Watchmen

[Gold Trumpet]

And is also Dark City a recommend (blind) buy?

Yes because it's generally cheap, but don't get the director's cut.

[mogwai]

And is also Dark City a recommend (blind) buy?

Yes because it's generally cheap, but don't get the director's cut.

The reason being?

[Gold Trumpet]

And is also Dark City a recommend (blind) buy?

Yes because it's generally cheap, but don't get the director's cut.

The reason being?

In the director's cut, the main difference is that there are little add ons to numerous scenes. The structure of the film is the same, but there are scenes that just go a little haywire and break with the flow of the scene. The difference may seem minute, but all the good praise of the film came from the original theatrical cut. Since it's the shorter version, the best bet is to start there and if you are curious enough, watch the director's cut afterward to see if the small differences affect the viewing. They did for me.

[socketlevel]

And is also Dark City a recommend (blind) buy?

Yes because it's generally cheap, but don't get the director's cut.

The reason being?

In the director's cut, the main difference is that there are little add ons to numerous scenes. The structure of the film is the same, but there are scenes that just go a little haywire and break with the flow of the scene. The difference may seem minute, but all the good praise of the film came from the original theatrical cut. Since it's the shorter version, the best bet is to start there and if you are curious enough, watch the director's cut afterward to see if the small differences affect the viewing. They did for me.

the blu ray has both cuts on the same disc i believe

[Pubrick]

But I'm deciding to give it another try. Is the Ultimate Cut the best one?

my recommendation is to read the book instead.

don't know about the ultimate cunt but if you want to see the story told in the best way the easy solution is to seek out the graphic novel.

[hedwig]

^agreed. still the truth and always will be. i'm gonna take the alan moore purist standpoint here and say that no amount of slow-motion special effects will ever outdo the experience of turning the pages and absorbing each mind-blowing image on its own terms.

[mogwai]

P and Hedwig are probably right. Thanks.

Is this the comic I should buy? Hell, it's been 20 years since I read my last comic.

http://www.bokus.com/b/9780930289232.html?pt=search_result&search_term=watchmen

[Pas]

Well the story is better in the comic, but the drawing is not that great and the inking is actually just bad. The colors suck and sometimes the ink goes over the lines. I always wished there was a re-coloring job done for the launch of the film, but it didn't happen. The sales must not have been very high because I can't see any kid taking this comic and not screaming in horror. The coloring of today's comics is too computer-y, that's for sure. But it's still better than the 80s. The best was the mid nineties.

I think the film complements to book well, I would advise reading it first but seeing it is also pretty cool.

[Pubrick]

Is this the comic I should buy? Hell, it's been 20 years since I read my last comic.

http://www.bokus.com/b/9780930289232.html?pt=search_result&search_term=watchmen

yep that's the one.

pas is right too, in a way. the movie that was made is probly the best movie that could hav been made. a mini series would hav been great. but with something as well-put together as the novel (story wise) there's very little you can take out or change without losing what was special. this is crap for adapting into a movie. kubrick knew it, that the best books are rarely the best films. partly because they hav literary appeal, they work perfectly in their own medium, but also cos they don't give u room to move.

the movie's cool it just forgets that ppl loved the book for its structure, style, characters, and just how wild it felt. every chapter could make it an entirely different story. in a way zack snyder was the best and the WORST person for the job. he loves the images so he's very faithful to them, and definitely brings them to life. but he loves them so much he just can't pull away from them. this needed extreme economy in filmmaking to work in one chunk, not extended slow motion shots of shit breaking.

[picolas]

*sorta spoils for the book, but if you've seen the movie i dunno..*

the movie that was made is probly the best movie that could hav been made. a mini series would hav been great.

the animated graphic novel version is actually better and clocks in at six hours. the two major issues are the speech bubbles, which get a tad annoying after a bit, and the lack of a female voiceover. i still don't understand how they could've afforded a six hour animated version with frame warping technology but not an actress.

he loves the images so he's very faithful to them, and definitely brings them to life. but he loves them so much he just can't pull away from them. this needed extreme economy in filmmaking to work in one chunk, not extended slow motion shots of shit breaking.

yeah he spends far too much time on things that don't matter at all, but i hate this argument that his flaw was that he was TOO faithful. in a lot of ways that's true. he didn't change much so you feel like pieces are missing. BUT he did change a couple of things which a. take up a lot of time and b. show how little he understood the book. for one he turns everyone into a superhuman, untouchable fighter. the fights in the prison/alleyways are such bullshit. the idea that silk spectre loves fighting is quite off the mark.

then he makes ozy the OBVIOUS villian and has him played with this scowling, moustache twisting quality. this is major bullshit. ozy is supposed to seem gallant and kind of charming. he's the world's smartest man with infinite money!! he's not going to be this weird scowler. the twist that ozy is the villain becomes obvious and makes the good guys look dumb, and it seriously blunts his point. the idea that the world would put aside their qualms only to unite against an enemy is actually kind of right. does it justify the killing of millions of people? this is a fantastic question that the movie completely sidesteps by making ozy an EVVVVVVIL guy and having nite owl continue to beat him after his plan is revealed rather than having him stand in awe like he should because millions of people have JUST died.

he also shortens the mars scene to the point where it becomes stupid. manhattan just flip-flops rather than being convinced by spectre. in the book she captures how annoying someone like manhattan could be. in the movie she's just flailing and he just changes his mind cause she's upset. in the book (and animated graphic novel) this is an AMAZING scene. in the movie it's utter crap because it should have been at least 20 minutes long but those minutes were used up on, yes, shit breaking.

[Neil]

Ya, know just for what it's worth Snyder didn't write it, and I did not have a problem with the art in the original Graphic Novel.  I understand the advances in technology brought a new type of imagery and cartooning, but I don't consider that the criteria for objective standards... I don't know, just read the graphic novel.  It's totally worth the experience.  I'm also certain that the elements of philosophy in the film are evident still although they were executed poorly.  His motive to save the world is quite clear, but I had some problems with Ozy too.  I agree with most of those critiques though.   But seriously, the art in the graphic novel is badass.

[Pubrick]

the animated graphic novel version is actually better and clocks in at six hours. the two major issues are the speech bubbles, which get a tad annoying after a bit, and the lack of a female voiceover. i still don't understand how they could've afforded a six hour animated version with frame warping technology but not an actress.

haha yes i remember starting to watch that once, i couldn't get over the actress thing. my theory is that it was made by total nerds and they were just too scared to approach a girl.

yeah he spends far too much time on things that don't matter at all, but i hate this argument that his flaw was that he was TOO faithful. in a lot of ways that's true. he didn't change much so you feel like pieces are missing. BUT he did change a couple of things which a. take up a lot of time and b. show how little he understood the book. for one he turns everyone into a superhuman, untouchable fighter. the fights in the prison/alleyways are such bullshit. the idea that silk spectre loves fighting is quite off the mark.

then he makes ozy the OBVIOUS villian and has him played with this scowling, moustache twisting quality. this is major bullshit. ozy is supposed to seem gallant and kind of charming. he's the world's smartest man with infinite money!! he's not going to be this weird scowler. the twist that ozy is the villain becomes obvious and makes the good guys look dumb, and it seriously blunts his point. the idea that the world would put aside their qualms only to unite against an enemy is actually kind of right. does it justify the killing of millions of people? this is a fantastic question that the movie completely sidesteps by making ozy an EVVVVVVIL guy and having nite owl continue to beat him after his plan is revealed rather than having him stand in awe like he should because millions of people have JUST died.

he also shortens the mars scene to the point where it becomes stupid. manhattan just flip-flops rather than being convinced by spectre. in the book she captures how annoying someone like manhattan could be. in the movie she's just flailing and he just changes his mind cause she's upset. in the book (and animated graphic novel) this is an AMAZING scene. in the movie it's utter crap because it should have been at least 20 minutes long but those minutes were used up on, yes, shit breaking.

oh, i agree with all of that. i was just talking visually.

[MacGuffin]

"Not A Chance" Of 'Watchmen' Film Sequel
By Nikki Finke; Deadline Hollywood
 
The Internet is filling up with chatter here and here about how Dan DiDio, the SVP/Executive Editor for DC Comics, is determined to push not only a sequel to the Watchmen graphic novel, but a multiple prequel comic book miniseries and other spin-offs to his new bosses. And how he's already looking for creators to do them. This is because of -- what else? -- money: Watchmen has become DC's bestselling comic book of all time. Naturally, everyone's now speculating about a sequel to Zach Snyder's underperforming Watchmen movie from Warner Bros/20th Century Fox/Paramount, especially because there's contract language for that possibility. (No matter how impossible storywise.) But a well-placed insider tells me: "There is no truth to anything related to a movie sequel. Not a chance by a longshot. With regards to the comics, well, I guess anything is possible. I'll keep my opinion to myself as to whether it's a smart idea to do so."

[Sleepless]

DC announced a series of comic books which will serve as a prequel to Watchmen, showing the various heroes in their prime. Presumably there'll be news about a movie prequel within a year?

http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2012/02/01/dc-entertainment-officially-announces-%E2%80%9Cbefore-watchmen%E2%80%9D/