SUCKER PUNCH HITS US WITH ONE FINAL TRAILER - Page 2

The best comic book movie yet? Seriously?

It can be both a slavish copy and a gutting of the book. That's kind of the point - he's grabbed every detail of the story's surface and assumed that the emotion and pathos would carry over into the medium of film because the same stuff worked on the page. Snyder pays so much attention to getting as much of the book's scenes copied verbatim that he forgets to treat the thing like a movie. It's flat, a lot of the performances are one-note, structurally the the story doesn't translate well to the screen at all, and Snyder's shoehorned-in "Snyder action sequences" stick out like a sore thumb. And outside of the Phillip Glass stuff for the Mars scene the music is so horrendously on-the-nose.

It's not the specifics of Greengrass' version that I'm championing, here - it's the willingness to actually engage and adapt the material and recognise that moving it into a different medium means moulding it to suit that medium's needs. Snyder literally dumped the comic onto the screen with a few perfunctory changes and thought that would make a great film. It doesn't - it makes a great graphic novel, but film is another beast entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

The best comic book movie yet? Seriously?

 

It's not the specifics of Greengrass' version that I'm championing, here - it's the willingness to actually engage and adapt the material and recognise that moving it into a different medium means moulding it to suit that medium's needs. Snyder literally dumped the comic onto the screen with a few perfunctory changes and thought that would make a great film. It doesn't - it makes a great graphic novel, but film is another beast entirely.

Yeah, I'd easily rate SPIDER-MAN 2, X2, and THE DARK KNIGHT over WATCHMEN. Snyder's version failed, IMNSHO, because he completely missed the thematic point of the story.

And I'd go farther than him making "a few perfunctory changes" - I think the changes he made - few and small as they are - dramatically shifted the underlying ideas and themes from the GN.

I'm in a weird place with WATCHMEN. I don't think it's a successful story/film, and I think certain reviewers here - ahem - left objectivity light years behind them when writing about it. But it does some things very well - Rorschach stands out so strongly from the film, and is done so fucking well, and Dan/Night Owl II is pretty great, too - and has undeniable visual appeal. I do think, because of its mismatched source material and end result, that it ends up being a bit empty and hollow.

Despite all that, I don't think Snyder "ruined" it (the film) because it's watchable and worth talking about. When I think of films that RUIN the story (especially films based on beloved properties), something like Burton's CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY come to mind. Which then makes me want to jam forks in my eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

The only misstep I wholeheartedly admit was Goode's miscasting as Veidt.

 

I don't think Goode was miscast, I think he was badly directed. Besides for The Comedian (who's performance I actually did like) he's the character who needed most shading... so of course Snyder tells him to talk in a Nazi accent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

The best comic book movie yet? Seriously?

 

It can be both a slavish copy and a gutting of the book. That's kind of the point - he's grabbed every detail of the story's surface and assumed that the emotion and pathos would carry over into the medium of film because the same stuff worked on the page. Snyder pays so much attention to getting as much of the book's scenes copied verbatim that he forgets to treat the thing like a movie. It's flat, a lot of the performances are one-note, structurally the the story doesn't translate well to the screen at all, and Snyder's shoehorned-in "Snyder action sequences" stick out like a sore thumb. And outside of the Phillip Glass stuff for the Mars scene the music is so horrendously on-the-nose.

 

It's not the specifics of Greengrass' version that I'm championing, here - it's the willingness to actually engage and adapt the material and recognise that moving it into a different medium means moulding it to suit that medium's needs. Snyder literally dumped the comic onto the screen with a few perfunctory changes and thought that would make a great film. It doesn't - it makes a great graphic novel, but film is another beast entirely.

What shoehorning? The prison fight lasted all of 30 seconds. It's not like he stopped the film's story to show Nite Owl and Silk Spectre fight random criminals for half an hour. And I keep hearing all this stuff about structural changes he should or shouldn't have made. Like what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

Yeah, I'd easily rate SPIDER-MAN 2, X2, and THE DARK KNIGHT over WATCHMEN. Snyder's version failed, IMNSHO, because he completely missed the thematic point of the story.

 

And I'd go farther than him making "a few perfunctory changes" - I think the changes he made - few and small as they are - dramatically shifted the underlying ideas and themes from the GN.

 

 

Again, how? What do you believe was the point of the book and what was the point of the movie? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evi 

I don't think Goode was miscast, I think he was badly directed. Besides for The Comedian (who's performance I actually did like) he's the character who needed most shading... so of course Snyder tells him to talk in a Nazi accent.

I think the role demanded someone with real world star power. Someone who when shown hanging out with Warhol your mind would go "Of course they'd hang out together" not "Who's that nerd next to Warhol?" Someone like Pitt?

This is turning into a pretty serious derail. If you want I suggest we continue in the proper thread.

stelios, I agree with you...Watchmen is the best Superhero adaption yet!  I thought the casting was...spot on, the score was rousing, and Carla Gugino and Malin Ackerman as Mother and daughter Silk Spectre 1 and 2 were...Perfectly Cast!  Back on topic, I do not get why so many seem to dislike Zack Snyder, and think ill of his new film, Sucker Punch.  I cannot wait to see this.  I...Love all the random elements thrown together...because this is all in their dreams, where anything can happen, even escape from a hospital.

The duke is with me. You lose, suckers!

Nyah, nyah! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

This is turning into a pretty serious derail. If you want I suggest we continue in the proper thread.

My thoughts on this stuff are already there. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on how successful the film was in communicating the assumed themes and ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

The duke is with me. You lose, suckers!

 

Nyah, nyah! 

The fleed's patronage is not to be underestimated!

stelios, MichaelM, Thank You for the...props.  I was late to the party, to have read...Watchmen.  I read it 9 months before the film arrived in theaters, and I...Loved it.  I think the film is just as great, and to me, the part I didn't love was the wishy washy nature of Dr. Manhattan.  I thought that the love story of Silk Spectre 2, and Nite Owl 2 was one of the best parts of the book.  Rorschach and The Comedian were great in both mediums, and I always felt Veidt was the supervillain of Watchmen, so his being played by Matthew Goode didn't bother me as it did others.  Patrick Wilson, as the goodhearted Nite Owl 2, is my favorite of the heroes in Watchmen.  Of course I loved all the fight scenes as well.

How is that a derail? I mean you're talking about Snyder and his shortcomings, it all ties into this film. By all means, guys, keep going.

And Andrew, thanks for saving my fingers from all that typing.

The other thing is at LEAST 1/4 of what makes Watchmen so amazing is the way it deconstructs comics as a written medium. When you take it off the page and onto the screen, you're immediately losing a large part of (to me and many others, at least) what makes it such an incredibly stunning and towering work. It's why a lot of people thought it was unadaptable.

There were hints of Snyder trying to do for superhero films what Moore did for comics - the costumes, for example - but it's so undercooked and barely there. This is what I'm talking about when I say the best WATCHMEN adaptation would be one that tackles film as its own medium with its own history to draw upon and deconstruct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

There were hints of Snyder trying to do for superhero films what Moore did for comics - the costumes, for example - but it's so undercooked and barely there. This is what I'm talking about when I say the best WATCHMEN adaptation would be one that tackles film as its own medium with its own history to draw upon and deconstruct.

Yeah. He sorta kinda put the effort in there but as you say, totally undercooked. And misguided if you ask me. Putting nipples on a costume is cute and all, but it's not even close to the same level of what Moore did.

It felt more like he just added a few things like that and was like, "ok! Got that base covered now. The film is deconstructing other superhero films: check!" then called it a day on that front.

Watchmen might be visually impressive and (technically speaking) one of the best-made comic book movies* yet, but Darkman is arguably a better "comic book movie."

* (Adaptation-wise.)

Usually Snyder's choice of music really adds significantly to his trailers, but this one just didn't work at all IMO.

I've gone on and on about how off-mark Watchmen is (the actors, almost all of whom are talented people, are directed to horrible, horrible performances; almost every aspect of Ozymandias and the Spectre is mishandled; the comic's naturalism is replaced by fetishistic slo-mo and plasticky visuals; etc., etc., etc.) so I'll talk about 300 instead.

A big part of what makes the comic (which is solid, if not great) work is that the Spartans are unflappable, calm in the face of death, stone-faced. They're the ultimate Schwarzeneggerian badasses--they even have dry cool action movie wit, 2500 years before Ahnuld and James Bond. So what does Snyder do? Makes them into bellowing morons.

And I've already talked about his staginess and fake visuals, which, for me, suck the life out of his supposedly great action scenes. These two things, combined, strip 300 of its modest virtues and turn it into a soulless video game.

The comic is kind of a throwback to old-school sword and sandal flicks, many of which are surprisingly great even today. There's no reason it couldn't have risen to that level, especially given Snyder's supposed faithfulness. Instead we get a case study in how you can xerox a comic onto film and still get something with none of the spirit of the original work.

I always found it ironic that, in trying to capture a perfect imitation of the comic on-screen, he actually betrayed the tone of the comic, which is actually pretty low-key (a strict 9 panel format, no sound effects, etc). 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

I always found it ironic that, in trying to capture a perfect imitation of the comic on-screen, he actually betrayed the tone of the comic, which is actually pretty low-key (a strict 9 panel format, no sound effects, etc). 

This is a big part of what made Greengrass sound so appealing. 

Looks like a party. One where you get drunk on all sorts of different cheap liquor and forget what happened the next day while nursing a headache... but hey, I like to indulge that part of my "brain" occasionally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Looks like a party. One where you get drunk on all sorts of different cheap liquor and forget what happened the next day while nursing a headache... but hey, I like to indulge that part of my "brain" occasionally.

It looks like a party, alright. The kind where some obnoxious guy who nobody invited keeps following you around and yammering on and on about "hawt chicks", "robot samurai", and "'splosions" really, really loudly. His heart's in the right place and you see eye-to-eye with him on a number of things, but he needs to learn to cool his jets a little.

OK, a lot. He needs to cool his jets a lot.

I'd like this to be good, but everything I've seen or read about it so far makes it seem like Hey Everybody, Look At Me: The Movie. For the U.K. release, it should be renamed Does It Amaze You, Yeah? The Movie.
 

How about: Hot Broads Fuck Things Up!

Snyder is a competent director, at best. 

The trailers are a culmination of what I don't like about him and his pandering to those whom he thinks want to see some "super cool awesome shit." 

The guy's a fucking goofball with a studio backing.  Some of you may get boners from it and good for you, however,  I don't see it as nerdy fun but inane trite.

The thought of someone experiencing Watchmen for the first time via the movie makes me sad.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

...I still kinda scratch my head at a world where Samurai, giant robots, World War I, insane asylums, and kung fu in one movie doesnt arouse some small part of the fun center of a nerd's imagination.

Thing is, that 'ticking the cool boxes' is part of what makes me roll my eyes at this stuff. Why are the things on that list cool? Because once upon a time some people used them to make things that were great because they were made with a certain amount of unselfconsciousness and sincerity. And sometimes with, y'know, actual characters and stories and that. At this point I've sat through enough deathly dull, soulless movies built around cobbled together displays of superficially 'awesome' imagery to know that it takes more than that to make a genuinely fun experience.

The fact is that this promo material appeals to people who like promo material. It certainly looks awesome. As promo material. But is anyone really looking at any of this imagery and thinking, "Oh, there's a movie in there"?

The ads are showcasing one kick-ass demo reel, so far. That's not a movie.

So? Even if it is some sort of nerd-pandering Koyaanisqatsi, completely devoid of plot, I at least want to check it out. I watch all sorts of movies for all sorts of reasons. Some of them on the surface antithetical with each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

So? Even if it is some sort of nerd-pandering Koyaanisqatsi, completely devoid of plot, I at least want to check it out. I watch all sorts of movies for all sorts of reasons. Some of them on the surface antithetical with each other.

See, what you describe SOUNDS awesome.

However, what's disappointing is that we KNOW it's going to TRY to be a movie.