their senses and realised it since. Although, since it’s been thrown into conversation, Dick Tracy could probably be considered cult in that today it’s generally forgotten about. “Warren Beatty made a Dick Tracy movie with Madonna? No way!” etc.
Also, I’d hazard a guess and say that advertising Repo! The Genetic Opera as “an instant cult film!” was entirely the wrong thing to do. Cult, to most people, equals shit. Why would people pay to see a movie that is marketing itself as being bad?
And while they didn’t market it that way, I imagine that’s what a lot of people thought of GrindHouse.
This is towards Kim’s new piece.
The whole point of Doctor Manhattan is that once Jon Osterman got zapped and turned into a nuclear superhero, he changed. He’s no longer human, and as such, has no need of human morality or human conventions like clothing. He’s like a god, right?
But that’s the point of the counter-point. He’s no longer human. Gibbons Manhattan character design is trying to invoke Michelangelo’s Adam touching the hand of God through build and movement, but as Moore wrote him, the character’s logic would lead him to be more anatomically flawless. Why would Manhattan care about being built like a god, but then not regenerate hair? Why would he keep his junk on display if he has no interest in sex for any personal reason?
Moore looked at nudity as another logical step, like you pointed out, but it doesn’t jibe with the character’s internal logic. If he was doing this via an evolutionary process, his package could appear and disappear when needed. But that doesn’t suit Moore’s needs, which was to shove a naked blue man into a book that’s audience was 99.5% male. Just look at the design of the Euro swimsuit he wears in “superhero mode”. While it’s a comment on the absurdity of superhero wrestling shorts, Tarzan, etc…Gibbons decided to make it black so its panel-visual would be as a giant black pointer.
IMO, Moore’s pervy-libertarian streak took over and Snyder wasn’t trying to think any farther than what was on the page. But when you put the whole thing in motion, it distracts from the rest of the character. So I can’t blame the audience for what’s always been an illogical character design.
It’s these issues that makes me believe when Moore said it was unfilmmable, he wasn’t only talking about structure and medium. I think he knew a number of his decisions would come across as absurd and embarrassing. The easy out is to disown all adaptations so the director takes the hit.
Those are pretty basic points about Manhattan easily addressed in the movie. Why would he regenerate hair if he doesn’t care what he looks like? He has no real interest in those things…he doesn’t CARE that he looks like a God, he just does. If he didn’t, it would make no difference.
And by the same token, if he’s not wearing pants at a certain time and then people come in the room, he doesnt feel ashamed. Pants or no pants is all the same to him. He’s not connected with those feelings any more. They say it over and over.
Like how he brings Silk Spectre to Mars and doesn’t think just maybe possibly she might not be able to breathe. So his junk isn’t on display for sex, it’s on display because why shouldn’t it be, in his mind?
A lot of this is pretty arbitrary. Why is he blue? Not because of anything intrinsically character-based, but because it fit Moore and Gibbons’ color scheme for the overall book.
But no, Snyder wasn’t thinking about anything beyond how to execute what was on the page and ignored any kind of revision (which an actual ‘visionary’ might do).
I bet all the production and VFX meetings they had about ‘so what should his bits look like, exactly?’ were hilariously awkward.
I don’t think you need to do major revisions to the look of a character if it works. Tim Burton made Batman look like Batman…but still revised him to work for a film. As did Snyder with Nite Owl. I saw pictures of him and if they directed translated his look it would have been pretty bad. Why change the look of Manhattan if it works?
I guess the point is, it didn’t work for everybody. I agree that Nite Owl would have looked silly on-screen. To my mind, he looks more than a little silly in the comic.
Nothing can work for everybody, and obviously a muscle bound naked guy is a big risk. Some will love it and some won’t. He definitely made our audience nervous. I didn’t mind one way or the other.
It’s funny how the fanboys freaked out when the new Nite Owl was shown in photos. You could not put the comic Nite Owl in a movie without it being camp. Like the fanboys who want Batman to wear the grey spandex. No way, spandex makes Batman just look fat. He needs the rubber armor.
Speaking of watchmen, I’m more worried about Chuck Norris and his promised “cells” waking up to stop Obama…Can you imagine somebody on the left here calling their group a “cell”? The GOP is becoming more dangerous out of power…
The first thing that came to mind when I saw Dr Manhattan in his speedo was the album sleeve for Sabrina’s 1988 Super Sabrina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FrontSuperSabrina.jpg
CHRIST, on second though re: FALLON:
WHO THE FUCK DO WE HAVE TO THANK for this UNFUNNY LIMEY DOUCHEBAG FUCKING BORAT-WANNABE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUCHE RUSSELL MEANS having ANY kind of fucking career?
Can someone shuffle this fucking 21st century MR. BEAN the FUCK back to England with his painfully UNFUNNY fucking BULLSHIT?????????
THIS DUDE FUCKING SUCKS, isn’t FUNNY, *FUCKING NO ONE***** IN AMERICA FUCKING KNOWS WHO HE IS, deport this skinny-jeaned 46-year-old POSEUR.
In the words of ANTHONY QUAYLE in EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW…:
NOT funny.
FUCKING HELL.
Also not funny: MONTY PYTHON.
If it weren’t for TONY SCOTT, GUY RITCHIE, KEIRA KNIGHTLEY and EMILY BLUNT, England would be a TOTAL fucking loss.
On an UNRELATED TOPIC,
ANNA FARIS = CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMING.
FUNNIEST WOMAN EVER, PURE LEXIAN SEXINESS, MOST CHARMING WOMAN IMAGINABLE.
If there was a ROAD MOVIE with LEXG and ANNA FARIS, it would be the VERY DEFINITION of GIVING THE PUBLIC WHAT IT WANTS.
ANNA FARIS IN JUST FRIENDS = HOTTER THAN *ANY* PORNO I’VE EVER WATCHED.
Does anyone have the hookup with A-FAR? Because I want to hang out with her, GOOD IDEA.
GREAT POST ABOUT LEX’S 13 YEARS IN LA, A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR ALL YOU OTHER POSEURS WHO AREN’T GONNA MAKE IT– YES, YOU, BITCH:
I can’t believe it was 13 YEARS AGO this month that I moved out here.
I figured within SIX WEEKS I’d be in SAG and within SIX MONTHS I’d have Alicia Silverstone and Alyssa Milano fighting over my superstar ass.
FUCKING HILARIOUS that since first driving over that fucking 405 into Van Nuys with a HEAD FULL OF GOALS, I’ve done fuck-all beyond a handful of “extra” gigs, some open mics, a reality show tryout or two, and SIX DAYS A WEEK, 52 WEEKS A YEAR, 11 HOURS A DAY doing fucked-up DAY JOB shit that has become MY LIFE. Only instead of MR. HOLLAND learning his lesson that LIFE IS WHAT YOU DO, I’m doing like DUMB SHIT in a depressing office with a half-hour lunch break and ABSOLUTELY NO ABILITY TO AUDITION or anything.
Any of you motherfuckers who have ANY industry connects or friends or hopes or abilities, fucking good on you, ’cause I’m looking at either another 30 years dubbing tapes, or a fucking noose in the shower.
FUCKING DEPRESSING.
Lex – take the initiative into your own hands as best you can, right now. Build your own site and you’ll get support. You’re willing to hustle but you’ve got no product.
Dave – the marvel schedule change has nothing to do with money. Do you hear me? Nothing at all. Finke and Variety know the truth. It’s about an Avengers film that may never get made. So don’t you dare think this has anything to do with lines of credit. No sir, you would be wrong.
Martin, Lex isn’t willing to hustle. People who are willing to hustle have better things to do at 4:30 am than posting 20 self-pitying blog posts in a row. Maybe, Lex, if you had a proper, non-alcoholic night’s sleep, you could get stuff done during the day.
Jeff – Lex puts it out there. I agree that sobriety would help in getting his shit together, but if he had an outlet to load all of his drunken Hollywood rants on, that would be different. A kind of Tanked Mr. Hyde to offset his frat-boy kewl Ferrell-Jekyll.
IMO, it is funny to read them next to each other. In one post, he’s going on about chicks I couldn’t name or point out of a line-up. But come back a few hours later, and he’s cuddling a noose. I can’t tell what’s authentic because it all reads spontaneous.
And when I say hustle, I don’t mean killing himself like those who are auditioning around the clock. It’s there, he’s just wandering in the L.A wilderness.
If you recall, Lex is too busy.
I liked the dark hair on Akerman. It really makes her eyes sparkle. She looks like pretty much every other pretty blonde woman of Swedish descent to me with her natural hair color.