criterionforum.org

Another take on the Comic Con footage which pretty much confirms that anything that was left implied in the graphic novel, Zack Snyder has used a sledgehammer of explicit literal interpretation in the film.

It is quickly becoming obvious that the spirit of the comic has been set aside by Snyder because he cannot deal with the original material which was a brutal critique of Republican philosophies and the notion of Reaganomics of the 1980s. I have a feeling that this film is going to crash and burn and perhaps end Snyder's career as a director.

filmnoir1 wrote:It is quickly becoming obvious that the spirit of the comic has been set aside by Snyder because he cannot deal with the original material which was a brutal critique of Republican philosophies and the notion of Reaganomics of the 1980s.

yes.

filmnoir1 wrote:I have a feeling that this film is going to crash and burn and perhaps end Snyder's career as a director.

Sadly no

Maybe he'll move onto Moore's Lost Girls next.

"From the visionary director of 300."

Visionary?

VISIONARY????

kaujot wrote:Maybe he'll move onto Moore's Lost Girls next.

Only if it has RAPE in it. I can't remember, does Lost Girls have RAPE in it? I think it has incest -- maybe that counts for something.

It has rape

knives wrote:

filmnoir1 wrote:I have a feeling that this film is going to crash and burn and perhaps end Snyder's career as a director.

Sadly no

It may well. Today I saw some ads for this on the back of buses and it hit me that they've dropped the ball on the marketing. The film is being played up as this big cool stylized extravaganza, but the heroes themselves just look incredibly stupid. Night Owl especially. Of course, he looked stupid in the comic, but that was a character detail, and I'm not sure he's meant to now, given that in the trailer we see him doing TOTALLY AWESOME slow motion kicking to the faces of criminals.

Just how appealing to Joe Public is a publicity campaign featuring garish yellow and purple design and a man in a brown suit off the set of Batman and Robin (only with goggles)?

Snyder seems to either be great at making interesting trailers or has a marketing team that puts together amazing trailers. 300 underwhelmed me tremendously but going back to watch the trailer makes me want to give it another chance... but I won't.

Watchman is the same way. Seeing the trailer during the Dark Knight blew my expectations up to the height of the moon. Since then I've purposefully avoided seeing any extra footage provided through conventions or the website. However, I am trying to keep my hopes somewhat grounded in case the movie is good and I shoot it down because its not great. Truthfully though, at this point I'm not expecting much.

I actually agree with this. The trailers for the films are pretty cool, but all of the trailery stuff in them (slow motion, etc.) are actually in the film. His trailers work because he shoots and edits his films like trailers.

chaddoli wrote:I actually agree with this. The trailers for the films are pretty cool, but all of the trailery stuff in them (slow motion, etc.) are actually in the film. His trailers work because he shoots and edits his films like trailers.

Just nitpicking here, but does Snyder make his own trailers? I think you meant to say "The trailers for his films work b/c..." Either way, I agree with you completely; Snyder's whole aesthetic is geared toward making individual moments look cool, the type of moments that go into a trailer.

I think this explains why his films make money despite critical disdain. So many tv shows/music videos/movies are filmed by people who film in this style (the director of Con-Air got his start in commercials, and is it any wonder why that flick's aesthetic boils down to "if I don't blow shit up every two minutes, the audience will lose interest"?). If Snyder doesn't resort to his slowdown/speedup gimmick every two minutes, the audience that pays to see his films will tune out.

So many trailers will start being made in this fashion. Slow motion action shots and catch, but slightly obscure song from a well known rock band.

HarryLong wrote:"From the visionary director of 300."

Visionary?

VISIONARY????

This just means he has eyes, and can see out of one or both of them...nothing to do with "vision" whatever that means in Movie Land. And as anyone who has actually seen 300 knows, it can't mean all that much.

do you remember going to school with these sort of guys?

all 200 of them?

HarryLong wrote:"From the visionary director of 300."

Visionary?

VISIONARY????

That's already months old, and it's clear indication of things to come, which will most likely be slow motion porn.

Slow motion porn would at least have some redeeming social value ...

I still intend to see this film, but lately I've been wondering what the point of it could be. I say this because I saw two different trailers on television today and both looked so overprocessed and color corrected to death that's it like a CGI photocopy of the comic book. I think that the look of 300 worked for such an approach, but here it seems so uninspired and lazy that it's like they'd be better off making this movie a video game instead.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote: I think that the look of 300 worked for such an approach, but here it seems so uninspired and lazy that it's like they'd be better off making this movie a video game instead.

Your wish is my command.

Matt Selman, a writer for The Simpsons, has seen the film and freaked out.

Why does everyone have to wank all over this one? I might actually have to see this to know if all the wank is worth it. I doubt it's anywhere near the book. Just an empty shell it appears, but how will I know until I see it. Damm Snyder.

According to melonfarmers, a British anti-censorship site, it's 161 minutes and has been rated 18 in the UK. Apparently this information was on the bbfc website for a couple of hours and then removed - the assumption being that Warners are either appealing the decision or recutting to get a 15.

Apologies for not providing a direct link - I'm posting from work and melonfarmers gets caught by the obscenity filter

Seems odd they would be appealing the certification in the UK, when in the US the film is carrying a hard R.

Unlike an R certificate, the UK 15 and 18 ratings do not allow viewers under the required rating even if accompanied by an adult. There is a LOT of difference over here between the two - although there have been some very successful 18 certificate films, in recent years there have been very few outside of the arthouse circuit. Almost all big blockbusters will now be no higher than a 15 - especially one with superheros.

I'd be very surprised if this goes out as an 18 IF to get a 15 only relatively minor trims are required. However, the sticking point may be the rape - sexual violence is the big bugbear for the bbfc and has been for several years.

From that Jaman Lounge piece :

superheroes have been deemed illegal at a time when society could really use them

Isn't the whole point of the comic that masked vigilantes are NEVER, EVER a good thing?

I'll be interested to read some decent reviews of the film when it comes out because I think that the success of superhero films has really had a negative impact upon public discourse by creating this idea that problems can only be solved by an individual willing to cut through red tape. The comic examines that idea and rightly asks, but who gets to decide which Robust Randian Individuals get to solve the problem? It then goes on to point out that it would probably be better if we got accountable normal people to solve problems, not whack-jobs who see themselves as above the law.

I'll be interested to see if they preserve that message.

Agreed. Moore's comic stripped the heroes of cliche, but that review ("at a time when society could really use them") smacks of it. Stuff like this suggests that Snyder's film will be a success simply because too many people trapped by genre convention simply assumed Moore was telling another superhero story, thus completely missing The Watchmen's point.