criterionforum.org

That little article is actually a pretty good window into the mind of Mr. Smith.

Slavishness to material = great filmmaking.

Makes sense to me.

chaddoli wrote:No one does (here). Kevin Smith likes everything.

We're so cool. Sometimes I (do) forget.

New York Times makes sense of the legal quagmire between Fox and Warner Bros.

Fox ups the ante, and is now looking for an injunction to block the release of the film.

The next production journal

Alan Moore speaks out on the adaptation. You'll never guess what he thinks of it! He also doesn't like movies very much, except Chinese movies, or something.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:Alan Moore speaks out on the adaptation. You'll never guess what he thinks of it! He also doesn't like movies very much, except Chinese movies, or something.

I love what he says about the film: "And I can tell you that I will also be spitting venom all over it for months to come." heh.

An interview with one of the visual effects techies working on the film.

A report on the 30 minutes of footage shown yesterday to the media.

New York Times' take.

Coming back to Blake's apartment, we find him changing the channel to a film that plays the song "Unforgettable." The song continues to play throughout the scene as a masked assailant breaks in the front door and fights with Blake. The fight is much longer than in the comic and includes a number of Snyder's signature slow-motion shots.

The fight ends with Blake losing and blood dripping from his chin onto his own smiley face button. He's thrown back, crashing through the window and falling to the pavement below. The button falls in slow-motion, landing by his side before being surrounded by a pool of blood from his dead body.

Cue Bob Dylan's "The Times, They Are A'Changin'" as we enter the opening credits

Sounds about as lame as expected. Snyder's usual gratuitous slow-motion stuff, as seen in the trailer, is obviously going to be just as prevalent in the finished film.

I have little interest in this, but I would definitely pay to see Watchmen Babies.

The latest production journal which focuses on Dr. Manhattan.

Reaction from folks who attended a test screening in Portland.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Reaction from folks who attended a test screening in Portland.

I knew Snyder would change the ending, my interest in this adaptation is decreasing with every new report on the film.

Zach Snyder is directing it. That says to me, it will be style-over-substance, just like his other work.

moviscop wrote:That says to me, it will be style-over-substance, just like his other work.

But his films don't even have an imaginative or original style (a unique kind of "style-over-substance" that makes films by no-brow directors like Jess Franco and Jean Rollin so enjoyable), so its all loud empty popcorn macho posturing filtered through Gatorade commercial cinematography that the frat boys eat up in droves.

By the way, the iTunes store has chapter 2 and 3 of the Watchmen "animated" comic, this time, they cost $1.99 each.

luridedith wrote:

moviscop wrote:That says to me, it will be style-over-substance, just like his other work.

But his films don't even have an imaginative or original style (a unique kind of "style-over-substance" that makes films by no-brow directors like Jess Franco and Jean Rollin so enjoyable), so its all loud empty popcorn macho posturing filtered through Gatorade commercial cinematography that the frat boys eat up in droves.

We went over this at the top of page 7 - the style/substance dichotomy isn't real, and Snyder's films are filled with "substance" by the most pedestrian definition. I think he's actually a rather preachy filmmaker.

Svevan wrote:We went over this at the top of page 7 - the style/substance dichotomy isn't real, and Snyder's films are filled with "substance" by the most pedestrian definition. I think he's actually a rather preachy filmmaker.

Well this opinion is quite disagreeable considering about 20 minutes of the film is occupied by slow motion stabbing and slicing over and over again.

The real issue is, instead of working toward developing the film, the majority of the run-time is spent in a very pathetic way. Style over substance is real because even 300 could be crafted into a decent epic if the right director was at the wheel.

moviscop wrote:Well this opinion is quite disagreeable considering about 20 minutes of the film is occupied by slow motion stabbing and slicing over and over again

But isn't that still in essence substance?

moviscop wrote:

Svevan wrote:We went over this at the top of page 7 - the style/substance dichotomy isn't real, and Snyder's films are filled with "substance" by the most pedestrian definition. I think he's actually a rather preachy filmmaker.

Well this opinion is quite disagreeable considering about 20 minutes of the film is occupied by slow motion stabbing and slicing over and over again.

The real issue is, instead of working toward developing the film, the majority of the run-time is spent in a very pathetic way. Style over substance is real because even 300 could be crafted into a decent epic if the right director was at the wheel.

I believe you're missing the point that Svevan was trying to make. While Snyder's films may be stylistically similar to each other, they also smack of nearly every other post-millennial action film, or at least those that seem to follow a "The Matrix + (setting/situation) = 'WOAH'" recipe for successful cinema. In order for style to trump substance, it must at least be unique or authentic. The trappings of Snyder's films are neither. It's certainly possible-- ideal even-- for style to serve a role in delivering the substance of a film. Personally, I think that this is something that can be said of 300. Where films like the recent Shoot 'Em Up are bathed in the same gratuitous usage of slow-motion effects and ridiculous violence in pursuit of seemingly no concrete "message", 300 uses its slick production, its extreme visual style, the lingering focus on the grotesque, effeminate Persians and the well-oiled machines of war that are the Spartans, and it's thumping music in pursuit of something very concrete-- to tell us that "they" are bad, but "we" are BAD.

It's not hard to believe that Snyder's newest film will also employ (what at least I find to be) his particularly stale style as a means of glorifying the substance of a neo-Con's wet dream, source material be damned.

Poncho Punch wrote:I believe you're missing the point that Svevan was trying to make. While Snyder's films may be stylistically similar to each other, they also smack of nearly every other post-millennial action film, or at least those that seem to follow a "The Matrix + (setting/situation) = 'WOAH'" recipe for successful cinema. In order for style to trump substance, it must at least be unique or authentic. The trappings of Snyder's films are neither. It's certainly possible-- ideal even-- for style to serve a role in delivering the substance of a film. Personally, I think that this is something that can be said of 300. Where films like the recent Shoot 'Em Up are bathed in the same gratuitous usage of slow-motion effects and ridiculous violence in pursuit of seemingly no concrete "message", 300 uses its slick production, its extreme visual style, the lingering focus on the grotesque, effeminate Persians and the well-oiled machines of war that are the Spartans, and it's thumping music in pursuit of something very concrete-- to tell us that "they" are bad, but "we" are BAD.

It's not hard to believe that Snyder's newest film will also employ (what at least I find to be) his particularly stale style as a means of glorifying the substance of a neo-Con's wet dream, source material be damned.

Well, I can't say I disagree with that. I think the point I was trying to make was that there are certain situations where the ratio of style overpowers the entire cinematic journey. In the case of The Matrix, at least they had a decent story to back up the use of special effects. 300 seems to lack in a story and is pushed along by battle scene after battle scene. It is a muscleheads wet dream, but for the casual viewer, leaves you completely empty at the end. I think we can all agree on that at least.

If Synder decides to shock-n-awe the audience for Watchmen, it will not be met with the same level of acceptance because of the serious subject matter.

moviscop wrote:

Poncho Punch wrote:I believe you're missing the point that Svevan was trying to make. While Snyder's films may be stylistically similar to each other, they also smack of nearly every other post-millennial action film, or at least those that seem to follow a "The Matrix + (setting/situation) = 'WOAH'" recipe for successful cinema. In order for style to trump substance, it must at least be unique or authentic. The trappings of Snyder's films are neither. It's certainly possible-- ideal even-- for style to serve a role in delivering the substance of a film. Personally, I think that this is something that can be said of 300. Where films like the recent Shoot 'Em Up are bathed in the same gratuitous usage of slow-motion effects and ridiculous violence in pursuit of seemingly no concrete "message", 300 uses its slick production, its extreme visual style, the lingering focus on the grotesque, effeminate Persians and the well-oiled machines of war that are the Spartans, and it's thumping music in pursuit of something very concrete-- to tell us that "they" are bad, but "we" are BAD.

It's not hard to believe that Snyder's newest film will also employ (what at least I find to be) his particularly stale style as a means of glorifying the substance of a neo-Con's wet dream, source material be damned.

Well, I can't say I disagree with that. I think the point I was trying to make was that there are certain situations where the ratio of style overpowers the entire cinematic journey. In the case of The Matrix, at least they had a decent story to back up the use of special effects. 300 seems to lack in a story and is pushed along by battle scene after battle scene. It is a muscleheads wet dream, but for the casual viewer, leaves you completely empty at the end. I think we can all agree on that at least.

If Synder decides to shock-n-awe the audience for Watchmen, it will not be met with the same level of acceptance because of the serious subject matter.

I think what moviscop means is that the style of the film overwhelms the content to such an extent that the movie capsizes. This is a valid criticism (I say this as someone who was among the first on the board to agree that 300 does have "substance").

For me, however, the essential criticism is not the above but rather Poncho's observation that the style of 300 is not an original invention, being merely a grotesque extension of a currently popular style. It's more essential for me because I accept the idea of style as substance much more readily than that of style over/under substance. If 300 has no "substance," it is because the style is so banal, not because the movie is over-concerned with its style.

Monsieur Sausage's explanation is more in line with my view - the idea of style delivering substance assumes that style itself cannot be the purpose or core of an artwork, and it reduces "content" to being mere words or ideas: "the moral of the story was..."

Not to mention that, as I mentioned before, 300 has looooong moments of people just talking, pontificating, delivering very clearly what the filmmaker/author considered to be the point of the whole ordeal. If content actually were separate from form (which it isn't), 300 would have plenty of both.