Blicero wrote:The Watchmen movie has a similar montage that explains how the world with caped crusaders came to be, and it's anything but boring. Montages don't have to be stupid. But the one in Wolverine was.
Yes, and because the montage was boring and unfun to watch, that would be a good criticism, but because the montage features Wolverine fighting in a series of wars and not being so badass that everyone in the universe knows his name by heart even though that's explicitly the opposite of his backstory is a dumb reason.
It's like complaining that in the Montage Manhattan doesn't slink off to mars and bitch around doing nothing and whining about what is humanity.
Crissa wrote:Of course, had they done that, there would have been more people asking 'what happened?' and a few people saying, 'they shouldn't have toned the violence down.'
For every person who thought it was more violent, there was one like you who thought it was less.
-Crissa
I think it's getting late, Crissa. You might want to back and re-read my original complaint. Or, one of us does. It IS eleven here.
My complaint is they added extra violence to the movie, when it didn't add anything.
Well, they added extra violence and then changed some characters and how they interacted.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Your complaint is that they showed him splitting the guy's head instead of merely saying he did so. Then you're complaining about the grisly remains of guys exploded.
Like I said, not only would hiding those things in a movie not quite work - people wouldn't know what the heck happened - there are always people who think that something was more or less violent. The gore you're complaining about showed up in various scenes in the comic; and sure, you could exposition or cut away when he's whacking the guy with the hatchet.
But there would be people who thought they took all the violence out of the movie had they hid things as you suggest.
Showing Rorschach actually hitting the guy is part of showing him changing from a guy who merely did violence as a means to conduct law became executioner. It's not like a comic where you can read the page again when you don't understand.
It didn't happen in the comic. The equivalent was that he cuffed the guy's arm to a pipe, spread kerosene around, gave him a meat saw, and advised him that cutting the pipe or the cuff would take too long. Then dropped a match and strolled out of the place as it started burning.
I think Rorschach said he gave the guy a chance, which is more than his victim had.
There were other bits of gratuitous violence. The thwarted mugging was, sure, a beatdown in the comics, but no more so than any other comic. You see some broken noses and arms happening. You do not get a centered screen-filling view of a guy's skin and muscle splitting in glorious CG while his bone shatters. In slow motion.
It also went against what had been established--they weren't as insane with the violence as Rorschach. They didn't seem the type to maim and kill gang members who tried to mug them. Heck, that part was in the...third issue of the series? Thereabouts. You're shown the gang beaten but still alive for the cops to find, because that's what you're used to and how you're sure it works.
But the movie went for gratuitous hyperviolence and made that fight longer than it could have been. It could have been about a minute shorter and still did the same job.
So it was a change which made no sense, considering how it detracted from the message. That fight could have been a normal brawl, and then the heavier violence come into play later, as the story takes a darker and darker turn.
That, and some other changes which somehow killed the pacing and feel of Watchmen make up why I couldn't finish the movie.
Last edited by Maxus on Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
The opening montage was debatably the best part of the film (which doesn't really say a lot of good things about the rest of the film), but middle and end were not terrible. And Ozymandias's plan for getting rid of Manhattan made a lot more sense in the movie.
I didn't find the violence too graphic or anything. The reason it bugged me, though, was because it indicated serious thematic inconsistency. The graphic novel is very much about the dangers of being in a culture that worships ultraviolence. And it really worked. But then along comes the film version. Where Nite Owl was once overweight and awkward, with a really silly costume, he's now relatively suave. Silk Spectre's leather outfit becomes all but an S&M fetish accoutrement. And, most importantly, a movie about the dangers of being in a culture that worships is filled with hyperstylized ultraviolence that is meant to be the epitome of "cool." (Kick-Ass suffered from a similar problem, but I'm willing to let it off more easily because it's a comedy and generally a much better movie.)
Watchmen the movie could have easily been much better. But it's far from horrible. As far as superhero films go, I'd probably put it around the calibre of X Men 2 or maybe Batman Begins. It's not as good as Kick-Ass or the Dark Knight, nor is it as fun as either of the Iron Man or first two Spiderman films, but it's far from wretched.
And Kaelik, I honestly have no idea if you're trying to agree with me, or disagree with me, or add to something either of us have already said.
Last edited by Blicero on Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Out beyond the hull, mucoid strings of non-baryonic matter streamed past like Christ's blood in the firmament.
Blicero wrote:The opening montage was debatably the best part of the film (which doesn't really say a lot of good things about the rest of the film), but middle and end were not terrible. And Ozymandias's plan for getting rid of Manhattan made a lot more sense in the movie.
Yeah, something about teleporting a giant telepathic "alien" just rubbed me the wrong way.
Although the aftermath of that scenario makes more sense, because it's at least plausible that the Soviets and US together could fight off aliens. I don't see how an alliance could fight of Dr. Manhattan.
Blicero wrote:And Kaelik, I honestly have no idea if you're trying to agree with me, or disagree with me, or add to something either of us have already said.
I was saying that there are good reasons to dislike the montage in Wolverine. But the fact that he didn't do badass things like assassinate Stonewall Jackson and run with Captain America, even though those are things he explicitly never did is not a good reason.
The hatchet scene didn't happen in the graphic novel. However, the scene where he handcuffs the guy and sets the building on fire is very similar to the climax of the first Mad Max movie. They might have been wanting to avoid that considering Mad Max was released before the Watchmen graphic novel.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Maxus: I do agree that "Watchmen" level of violence was utterly unnecessary and retarded. Granted I felt the same about "300" as well so I might not be the most objective viewer of this.
Crissa: yes, any movie would probably not agree with me just because Watchmen really isn't that filmable. A longer form miniseries might have worked so much better.
Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.
Man, I hated what was done to 300. So many lines converted to yelling that would have had more impact if delivered in a normal speaking voice... as originally written. The Spartans breaking formation to fight like undisciplined barbarians. The entire character of Stelios being cut to make room for more rape. Bad times.
RobbyPants wrote:
Although the aftermath of that scenario makes more sense, because it's at least plausible that the Soviets and US together could fight off aliens. I don't see how an alliance could fight of Dr. Manhattan.
Yeah, pretty much if Manhattan wants you dead, you're fucked. I don't see how they expected that to actually do anything. It wasn't really very plausible.
RobbyPants wrote:
Although the aftermath of that scenario makes more sense, because it's at least plausible that the Soviets and US together could fight off aliens. I don't see how an alliance could fight of Dr. Manhattan.
Yeah, pretty much if Manhattan wants you dead, you're fucked. I don't see how they expected that to actually do anything. It wasn't really very plausible.
So I felt that the movie had a more plausible plot twist, but the comic's plot twist had a more plausible aftermath.
300 was honestly one of the funniest movies I had ever seen. It was just so absurdly overstylized, like Sin City, but without the trace of the irony that had. There were so many shouted speeches, ridiculous slo-mo's, and so on. And then those ogres and the weird ninja guys...
But it was ridiculously racist and (clearly) not historically accurate. But, for whatever reason, the inaccuracy where the Spartans taunt the Athenians for being boy-lovers always annoyed me way more than the ogres or whatever. Maybe because, seeing as the entire story is just a propaganda attempt by the one-eyed guy to rile up the other soldiers, you could excuse something blatant like claiming Xerxes is 9 feet tall.
Out beyond the hull, mucoid strings of non-baryonic matter streamed past like Christ's blood in the firmament.
Blicero wrote: the inaccuracy where the Spartans taunt the Athenians for being boy-lovers always annoyed me way more than the ogres or whateverl.
What inaccuracy? The Athenians believed in the romance of an older man coming between a young boy's thighs, which was distinct from the Spartan grown-man-on-grown-man tradition. This was an actual cultural clash between the two, and they made fun of each other over it.
(now that I've caught up on what I missed while my computer was crapped out...)
Why do I get the feeling that CAD is going to pull some dumb "Ethan cheats on Lilah" story arc? I mean, besides how often Tim has used bullshit soap opera story arcs before...
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
angelfromanotherpin wrote:What inaccuracy? The Athenians believed in the romance of an older man coming between a young boy's thighs, which was distinct from the Spartan grown-man-on-grown-man tradition. This was an actual cultural clash between the two, and they made fun of each other over it.
Spartans believed basically the same thing, and inside historically just called Athenians boys instead of men.
The twisting of the setting so that Spartans are acceptable to homophobes was a bit much.
angelfromanotherpin wrote:What inaccuracy? The Athenians believed in the romance of an older man coming between a young boy's thighs, which was distinct from the Spartan grown-man-on-grown-man tradition. This was an actual cultural clash between the two, and they made fun of each other over it.
Spartans believed basically the same thing, and inside historically just called Athenians boys instead of men.
The twisting of the setting so that Spartans are acceptable to homophobes was a bit much.
Spartans weren't exactly homophobes, but they did make a lot of comments that taken out of context sound anti-gay.
The Spartans felt that men sleeping with the men they were in formation with was a way towards weakness, since it would give people loyalties other than to the unit as a whole. Also that trying to design unit cohesion around physical attraction was doomed to failure, since those things are passing.
The Spartan response was to have their powerful soldiers go fuck the young men in other units and training groups and stuff. So when Xenephon says this:
Xenephon wrote:they sleep with their loved ones, yet stations them next to themselves in battle ... with them it’s a custom, with us a disgrace
He is not saying that humping boys is a problem or that soldiers shouldn't suck each other's cocks. He is simply saying that you shouldn't commit phallancest. Find a soldier who isn't next to you in the formation to hump.
Kaelik wrote:But the fact that he didn't do badass things like assassinate Stonewall Jackson and run with Captain America, even though those are things he explicitly never did is not a good reason.
Actually I have a Wolverine comic with a flashback where he does run with Captain America. At the end Cap offers to team up with Logan but is turned down because Logan "doesn't need a sidekick."
Ok, the racism bit in 300 I can understand. The persians don't exactly get a good rap.
But mighty whities?
Were you even watching the same movie as me?
Xerxes is played by a white actor. The "cave troll" is white. In fact, a fair few of the persians are played by white actors. The Immortals are pretty brown, what you can see of them, but the spartans are all pretty "tanned" as well.
While 300 took a lot of liberties, I find it hard to believe that you can read some sort of white supremacy message out of it. Yes, the persians were bad, and there's a tiny little bit of tension with Iran at the moment, but who else are you going to make the villains of a movie based around the battle of Thermopylae?
Really, the actor who plays Xerxes is whiter than Gerard butler is in real life, as far as I can tell.
What's racist is more that the Spartans always talk about how "pure" they are, while the Persians are composed of countless little cultures and such. It implies that the middle easterners are mongrelized rabble, etc.
There's also the whole quality vs. quantity thing going on, with one Greek being worth seventy billion brownies.
I don't think it was meant to be a racist movie or a movie that comments on the West's relationship with the Middle East; it's really just a film about a bunch of absurd manchildren (the spartans) trying to show their penises are bigger and better than everyone else's are. Like Frederick William I or something.
Out beyond the hull, mucoid strings of non-baryonic matter streamed past like Christ's blood in the firmament.
Nah, I definitely got the racist mighty whitey feeling from it.
I mean, it's a bunch of whiteboy hardbodies fighting hordes furriners and, if their enemies are white, they're mutants. Or Xerxes, the world's largest mincing queen-emperor. And the mutant Spartan especially. Because how could anything so impure be true Aryan? Er, Spartan. And then he betrays them.
I think you're making a mistake to concentrate on the actors instead of what they're representing.
I thought the movie was almost good-bad, but just ended up silly. My eyeroll to laughing-at-absurdities ratio was not favorable.
I remember seeing somewhere that Frank Miller admitted to intentionally demonizing the Middle East when he wrote 300. I'd have to dig up a source, though
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Vnonymous wrote:Ok, the racism bit in 300 I can understand. The persians don't exactly get a good rap.
But mighty whities?
The problem with 300, among other things is basically this.
It has been described as fairly accurately the type of movie that say a Nazi propagandist would make to further their hero myths and stereotypes.
Which it certainly is. But it sorta lacks the actual background of a specific movement to propagandize for. I mean there isn't exactly a Spartan Third Reich out there needing a morale boost in their ongoing war against the allied Persians or anything.
Which is good and bad, because THAT means that yeah, it might not be a nasty propaganda film, but pretty much any bastard can go and adopt it as their nasty propaganda film.
Then you consider it in the context of George Bush's endless war on Terra, (I mean even as the US was screening this film the US army was acting as an outnumbered hostile invasion force in Persia) and you can quickly see how it goes bad places pretty fast.
Aside from that it was a pretty dumb movie. I avoided it at the movies because I knew people would get annoyed with all the laughing I would do.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
