Our very own Comedian has been thrown out of the window for 48 hours for verbally napalming the blog and attempting to rape reasonable discourse.
Hopefully, a huge opening weekend for Watchmen will calm him down, as he has, at times been a valued commenter to this blog. In the meantime, feel free to throw ideas around in a civil way for a while…
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"]
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
OK, one more time I ask: What is the absolute minimum that Watchmen has to score this weekend to avoid negtaive spin? I say: Anything below $45 million, and the boo-birds come out. (Since it’s an R-rated movie, I think $50 million may be setting the bar unfairly high. But that’s just me)
NYT raved about it: http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/movies/06Watc.html?8dpc
What’s a third of TDK’s opening weekend? I’d say that’s a good number.
Funny, mut.
Mutiny, raved about it? More like raged against it.
Prostitutes and ugly buildings…
The boo-birds really don’t much matter. The bottom line is what matters.
Anything under $71 million, which the much less expensive 300 opened to, is a problem for the studio.
$45 million and, literally, people will lose jobs.
$50 million means, most likely, a worldwide gross of under $325 million, which means the movie would still actually lose money for the studio.
There have been seven R-rated openings over $50 million. Three in the spring.
What I am interested in watching is how long those who are mega-excited about the film will maintain that position. I would love to believe that the loyal will remain loyal no matter what happens. But on occasions like this, the passions seem to be connected to the wider public response (whether positive or negative). I am a bit cynical about it, but then again, we have seen it turn so many times.
Absolutely right, Dave. Has to be around 70.
I’m getting the feeling the drop-off is going to be in the Ang Hulk territory, even though there’s no R competition.
And for those wondering about the Moore curse…the movie was pushed into production just to be released as the world readies for its Nestea Plunge. Yes, I believe Moore can conjure magic.
“$45 million and, literally, people will lose jobs.”
Has that ever actually happened? I’ve seen tons of DOA movies released throughout the years (hell, I’ve released a few myself) and I’ve never seen a bloodbath due to a disappointing opening.
Dave’s point, IMO, is that we’ve never seen a DOA movie released in this economy.
Since I have a regular job, I have to forgo the midnight shows tonight. I’ll probably see it on the weekend after we drop the teenager at the sitter.
In the meantime, I have to amuse myself with this:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i151/Marybear_2006/my%20husband%20is%20happy/DSCN0887_1681.jpg
and this:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i151/Marybear_2006/my%20husband%20is%20happy/DSCN0889_1683.jpg
And if you have a problem with that, you need to get this:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i151/Marybear_2006/my%20husband%20is%20happy/DSCN0888_1682.jpg
Quick detour – I’m having a hard time getting over Boyle’s rejection of directing Bond. I’ve been a Boyle fan from the wee days and this disappoints and pisses me off at the same time.
Yeah, that’s how I’d follow-up my Oscar win! I’d love to be the anonymous director of a never-ending ridiculous spy action series!
Single movies have actualy shut down entire studios, Wreck. So, yes. But this is unusual now.
Studios are doing head counts every month right now. We are in a moment, which should last another year or so, where any one major movie can, literally, cost studio jobs.
Watchmen is the only film expensive enough to be that significant this spring. But come summer, the balance of Wolverine and Night At The Museum 2 will matter at Fox, Star Trek and GI Joe will matter at Paramount. Films like Angels & Demons, and Potter, and Transformers 2 are presumed grossers. So the threat for others really comes from a combination of failures… 2 or 3.
For Warners, they have already counted the Potter money, so Watchmen is a hinge movie… their only huge budget film other than Potter this year. (I don’t think they have any real money in Terminator Salvation… and even well over budget, Where The Wild Things Are is now a “problem” project and won’t carry big expectations financially.)
will the *mega*excited* actually PAY for tickets in this economy? Geeks are losing their jobs faster than everyone else except mortgage peeps. It’s one thing to go to comicon and wizard and buy your geek stuff you’ve been collecting since you were 8, but paying for movies seems hit or miss.
worst thing is that many comic geeks buy pirate copies…of lots of things and that includes movies. Or wait til it comes out on Netflix and copies a few for their buds…delayed piracy.
hope not, but people have to pay for tickets within the first 3 weeks or it might not matter as much.
I think comic-related releases would be alot less stressful if there was less info given out about the writing and production at comicon & wizard events. Most people wouldn;t boycott a movie cloaked in mystery with a cool poster and decent cast.
Fans have become such psychotic behaving bullies that I have turned on my own kind.
“Quick detour – I’m having a hard time getting over Boyle’s rejection of directing Bond. I’ve been a Boyle fan from the wee days and this disappoints and pisses me off at the same time.”
I’m guessing that Boyle knew that the producers would be meddling with his authority on the project from day one, so no Bond movie for him. And after winning at the Oscars so handily, either you go for the paycheck gig or take a shot at finally getting a long-awaited pet project off the ground. Can’t really tell with so little information.
Lota, I think even a lonnnnnnnnnnng out of work geek would probably pawn whatever he could, sell a couple pints of blood, and possibly give somebody a handjob to see “Watchmen” up on the big screen.
(hopefully, not while sitting next to the handjob’ee, which would just queer the event altogether).
No hallick, I don;t think so. There is not the same devotion to movies as there is to collectors objects, signed photos, art/drawings and gaming, and even going to comicon which some long out of work geeks save all year for.
If it hits 70+ I will be pleasantly surprised.
Watchmen has taken over a serious amount of ad time on NBC tonight. I’ve been underwhelmed by much of the advertising (which admittedly, I’ve only seen online), but seeing it in HD tonight makes it look pretty slick. The “character profiles” they’re running are pretty cool.
That’s what’s driving me crazy about the marketing. The fact is, the average person has no idea what Watchmen is or who these characters are, so marketing is forced to over-market by explaining it all and convincing people to care about it. It’s like a fascist dictatorship rewriting history.
Is it accurate to the book? Does it work as a movie? How much will opening weekend be? How much will it gross? Will people lose their jobs?
Christ, it’s a movie about a giant bald blue glowing naked guy. How brainwashed are we to give a flying fuck about any of this?
I want to go to sleep and wake up like 4 days from now and move on with life.
40 MIL OPENING DAY.
TAKE IT TO THE BANK. GUARANTEED.
40 MIL FRIDAY.
re: summer movies that matter….
it doesn’t matter what they make…i’m of the opinion that the studios will spin every one of those high profile/big budget pictures into an excuse to eliminate jobs (because they can)…it’s already happening and it’s not unlike what the airlines did after 9/11….
just an observation….
RE: THe New York Times review…
How glad do you think WB is that this one went to Scott and not Dargis? Because I think she would have eviscerated it.
Granted, it’s only one voice in the flurry of criticism, but still.
Guess I should have read that NYT review first.
Hurm.
“The fact is, the average person has no idea what Watchmen is or who these characters are, so marketing is forced to over-market by explaining it all and convincing people to care about it.”
Its over-marketed TO YOU. You’re right– the average person has NO IDEA what Watchmen is or who these characters are (or who the actors playing the characters are). They have to convince these people to care enough to see the movie because they NEED THOSE DOLLARS. Maybe its a perfectly appropriate amount of marketing.
I want to firebomb this fucking movie.
I fart in its general direction.
Why would one necessarily assume Dargis would eviscerate “Watchmen”? (I can’t remember her take on “300,” admittedly.)
She’s an unrepentant fan of big, overblown popcorn movies when they’re done a certain bombastic way, and historically a huge defender of Bay/Bruckheimer/Tony (the director, not her peer) Scott stuff and male-testosterone flicks in general.
In other words, even though she’s a chick, she’s a lot more hardcore and appreciative of ownage than the standy wishy-washy, squeamish tweed-wearing film critic stereotype.
And I like AO Scott and even sometimes Lane… I just don’t know why so many good critics have to be such inredible pussies on the subjects of violence, revenge, and vengeance.
Wasn’t it Scott who had the review: “300 is about as violent as Apocalypto and twice as stupid”? I even heard other news sources quoting that line. People have mentioned the R rating as a potential uberopening killer but at 2:40 mins, isn’t that a more logistical killer to the potential grosses? Has anyone said what pre-sales have been? There’s nothing on the landscape. My low end would be $54 with top of $63 but wouldn’t be surprised if it did reach 70.
I haven’t seen all of Boyle’s movies but they seem to be very theme-heavy. I don’t think there’s much one could say w/a Bond film. Do kids in England grow up wishing they could direct a Bond installment? Not that he’s not his own person but it’d be easy for him to ask “would Kubrick direct a Bond?” “Would Pakula have laced ’em up for Bond installment?”
It would’ve been a nice paycheck w/built in safety net because you know it’ll open to $30 min but I think mutinyco prolly nailed it.
Don’t know if I’ll get over to see Watchmen this w/e or not. I wasn’t amped to see it even before the negativity hit. I would like to see it before all the talk hits and potentially ruins it even more. A long movie and being crammed in w/a buncha people doesn’t sound so appealling. Exciting for Dark Knight, here, I don’t know.
I don’t really understand why the Bond producers are trying to hire ‘name’ directors – Michael Apted is a great filmmaker, but Martin Campbell made the two best Bond movies of the last twenty years, simply by being a relatively old-school director with basic narrative skills and the ability to work well with the formula.
Can I just add something to the thread that was closed down in regards to where people come from. I was out one night at a club and ran into an old friend from school. We hung out for the rest of the night and instead of getting a taxi home we walked back to his place and I slept on the couch. When I woke up I realised it was a crack den and there was a naked chick passed out on the floor near me. No fuckin’ shit. I bolted.
I’m seeing Watchmen in…. three hours exactly. I’m excited but not OMGWATCHMEN! about it. I’m more excited about the movie I’m seeing next on Wednesday night (a small aussie film that’s rumoured to have been selected for Cannes). But that’s just me.
It’s just as well that Boyle doesn’t direct the next Bond. It would be killed by ads full of name-checking and Oscar-whoring.
Christian website Movieguide is filing a protest with the MPAA over Watchmen not being rated NC-17:
http://www.movieguide.org/articles/1/243
“would Kubrick direct a Bond?”
Depending on the time in his career, I’m sure he would have, absolutely.
P.S. That’s a stupid question.
As for Watchmen, I’ll wait till the final gross becomes apparent before I crucify/crown the movie.
From my very limited vantage point, it looks very good for Watchmen’s Box Office. All of the comic book geeks I know are going to see it, of course. But so are most of the non-geeks I know. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Box Office top 100 for the weekend. Of course, that being said, I am a big fan of the comic, and I am not particularly interested myself. I may go see it in a few weeks when the crowds have died down, or I may wait for DVD.
David, how serious a “problem” is Where The Wild Things Are considered? I knew it had gone over budget, but I thought expectations were still quite high. I know it’s one of the films I’m looking forward to most.
Also, I think it makes total sense for Boyle to turn down a Bond film. He would have just about zero control. At best he’d be the third most important person on set at any given time. Also, what is there really left to be said about Bond, that hasn’t been said? As for Kubrick, he may have made a Bond film pre-Spartacus, but after that, not a chance.
Thank god Boyle didn’t accept the Bond movie. Gives him a better chance of fucking with his newfound fans. Make another 28 Days Later, Danny, or another Trainspotting. Anything that can’t be described as “feelgood”.
The session I was at tonight for Watchmen had walk outs. About 30 of them. Very odd considering Australian’s aren’t prone to doing that. And lots of chuckling at the bright blue penis.
Is the new Star Trek trailer in front?
I think Boyle would be a good choice about two films down the line. He should do some more personal picks after winning the oscar.
Good move Dave, that last thread really went down the rabbit hole. I notice we never get that agitated while discussing I Served the King of England (Which I thought was excellent and would highly recommend to everyone, funny with lots of playful sexuality while still capturing some heavier drama).
And while I have owned the comic since 88 and have probably reread it every couple months since then I could not be more ambevilient about seeing it on the screen. The big excitement for me this weekend is LET THE RIGHT ONE IN ARRIVES ON DVD ON TUESDAY.
Just want to say that Jeff is absolutely right about Bond directors. You need a craftsman, not an artiste.
And I’d be perfectly happy if they just paid Martin Campbell to keep coming back. He’s directed the two best of the last six Bond movies. After Casino Royale I hoped they were set for a Craig / Campbell trilogy at minimum.
I can’t see any way that Watchmen makes a hundred million. But I could see 70 or some other really big number. I have the feeling it’s going to do 300 numbers.
And Apocalypto wasn’t stupid at all! That was a GREAT movie!
How many Bonds would people like to see Craig do? Other actors have done 1,2,4,6 and 7 turns at the role so my OCD says I would like to see him go five times. At this pace they can crank these out while Craig is still spry and maintain the character arc they’ve created. Then they can hire another actor and have him be a sillier gadgety Roger Mooreish Bond for a couple.
And though I have become terrible at predictions lately (in November I predicted a Van Sant oscar win, and a that the dow would be back up to 14k by early april). I am feeling that Watchmen is pulling in about 45 million this weekend.
45 million? I’d be shocked if it was that low. I just think it’s been too long that a big explosiony looking movie has been out, and Watchmen is coming at just the right time. If this were summer with competition, I could see it.
To add…Friday the 13th, a slasher film, opened at 40 million. I think a superhero comic book action movie will do significantly more.
“And I’d be perfectly happy if they just paid Martin Campbell to keep coming back. He’s directed the two best of the last six Bond movies. After Casino Royale I hoped they were set for a Craig / Campbell trilogy at minimum.”
Word. I was hoping that they would happen. The biggest mistake that the producers have made was that they didn’t invite him back (assuming, of course, that he did want to come back).
I’ve been complaining about Campbell not coming back for ages. Between the two bond films and The Mask of Zorro, he’s arguably my favorite pure action director (even B-level fare like Legend of Zorro and Vertical Limit is better than most of the genre output). As it is, he’s now attached to Green Lantern and I’m officially thrilled.
Considering that no acknowledged film artiste has done a Bond, I don’t think anybody can say they just need a “craftsman.” The best Bonds had directors who rose above their rank, particularly Peter Hunt’s audacious ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE. What they need is a great director who loves Bond. If you think Spielberg would not have directed a fantastic Bond film…
But that’s the thing – Eon/the Broccolis would never have probably never have agreed to work with Spielberg because they want to maintain control over the franchise. For practical purposes, it only makes sense to talk about filmmakers who would actually be considered under their arrangment – I’m sure Tarantino or James Cameron could make good Bond movies too, but those are never going to happen either.
Roman, here’s another “stupid” question for ya, do you know what a hypothetical question is?
Maybe if in looking over Kubrick’s resume I could see any pattern, hint or suggestion that he would’ve done a Bond movie your argument might hold water. Otherwise it’s speculation, which would be the POINT of someone asking.
Prior to Casino Royale, wasn’t Tarantino telling anyone that moved that he would love to do a Bond film and he would “restart” the character and make it more believable and more full of physical stunts and delve into the gritter side of his personality as per the novels? They turned him down and then went on to do everything he suggested… Maybe I’m just re-writing history, however…
I think Tarantono’s version would have been a period piece, set in the 60s. Besides that, yeah he talked about it.
No way could a really interesting director do a Bond though. As Jeff said, the Broccolis are too controlling with the franchise, which is funny because they seem basically clueless…all they know to do is follow trends. Spielberg had said he wanted to do a Bond but they wouldn’t go for it, so Indiana Jones was sort of his answer to them.
Looking over Kubrick’s resume the only thing missing was a spy movie and a western (two bad that one eyed Jacks didn’t pan out for him). He was able to jump into different genres and put his stamp on them. How many other directors have so effortlessly moved between comedy, war, science fiction, gangster, period, and horror and have many of those considered in the top five of the genre? (perhaps Hawks, and if Speilberg can manage a comedy)
While it would have taken much too long for him to film I would have loved to see what Kubrick would have done with a Bond film. But I would have loved to see any other movie he could have fit in during his lifetime.
Yeah, what is interesting about Kukrick is that he was essentially a genre director. He didn’t make a bunch of, say, Woody Allen type of movies.
Glad to see some love for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. WAY underrated, especially Lazenby’s performance. Both the film and the peformance are better than the ridiculous Diamonds Are Forever.
After catching up with OHMSS again on DVD, much of the Roger Moore set pieces (like the skiing sequence in For Your Eyes Only) feel derivative. In how many other Bond flicks is there the kind of attention to detail you get with the bit about using the lining of his pants pockets as mittens?
@Perm: I love Craig as Bond, but post-Craig, a rebooted series done as a period piece would rock. Didn’t OSS 117: Nest of Spies do something similar, though?
Up until Quantum, you had to be apart of the Commonwealth to direct a Bond film. Eon said it was about keep a British sensibility, but I’ve always wondered if it was more a tax issue.
Christian Considering that no acknowledged film artiste has done a Bond, I don’t think anybody can say they just need a “craftsman.”
Exactly. Boyle had expressed interest years ago, along with Nolan and Ritchie, so I was surprised he would flat-out reject it considering he would now be on a leveled playing field. Maybe it’s a tactic, but he never struck me as being sharkish.
The reason I’d like to see someone with a little flair get involved is because Bond is going to face some stiff genre competition over the next few years. The spy film Cronenberg is going to do with Cruise and Denzel will most likely undercut the hard-edge angle of Craig’s films. They’ve got to do something different or it’s three-and-out.
George Lazenby wasn’t a bad Bond. But Timothy Dalton was a badass Bond.
“In how many other Bond flicks is there the kind of attention to detail you get with the bit about using the lining of his pants pockets as mittens?”
Right outta Fleming. And incredibly, these details that make Bond a great character are often lost in the films.
And the ski chase in OHMSS is still the greatest action set piece of the series. Bond misses Barry.
And yes, those in the loop know that Dalton ruled.
“Spielberg had said he wanted to do a Bond but they wouldn’t go for it, so Indiana Jones was sort of his answer to them. ”
As a massive nut for Raiders, I can’t thank the Broccoli’s enough for their short-sightedness.
LYT@2:14A: Warner Bros. and Paramount should tell Movieguide to STFU and GTFO.
Tom Cruise was on the right track with the Mission Impossible series…DePalma, Woo, and Abrams. If Bond went that way, although maybe not as extreme…that would be interesting.
I also would have liked to see a 60s set Bond film. But I guess we already got those, so how could they be better?
Thunderball, Casino, and OHSS are my favorite Bonds, and I’ll second the skiing sequence in Majesty being the best of the series. I would like to see them get Craig in the snow in an upcoming film. The best parts of Moore’s tenure was on ski’s between the opening of Spy and biatholon of Eyes, but that was probably due to the fact the the stunt doubles weren’t visibly wheezing during their scenes.
I had seen all the Bond films up through the Dalton years as a kid and then completly dismissed them for years until CR. Since then I went through almost the entire series again and found a lot to like.
‘Make another 28 Days Later, Danny, or another Trainspotting. Anything that can’t be described as “feelgood”.’
yeah, fuck that ‘feel good’ shit, danny b, embrace your inner sick puppy, accept who you are and make me care again. i didn’t give two farts in the wind about that indian fairytale.
and ditto on martin campbell, leave bond to the action kiwi at the mo, it suits him. maybe campbell felt he’d done his dash with bond
There’s something specific in the online community, it seems, that hates movies that are light and fun and just want ‘dark” movies. Why is that? I have my own theories, but I ain’t saying right now.
And funny enough, Boyle got shit on a lot for giving 28 Days Later a “happy” ending. Sure all of England was seemingly wiped out, but three people surviving? Awful sell out bullshit! But I for one am glad he ended the film that way. The one thing I hate hate HATE about horror movies is they don’t have an ending, either happy OR sad. You have a last jump of some kind, cut to black.
Dear anyone in Hollywood who may be reading this blog and made a horror movie that ends in that way. FUCK YOU.
By the way, can I add that right now I am playing? I am PLAYING.
‘And funny enough, Boyle got shit on a lot for giving 28 Days Later a “happy” ending.’
nah, perm, boyle ended the movie on a decidedly wretched note and was forced to change it and film on a ‘happy’ ending by the interfering moneymen. boyle’s original ending can be found on the director’s cut special platinum extended edition dvd
@hcat: Interesting, I had a similar experience between For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights (minus View to a Kill, but I don’t think I missed much), then filled in the gaps on DVD after falling in love with Casino Royale.
I like your picks for best in the series, although From Russia with Love is my favorite of the Connery Bonds, and I have an adolescent preference for Never Say Never Again over Thunderball. I had a huge crushes on Basinger and Carrera, and thought Brandauer was great as Largo.
@Perm: with due deference to the playful tone, I suspect that Boyle’s ending was something of an homage to the Romero Dead flicks, but especially Day of the Dead.
OHMSS: Best Bond ever.
I know Connery was the best Bond and it seems blasphemous not to say Goldfinger or From Russia as my second fave, but I tend to think of Spy Who Loved Me as the ULTIMATE Bond, as maybe a lot of Gen X’ers do. It just came out in that Star Wars era and seems like such a formative classic, has so many outlandish but well-done elements, and features Moore at his absolute best. And it has Barbara Bach, maybe the sexiest Bond girl, and JAWS.
‘From Russia with Love is my favorite of the Connery Bonds’
me, too, ndb
and again, the theatrical ending of ’28 days later’ is not boyle’s ending, it was unhappily forced upon him. the last scene takes place in an abandoned hospital
I’d have to agree that The Spy Who Loved me is Moore’s best, for all those reasons, Lex. The sequences in Egypt are among the best in the series (Barbara Bach in that dress out in the desert… makes me bite my fist, Squiggy-style), and Moore has a harder edge in that one.
But the ending is pretty silly and kinda ruins it for me.
@leah: I know you’re all about the darkness, but after looking at the storyboards and script included on the DVD… I didn’t get a clear idea of how Boyle’s original ending would have worked on screen, and the Romero ending is fine by me.
And I knew you liked From Russia from a previous thread!
Wow, and here I thought this was about Watchmen…
So what’d everyone think? Or is that in another thread. Needless to say, I found it entertaining, although perhaps too dense at times. It could have used a little more distilling.
The Hallelujah scene was gaudy and pretty awkward all around. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen something on screen quite as weird.
I’m not a huge fanboy of the comic, heck I haven’t even finished reading it, and I started over a year ago. I can appreciate what made it in there from what I’ve read…and the Rorschach stuff was the bees’ knees. Also though Patrick Wilson elevated the material.
Anyhow, a solid B in my books. In a post Dark Knight world, it wasn’t the home run it needed to be to be a vital work of art. That being said, it’d probably land in my top ten for comic book adaptations, possibly even top five.
But was that ending forced on Boyle or did he go along with it? Even though he may prefer the original ending, which I’ve seen…he’s always stated that he wants to make popular movies that audiences like. He’s made no bones about that. And he said they misinterpreted the original ending, which is that while Jim dies, the two women walking out of the hospital was to imply their survival. But the audience read it as them walking into their doom.
So did he then, in order to make it a popular, appealing movie, decide to change the ending…or was it forced upon him?
They also had that third ending which was never filmed, just to let the dad live even though it was ridiculous. Glad they never made that one.
wow…that’s weird, ndb, is boyle’s actual filmed final scene not available in the US?
on the dvd’s here, the only version of the film you can rent/buy (as far as i’ve seen, anyway) is the director’s cut with boyle’s ending – the scene in the hospital, definitely filmed and quite heart-wrenching, the theatrical ‘happy’ ending is relegated to the dvd extras, along with boyle’s commentary about how he was forced to re-shoot his finish and how bummed out he was about it. weird. you must check out boyle’s ending, far better imho but i’m a sick, twisted soul
Maybe the end of Spy Who Loved Me is ridiculous, NDB, but that line from Moore at the end (“Just keeping the British end up, sir!”) is one of the best of the entire series.
Count me in as one who thinks it’s one of the best.
In the US the DVD of 28 Days Later has the other endings as extras.
sorry, perm and i cross-posted, obviously the original version is available in the US
I’d like to see an R-rated, ’60s set Bond with all the sex, nudity and ultra-violence they weren’t allowed to show us back in the real 1960s.
I personally don’t have any problem with auteur (even auteur-ish) directors taking a crack at Bondage. A Tarantino–or Spielberg–Bond would have been niravana.
My personal favorite 007 flick isn’t even part of the “official” series: Irvin Kershner’s “Never Say Never Again.”
And, no disrespect to Lex, but “Again”‘s Kim Basinger is my choice as the greatest post-Ursula Andress Bond chick.
‘I’d like to see an R-rated, ’60s set Bond with all the sex, nudity and ultra-violence they weren’t allowed to show us back in the real 1960s.’
so long as it’s bond that is nude, movieman, i’d like to see that, too!
James Cameron has done a “Bond”. True Lies had a lot that Bond films were missing…..
“…it is rooted in a view of human behavior that is fundamentally immature, self-pitying and sentimental.”
And Revolutionary Road wasn’t?
Sorry, but I found Scott’s entire premise ridiculous: that the world doesn’t need saving anymore, that nobody thinks violence is the solution to problems, that today’s world is such a better place than the ’80s that nobody would connect with those old-fashioned apocalyptic themes anymore.
So I guess Giuliani DID turn NYC into utopia for Scott to have such a sunny view of the world. Nope, there aren’t any terrorists out there who would like nothing better than to wipe out all humanity with smallpox, just as there aren’t any asteroids out there just waiting to make the death of the dinosaurs look like a day at the beach, and the economy is doing just great, thank you very much. Life is so great that a downbeat movie like this makes no sense, right?
Or maybe he’s just ticked because he knows 99% of humanity would press the “Crater NYC” button to save the rest of the world.
So how much was the midnite showing? 4Mil? Opening Day? 25Mil?
For the weekend? 75Mil, considering the majority of the country is getting rain or snow and there isn’t shit for sporting events. Or will rating and length trim that number down?
Considering what made this R, I don’t know if it was worth the audience drop. Cut this into a pair of two-hour blocks, and WB could have called it a year.
Insane BD sales. Rivaling TDK.
Audience reactions?
Boxofficeguru says the opening weekend total will be $57-$61 million.
No Star Trek trailer at my screening.
What was the deal with assaulting us with the McLaughlin group in the first scene of this movie? That was not in the graphic novel, and seemed quite arbitrary. I thought, I’ll be watching that show later tonight (20 year unbreakable habit), why do I have to watch it now?
“No Star Trek trailer at my screening.”
Thank Jeebus for that. I’m sure this one will be the anti-Watchmen: great response from the general public, but snorting and derision from the fans. The studio will love that, I’m sure, and they’ll laugh all the way to the bank, which is probably why they gave the movie to a guy who obviously doesn’t give a toss about continuity or even common sense.
We got Star Trek beforehand.
In regards to Bond, I’d love to see Jonathan Mostow or Joe Johnson tackle one. They seem like they’ve got a good handle on that sort of stuff without the radical streak that the Broccoli’s are fearful of. Marc Forster was the wrong choice, I’ll say that much.
Your LORD HAS RETURNED! Let me tell you. It’s hard posting as everyone else on this blog. I mean, really really difficult to post as David Poland. While not having a bitchin golden chain like David Poland!
“In regards to Bond, I’d love to see Jonathan Mostow or Joe Johnson tackle one. They seem like they’ve got a good handle on that sort of stuff without the radical streak that the Broccoli’s are fearful of. Marc Forster was the wrong choice, I’ll say that much.”
It’s funny how scripts haven’t really been brought up in these debates; as if the right director was all that was necessary in getting the series back on track.
Considering that the scripts for practically all 20 years of Dalton/Brosnan were incomprehensible garbage, you’re probably right.
Huh? I don’t follow the argument that the scripts for A View to a Kill or Octopussy were somehow superior to those for License to Kill or Goldeneye.
Point taken–those were pretty garbagey, too: Cardboard hero tracking a scarcely memorable villain who is trying to launch a forgettable plot to do something vaguely illegal, resulting in a script nearly unable to tie together action sequences likely shot before the reasons linking them together were even thought out.
So have I just trashed every blockbuster action flick ever made?
Did someone just trash Sir Timothy and Sir Roger? IF they did. THAT MAKES ME ANGRY! IT MAKES ME SO ANGRY… oh jesus. I just hit a Yugo. OH my GOD! I hit it so hard. It just disintegrated in my hands! DAMN YOU HOT BLOG! DAMN YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL!
Finally got to see Watchmen and, yes, I did have to sit through the Star Trek trailer. Yick. (Building the Enterprise on Earth? Just how stupid is Abrams?) Still, I wonder how many folks realized that Watchmen actually took a jab at good-old Captain Kirk. Where, you might ask? How about in “99 Luftballons”:
99 Knights of the air
Ride super-high-tech jet fighters
Everyone’s a superhero.
Everyone’s a Captain Kirk.
With orders to identify.
To clarify and classify.
Scramble in the summer sky.
As 99 red balloons go by.
And considering the line “In this dust that was a city,” I think we can figure out how these overeager pilots reacted to the balloons.