i have many thoughts as to the existence of the forthcoming watchmen film... most of which concern its nature as a commodity, its artistic achievement or lack thereof, the line between adaptation and transposition, etc... a lot of questions to which there are no simple answers. i don't doubt for a moment that the experience of seeing the movie is going to be an exhilarating one from start to finish, but... is that necessarily a good thing?
a part of me thinks that the fact that this movie is going to be wildly entertaining is potentially an enormous and increasingly corrosive problem.
what's the point of this whole project? to bring a treasured story to the masses in a more digestible format? selfless and surely a part of it, but hardly the reason that such rabid anticipation abounds from all corners, including this blog and this blogger. it SEEMS as if the fervor over the movie seems to implicitly suggest one medium's hierarchical status as superior to another - people who could draw watchmen by memory are clamoring to see this thing because they want to see their favorite characters brought to life... so it SEEMS as if they want motion pictures to do for this story what still cels could not. whether it be removing what little work the graphic novel format demands of the imagination or tapping into the boundless joy of the cinema of attractions... it can safely be said that if watchmen were originally a movie that was going to be published as a graphic novel on march 6th, it wouldn't have quite the same cultural cache.
but film is not an inherently more capable medium than the graphic novel. it's just different and this is what i fear zack snyder does not understand. *though, for the record, i think the brunt of the truly indelible storytellers, poets, philosophers of the 20th century opted to devote themselves to the former... i'm sorry, and maybe it's just a perceived gravitas, but i can't put stan lee in the same company of a robert bresson - frank miller with abbas kiarostami.
a 12 year-old with the right tools at his disposal could splay the static images of watchmen across three hours worth of motion pictures and wind up with a pretty fun ride. but doesn't watchmen deserve better? i mean, i think i should be more excited to see watchmen than anyone else, because i'm someone who enjoyed the source material but hardly thought it was life-altering, and am excited to re-trace my steps in as concise and eye-popping a fashion as possible. people unfamiliar with the graphic novel are largely going to be apathetic, and the true fanboys and girls... the passionate ones... shouldn't they be pissed? or... anxious? curious, sure. but excited... genuinely excited, convinced of impending greatness... no. watchmen was as much about form and deconstruction as it was about narrative... from elliptical pages to the ransacking of mythos and genre... it was a game-changer told with some serious aplomb.
the irony of taking this particular graphic novel and literally transposing it (save for a few aesthetic details...) is infuriating.
it's infuriating in theory, and if my fears are proven to be validated, it's going to be that much more infuriating in execution as i enjoy the shit out of the movie and then find myself in a tizzy in the lobby afterwards. snyder has not been coy about his approach to the material... in fact he seems to be blithely unaware that the project could have been handled in any other fashion. he seems most proud of how accurately he was able to emulate the source material, as if - given the money and tools of modern movie-making - that's any sort of accomplishment.
what's worse is that the few visual flourishes he's brought to the table - at least so far as i've seen - have been DIRECTLY ANTITHETICAL TO THE ESSENCE OF WATCHMEN. slow-mo? and so much of it? really? but... aren't these physically unexceptional people bringing the business of crime-fighting and the personalities behind it down to a real if not sociopathic level? isn't any sort of gloss or sheen in direct contradiction with the filthy world they inhabit and the filth they inhabit it with? when malin ackerman preternaturally dodges a piece of exploding... whatever during the prison break-in... i want to put my head in my hands and whisper, "no." i felt as if i had to wash my hands with lysol after every chapter of the graphic novel... the clips from the movie give me the same satisfaction of watching the set pieces from ong-bak or casino royale. now... i know that there are probably just 3 or 4 action beats in the movie, and they're naturally being used to sell it... so i'm going to assume positive intent and expect that the other 2:30 hours of the movie capture everything that the clips suggest has been sacrificed... but this all distracts from my main point which is that a story of such complexity... a project rife with such potential... should not be transposed. it should be re-imagined. it should take advantage of the new medium's unique properties to mine the source material for new ideas... to use a new set of tools to explore alan moore's ideas in ways the graphic novel format didn't allow for, even if it means discarding some of dave gibbons' iconic work (actually, it sounds as if the opening credit sequence has done just that... a cause for hope).
fans and their fidelity. sigh.
at the end, it all goes back to herzog... as everything does. zack snyder only seems interested in the accountant's truth. if only watchmen had been helmed by a filmmaker who was more than a cover artist... zack snyder, the glitziest bar singer in america. if only it had been helmed by a filmmaker who was looking for something ecstatic. well, in that case the movie may never have been made... risk is profit's arch-nemesis... but maybe that would have been for the best?
when a filmmaker's ambition is simply to put a graphic novel into motion... he not only does filmgoers a tremendous disservice by ignoring all but the basic functions of the medium, but he re-institutes the hierarchy of arts... by ignoring its unique qualities in order to faithfully present those of another format, he actually makes film subservient to the graphic novel.
bah. even if watchmen is the bestest movie in all the land, i think this topic deserves a lot of thought. a lot more thought than a hastily written pre-gym blog post can offer it, at least. and do remember that this is all just a big WHAT IF... i already have my tickets for the midnight show in imax, and i feel confident that my 16 bucks has bought me an invigorating 3 hours. i hope against hope that i've bought more than that...
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
"
but film is not an inherently more capable medium than the graphic novel. it's just different and this is what i fear zack snyder does not understand. *though, for the record, i think the brunt of the truly indelible storytellers, poets, philosophers of the 20th century opted to devote themselves to the former... i'm sorry, and maybe it's just a perceived gravitas, but i can't put stan lee in the same company of a robert bresson - frank miller with abbas kiarostami."
haha, well, you sir are clearly a cinephile and not a comic book fan. I would argue that Fables is more brilliant than most of the films I've seen in my lifetime. granted, I've seen nowhere near as many films as you and as a result, have probably not seen some of the best. but you have also not read nearly as many comics as me, or as any comic book fan, so to denounce the medium that way i think isn't quite fair.
"(actually, it sounds as if the opening credit sequence has done just that... a cause for hope)."
hellz yes it does. THEY ARE AMAZING AHHHHHHH
dude, im nervous. but more for the outside reaction. based on the 25 minutes i've seen, i think it'll be brilliant. based on the 5 other random clips i've seen tossed about on the internet, i'm like, "hrmm". this leads me to believe that watchmen is going to be VERY love/hate. I will no doubt be on the love side, and you the hate side, but i can deal with that, haha.
well, i haven't read this fables of yours... so that's no comment city. and i'd be the first to admit that i'm not especially well-versed in the wide world of comic books... but though i did say that one medium was not inherently BETTER than the other (though film is by definition more capable, as you could always film a comic book and just keep the camera running as someone turned the pages), and that equal but different idea was sort of the crux of my argument... i maintain that, at least in terms of VOLUME... film was the greater lore for the greater minds of the 20th century. but that's probably because it was embraced by the entire world, and not just 2 countries or relegated to a tiny niche in others. so yeah, totally ridiculous argument.
and for the record... i have no intention of hating watchmen! i explicitly stated that i am super duper excited to see it, and would lourve for it to be a really impressive adaptation... but i have my doubts, i'm definitely going in with a critical eye, and i do feel that if it fails in the fashion i fear it might, it will be a disappointment of a particularly insidious nature.
though film is by definition more capable, as you could always film a comic book and just keep the camera running as someone turned the pages
I'm going to have to disagree, here; a film of someone turning comic book pages is not a comic book (ceci n'est pas une pipe), nor is it a better/more capable option: by filming it you've limited it, the viewer is now bound by the director's decisions as to the speed with which to turn the pages, the lighting to use, the audio cues to have (they might leave it silent, but who makes silent films these days?).
Whereas with the item itself, you can stop, you can flip back instantly as far as you want, you can choose to put two panels from separate volumes side-by-side with little effort, you can study each panel for as long as you want... none of which you could do as easily with the filmed version.
ooooh scott, i like it.
and david, i'm lending you fables. you will read it and you will love it and you will cry with me when ABC rapes it next season.
@ scott - yeah, i'd agree that my example of filming someone reading a comic book was pretty weak. capability and superiority are two very different things... while i'm the first person to debunk notions of documentary reality (re: your comment about the creator's hand always being involved), a film can contain a comic book, whereas a comic book can't contain a film. the fact that the filmic representation would be an echo of the original item reduces this dialogue to a series of boring technological differences... but with the power of digital technology (i.e. blu-rays) one can leaf through a movie at any speed they like... using simple dvd tech someone could read a graphic novel at whatever speed they liked as well. for volume... you could listen to it with any number of supplied tracks, and there's always the mute button. but interactive menus are not "film," necessarily. or at all. though one could always slow or speed the frames per second with actual celluloid, of course... just ask andy warhol.
but of course all of the variables you cited as far as reading a comic book are concerned are reader controlled. the pace at which one turns the pages... the lightning under which one chooses to read those pages... so graphic novels imbue the reader with more power than film does the viewer, right? by the dictionary definition of the word, i'd say that implicitly makes the graphic novel LESS capable, as it becomes a less tyrannical means of narrative communication. and here is where digital technology really muddles the whole debate up, graphic novels don't have the ability to force the reader into a series of preset conditions, whereas now motion pictures are capable of the consistent experience (the cinema) and allowing me to watch the west wing over sushi on my iphone. which is the only true way to watch the west wing. now film can free you, too... i can even tweak the brightness... and the graphic novel loses its edge in that regard, especially because framing and mise-en-scene, among the central means by which film locks the viewer into a certain view, directly carry over to comics.
but i think any differences between media almost inherently negate any debate about superiority... as you said, there are some things that are easier to accomplish with a graphic novel, things that - if exploited - can make a work successful in a way that could only be achieved in that unique medium. it's certainly a hell of a lot less awkward to throw in giant chunks of hollis mason's book into watchmen the graphic novel than it would be to scroll that text on the screen for 20 minutes at a time.
but to go back to my original post... the point is that there are enough differences between the two forms that snyder could potentially have had a lot of very rewarding fun exploring the watchmen saga with a new bag of tools, and it looks like he might have had a lot of fun phoning it in. it just seems that he MIGHT have - for the brunt of the film - looked at the differences between the mediums as an obstacle or a non-issue rather than as an opportunity. at least that's what i fear.
and LQ... i will read your fables, gypsy, but i'm wary after the disastrous Y:THE LAST MAN incident of 2008.
This is one of my dearest subjects, the difference between adaptation and transposition, but I think Watchmen is about translation from page to screen, for a number of reasons that all stem from the creator. Because the question is... in what way should Snyder explore the universe of Watchmen beyond what Alan Moore does?
Now, most of the time, if someone is going to adapt a novel I expect them to be creating what is essentially a companion universe, because you cannot physically recreate the written word on film, other than filming those pages. No matter how precise a description is, every reader will experience it differently, ever reader will see something different in their own mind's eye. Novels and film are so far and apart that the source material must be completely and totally transformed through a director's vision.
Watchmen isn't a novel, though. Everyone who read it had the same visual experience. We all saw the same things. We know what the character and the world looks like, and moreover, we were shown it in very specific ways by Moore and Gibbons, at least as specifically as any director could create a film.
Take for advantage the scene of the Comedian's attempted rape of Sally Jupiter. I don't have my scanner hooked up, and Drew has my Watchmen graphic novel so I can't show my sources, here, but take my word for it OR LEAF THROUGH YOUR OWN COPY.
The panels on the pages line up and mirror each other- Sally being punched in the face in the upper right hand panel of the left hand page is directly next to, across from the crease of the binding, the mirror image of Edward Blake being punched in the face by Hooded Justice. John Ostermann's chapter on time and relativity is done entirely in mirror images beginning to end. Therefor the chapter is not only part of telling the story, not only an examination of what it means to be God and what it means to exist in time, but it's also an artistic experiment. Moore has said explicitly that Watchmen was created specifically to show that the medium can accomplish what both the written word and film cannot. It's half the point of the work (the other being OMGWTF WHO WOULD EVER DRESS UP AND PICK FIGHTS).
So for the fans there's an extant experience, and an extant universe that's captured and held their interest for decades. As a filmmaker, Snyder has probably realized this and has figured out that putting something as near to that experience as possible on the big screen will only captivate more fans with a new medium.
It's not just about translating the look to the screen, though. Where would Snyder take this universe that Moore didn't, that would serve the story? To what depth would Snyder plumb that hasn't already been by Moore? The story is finite. It's not supposed to be a template for a world of superheroes like Marvel and DC books. It's a whole, self contained story. Beginning middle end. To encompass the story that Moore wrote, you have to deal with the visual and the simultaneous narratives that occur throughout the book. Just for the STORY. Let alone the experience or the world, which involves even more- the clippings, the news stories, The Black Freighter.
Now, personally, much like Cowboy Bebop I don't think a Watchmen film is necessary. But most films aren't. I do, however, think that come hell or high water some studio was going to cash in on Watchmen, and it may as well be Snyder at the helm- a fan who understands how to put comics on screen.
david, I wish you'd seen the opening credits, because they alone flesh out the Watchmen universe in ways that Moore and Gibbons didn't, possibly wouldn't even have thought to. The opening credits, in eight minutes, establish a wealth of history that it takes about seven of twelve chapters to get from the novel. Behold the power of cinema- and while the rest of the film may be painfully fidelitous, Snyder demonstrates his love of, joy in, and understanding for the world he's putting on screen in spades. It's a really frakking awesome opener.
More later, I have to go to work.
Whoa...that's one hell of a discussion over the differences between media. I won't spend too much time (space?) on this, but I will say this:
David, you mentioned that capability is inherently tied to the level of power the creator can withhold from him audience. I spend most of my creative time wrestling with this as a game designer, so I can say with some confidence that giving control to your audience isn't necessarily the same as ceding power. Once you get into it, there's a lot of artistic challenge (and power to be exercised) in influencing what your audience will DO with that power. In short, giving the audience control doesn't necessarily mean losing your own. Then again, games are intentionally designed to handle this problem, whereas graphic novels and films are not (or rarely, to cover my ass) created with any consideration that the user will flip through them randomly.
As for the Watchmen, great article, David. The difficulty of risk vs profitability is huge, so it's hard to really determine whether Snyder has done the right thing.
Two questions to throw out to the forum, without taking a stance on them myself ;)
If the film drives thousands of new Watchmen fans to the comic book store to buy the graphic novel, does that justify the movie's very un-risky (and therefore possibly more successful) adaptation?
Isn't an adaption inherently less innovative than an original work of fiction, regardless of medium? True, the restraint of having to answer to source material requires a different creative approach, but at its impetus, isn't the motivation (especially in Hollywood) to stand on the shoulders of the original work's popularity or brilliance, even if you end up surpassing it? This argument wouldn't discredit the creative value of adaptations, but it would somewhat undermine the discussion of artistic integrity in an adaptation.
Reviewing it, that last issue I raised applies more to the screenplay of the Watchmen film than the film itself. I realize that in any collaborative medium, one creator relies on the success of his peer, and vice versa.
And we're back!
David. You cannot cannot cannot cannot CANNOT compare Stan "The Man" Lee to Robert Bresson. That's- what is wrong with you? You can't compare Lancelot du Lac to Spiderman. One is a meticulous work of cinema genius, the other is much better known and more popular. And somewhat less serious in its artistic goal.
The men in this country who originated Super Hero Comic books did not set out to originate a new art form or a new genre. You can give it to Seigel and Shuster, they really did come up with something New that completely revolutionized multiple industries over a long enough timeline, but it was never meant to be high art. Stan Lee in particular was a pulp guy who wanted to go beyond the funnies. I don't know Kiarostami's work so I can't comment, but I'd be willing to bet as an Iranian director who started work in the 60s, he is also coming from a place of slightly greater magnitude than most of the Brooklyn Jews who populated the Marvel offices in the 40s.
Comics, much like the movies, did not start out as the pinnacle art form of great human expression. Cinema had slightly loftier beginnings, but it pretty quickly became comprised of as much commercialized garbage as the good stuff, the stuff with meaning. But comics, as a medium, caught on. I know you hated Y, but at least BKV was using the medium to tell a story he thought was important, that said something about humanity and the way we live. Maus is an overused but deserving example of comics being used to express meaningful insights and commentary on the world. Watchmen does that but FOR ITS OWN MEDIUM. Comics do what film does, but they get much less exposure and have a much worse stigma attached to them. Its difficult to be taken seriously when you're sold on a rack next to people with their underwear on the outside. Granted, most comics are sensationalist far-fetched ridiculous action escapism.
..............wwwaaaaaaaait SO ARE MOST MOVIES.
To quote a filmmaker in a totally impersonal way, Robert Meyer Burnett, director of Free Enterprise and various Documentaries, once said "Cinema is the literature of my life". In that respect, I agree with you, david. Film has has a much more lasting impression on the modern American public than literature.
But how many people know who Abbas Kiarostami is? Now how many people know who Wolverine is? It's an unfair comparison, which you already know, but yeah. Just had to put those thoughts down.
It's maybe sad that I read your description of your furtive anxiety over Watchmen's artistic viability with a sense of resignation. I think it's nice, but sort of self-damning. It's going to be a big Hollywood movie. Hopefully the source material will be enough to imbue it with merit it otherwise might not be granted. To be honest, I was never expecting Snyder to bring anything more to the table, and that's probably wrong. I should be demanding more. But when it's so easy a property to royally screw up, I don't want Snyder to bring more than what Watchmen is to the screen.
Also, the movie IS going to possess deconstructionist elements. The costumes, for example. It's not coincidence that Ozymandias's chestplate has nipples molded onto it- Batman and Robin, anyone?- or that the Silk Spectre is dressed in slick laytex fetish gear- Michelle Pfeiffer, thank you very much. The way the comic was a deconstruction of superhero comics, the movie is going to be a deconstruction of superhero movies. Part of that is addressing the high gloss, oversexed, hyperaction that superhero movies were for so long.
In the same breath as not expecting Snyder to blow the world of Watchmen wide open, I also have to say I think you might not be giving him enough credit. Granted, with the movies he has made under his belt, I can see why you'd be hesitant to. I do think, however, that when they offered him the movie (and he said no), he realized that by taking the project on he'd be shouldering a huge burden, not just as someone who has a ravening fanbase and a greedy industry to answer to, but as a filmmaker who loves Genre.
Possibly more, have to go babysit now.
"The way the comic was a deconstruction of superhero comics, the movie is going to be a deconstruction of superhero movies. Part of that is addressing the high gloss, oversexed, hyperaction that superhero movies were for so long."
YES YES
that is exactly right.
well done.
Erudite, to your points: interesting. I've been reading a lot about games trying to get respect among other media, and read that in the early days of comics, there was a standards board that basically censored comic content to nothing but flashy superhero content, which is why that is the common perception of comics still today -- they weren't even ALLOWED to branch out for years.
Also, I was just reading this article on io9 about the predecessors to modern-era superheroes. Seems like #7, "Gladiator", was basically where Seigel and Shuster got all their material for Superman from, speaking of adaptation!
"Isn't an adaption inherently less innovative than an original work of fiction, regardless of medium? "
no. the magnificent ambersons - the magnificent ambersons. or... to mine a more recent example, OIL! - there will be blood. plot and innovation are not inextricably linked or mutually exclusive.
2001 - 2001.
and even if watchmen were infallible... which it certainly is not... the point remains that a simple transposition would not be the best means of adapting it to film... you'd get faint echoes of the flaccid truths of the original and ignore the wealth of possible ecstatic truths that the source material provides room to explore.
and amanda, no medium in history has had a less illustrious beginning then film.
"So for the fans there's an extant experience, and an extant universe that's captured and held their interest for decades. As a filmmaker, Snyder has probably realized this and has figured out that putting something as near to that experience as possible on the big screen will only captivate more fans with a new medium."
but it wont. that would be like... hrmm... analogy time... sticking your hand into a bag of glorious almond m&ms and only eating the chocolate that rubs off on your fingers. it would be like settling for the residue.
stealth bear - you're absolutely right, and i was really just trying to reduce the dynamic between artist and creator across the mediums to its most simplistic level to show how absurd and endlessly boggling a comparison can be... which cements my point that the modern media are so different that the more direct an adaptation between them is, the less likely (to an extent) it is to succeed.
Benjamin button is a good example of an adaptation that shares almost nothing with the original. Some people love it, some don't.
EC already made the point (and better) that I was going to about an adaptation of Watchmen, to fulfil it's potential, needing to serve as a deconstruction of the medium in which it now exists, so... superhero/action movies. Hence the gloss, and the costumes, and the good ole slo-mo, which I confess I'm less worried about than I once was, simply because I thought about it some more.
Kind of like I grew to love the squid, actually.
david, declaring that films are more capable because they allow greater control is kind of a cheat; the thing is, when you talk about a medium being capable, it's a question of what it's capable of. You can't declare it universally more capable and then restrict your definition of capability to 'controlling the experience' because there are other kinds.
Books are capable of a greater link between a single creator and the mind of their audience, for instance, and also are more capable of being different things to different people (everyone sees a character in their own way). Games are capable of allowing the player greater control over the experience, which means they're capable of engaging them in a different, potentially deeper way: I've been scared considerably more by games than I ever have by a film. Like Stealth Bear was saying, giving me control gave the game designers more power over me, and they used it to freak me the fuck out. And comics are capable of being analyzed on a level like EC was talking about, the panel-to-panel comparison, as a fundamental of the medium, not something you need special features on your player to do. The analysis of static panels is planned for, anticipated, expected... (okay, sometimes, sometimes not) I don't imagine that many film-makers expect their audience to be Zaprudering their way through. They're designed to be watched right through in one hit.
Which is good, none of these are better than the others because it's an impossible comparison, it's honest to god apples to oranges. You can compare vitamin levels all you want, but which one tastes better? Well, that depends on the person biting down.
In conclusion, last night I saw a clip of the Comedian jumping down from the Owlship towards the rioters in dramatic slow motion... to the audio cues of peppy disco music. It filled me with glorious hope.
SCOTT- LINK PLZ
Everytime I watch it I start grinning.
With bonus other clips below it!
scott - read my last post. or just re-read this:
stealth bear - you're absolutely right, and i was really just trying to reduce the dynamic between artist and creator across the mediums to its most simplistic level to show how absurd and endlessly boggling a comparison it can be... which cements my point that the modern media are so different that the more direct an adaptation between them is, the less likely (to an extent) it is to succeed.
and um... slo-mo as a means of deconstructing the action genre? i'm not even close to buying that. for snyder, it's somewhere between a crutch and a fetish. want to deconstruct the modern action genre? make it as grimy, plain, and unkinetic as humanly possible.
Well, it is those things, the slo-mo, but that's why it would have to be present in a deconstruction, to demonstrate how empty and contrary it is.
Whether Snyder's capable of that level of self-reflection, I don't know, but that's why the clip above lets me dream: that feels like some juxtaposition going on right there.
We're more likely to get that than a straight up ugly fight, at any rate.
while snyder DOES tend to love him some slo-mo, how could you successfully deconstruct the superhero genre WITHOUT emulating the elements of the modern day superhero film? You need the silly costumes and the gloss, I agree.
Lots of people have been questioning the quality of Watchmen because of that new Nite Owl/Rorschach clip that was released yesterday on the interwebs. But...what people don't seem to understand is that having two guys dressed up in costumes having a conversation about life and friendship...that SHOULD be awkward. It's part of the point. Almost Brechtian maybe? It IS silly and weird and uncomfotable to see two grown men playing dress up.
david, I think in the end you will see how the sheen and gloss is necessary. because of the juxtaposition. and that IS using the medium of film to show something the medium of a comic book cannot. You have the effects! and the explosions! and the slo mo! but rather than being like 'wow, wolverine, you are badass!" we'll be thinking, "this makes me uncomfortable." and that's exactly right. and also exactly why the mainsteam public is most likely NOT going to understand this movie or like it very much.
SCOTT WE JUST WROTE KIND OF THE SAME THING AT THE SAME TIME AND THAT'S AWESOME
LQ, WE DID and it is.
And I'm with you on the Nite Owl/Rorschach scene. People are seriously complaining that it's awkward? It's MEANT to be awkward, it's an awkward scene. What were they expecting?
um. LQ... i hope i will see the supposed light, though i would implore you to reserve judgment as well. but i think, given his history, you'd have to be on a lethal amount of smack to think that zack snyder of all people has ulterior, subversive motives for his aesthetic tics. that being said, a film's merits cannot be judged by its creator's intentions. so... maybe it will all be a happy accident. but there's nothing uncomfortable about the slow-mo in the jail break-in. nothing intriguing at all about it, it seems. it just seems fetishistic and banal.
SEEMS... at least.
okay, that's it.
david, you best be seeing the movie for the first time with me so when the opening credits play, i can witness you thinking "wow, im amazed and super uncomfortable and would be crying if i was rachel, all at once!"
but then we can't speak or interact for the rest of the film cause i couldn't handle it...
and to all seeing watchmen with me at midnight, first show, if you are going to speak during the movie, it will be only be to say "wow" or something of that ilk. anything negative and i'll punch you in your balls and/or ovaries.
LQ... if this conversation shows anything, it's that... of all the properties in the geek world... watchmen is the one that demands critical thought, that pleads with you to turn off your unconditional geek love and approach it with critical thought... well, at least during the 2nd time you see it.
I promise, the second time I see it I will remove the geek hat and put on the critical thought hat. I just don't like people dissing a movie while it's happening...unless it's valkyrie. or he's just not that into you. or hotel for dogs. something i have nothing invested in.
2 things.
1.) you have a geek hat?
2.) i wish i had actually invested in any of the movies you just mentioned.
Actually, I do in fact have a geek hat! It's red and says "Frak" on it :)
Not sure what my critical thought hat looks like...but I have a couple of options. Not the Underworld beanie...maybe the Yankees baseball cap? What about the plaid fedora?
I do want to point out that I agree with David that this movie warrants intense discussion and examination, and that of all the sources from which could spring a great adaptation that creates a new level of depth in a genre and utilizes cinema to show a story the way it couldn't be shown before.
I just don't think we should count it out yet.
Achievement Unlocked: Comment Mania!
50G
You successfully drew 30 comments from one blog post.
what was the mysterious comment 31?
and stealth bear, glad i could get some achievements here, cause i've been failing at BRAID'S all effing morning.
Why didn't Kittens Inspired By Kittens get 30 comments?
LQ, I thought that post read FOR Kittens, Inspired by Kittens. I didn't comment because I didn't think it was meant for non-kittens.
Oh Braid...so, so good. So maddening.
Post a Comment