Watchmen on Blu-Ray
POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Monday, August 3, 2009 13:11
VIEWED: 6048
PAGE 4 of 7
The director's cut is at least as good as what was in theatres. Can't always say that about extended versions. I especially enjoyed the extra material pertaining to Hollis Mason. His death, while sad, comes off as very heroic. The follow up scene where Dan interrogates the knothead was also a nice addition. One thing I was really hoping for was the last conversation between Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias. It is one of my favorite parts of the book and serves as an excellent bookend to the story.
Excellent way to spend 3 hours. Now I have to go back and watch it again with the Snyder-along feature.
_________________________________________________
We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Taken strictly as a vehicle for Sean Connery to say goodbye to us in a last heroic role, it's not bad- just don't expect typical Moore edgyness.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Never could get through League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I must be one of the rarer breed that really enjoyed the graphic novel and the movie version of Watchmen. The same also applies to V For Vendetta as well.
And whilst there are some differences (aren't there always going to be changes?) I thought they all worked really well within their media. But then I've always done that with different media. It bugs me a bit when people say it's not as good as the books (Harry Potter), or they changed the characters (LOTR). Of course it's not gonna be the same. If they book could be directly put on the screen it would be many hours long and full of voice over detailing characters thoughts.
I'm kinda sorry to say this but after LXG I can understand why Connery retired. Read any interviews with him where he speaks about it and you can see why for yourselves. Connery was always a fave of mine (even outside Bond) and it was a pity that this was his last film. I can at least see why the film has fans, I'm just not one of them.
Back to Watchmen and the Blu-ray version I thought that the video transfer was immaculate. The contrast in the gloomier scenes was suitable dark but not so much that you couldn't see what was going on. And when they had areas of brighter colours they stood out brilliantly (the reflection of the neon lights from Gunga Diner in a window as Rorschach walks by looked excellent).
The lossless sound was also great but I did find that I had to turn the volume up more than usual as the whole audio track seemed a little quiet. Anyone else have this? It's not my system as another disc sounded fine later the same day.
An excellent release that I will look forward to watching many times to get all the little details and nuances.
"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I watch the film for it's energy, and for the scene where Connery confronts the white tiger... it's his goodbye, and I find it touching (but then, I AM a sap).
Originally posted by lwaves:
Connery was always a fave of mine (even outside Bond) and it was a pity that this was his last film. I can at least see why the film has fans, I'm just not one of them.
I personally forgive the flaying of the graphic novel for the movie, as it wasn't one of my favourites, but had they done that to the Watchmen, I would have been gorram ruttin' pissed to no end, so I can understand hating on LXG if that was an important story to y'all.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
Well I must be one of the rarer breed that really enjoyed the graphic novel and the movie version of Watchmen.
No, that's not the rare breed.
Quote:
The same also applies to V For Vendetta
That's the rare breed
I adored the Watchmen novel and I loved the movie. Just about every fan I've found or heard of likes the film adaptation of Watchmen. I'm sure there are some who don't like it, but the majority are happy with the vast respect shown to the source material.
My boyfriend has a tattoo of Rorschach's signature symbol, and vowed it would undergo removal if the movie offended him. Not only that, he was deeply concerned that it was a distinct possibility. Well, he just bought the bluray and the tattoo remains. So that should tell you something.
When we first started going out, I got a great many points for not having seen the movie V for Vendetta, so that tells you how much that particular adaptation did offend him, and I've seen a lot of that from a lot of fans of Moore's original work. So. Yeah.
Sorry to be one of the people who bugs you, as I also get offended when a different medium bares only passing resemblance to the source material. I thought LOtR was excellent, and only have two minor beefs with it. Again, it was adapted years after the fact, by people who loved and respected the story. When that isn't done, when something on film has no feel of the world from the book version, when the story is slashed and twisted to a point where people who haven't read the books have a completely different view of the story and what it's about... Yeah, then I happen to think they're travesties. If someone wants to make a film version of a story, they should make a film version of the story, not a different story with a few similarities. JMHO.
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Dark Knight by Frank Miller -
Yes, please.
SGG
Tawabawho?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Excellent point and I agree. Make the film but make the story the focal point, don't fudge with it. Imagine making the 3 Musketeers without D'artagnan.
But sometimes directors, and all the time H'wood producers and movie moguls, want to give their vision rather than the artist's. Most times with movie moguls they want their POV, but often it's a matter of cashy-money.
There are few exceptions though: Kubrick, for one, is well-known for sticking close to the original source material. A Clockwork Orange, one of my all-time favs, was one genius piece of work by the master filmmaker. I read the book after seeing the film. 2001: A Space Oddyssey was another (didn't read the book). So, it is true that a great film is when it compliments the original medium and creator's vision. Kubrick had a way of injecting his vision within the author's creation. Genius!
SGG
Tawabawho?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
Well I must be one of the rarer breed that really enjoyed the graphic novel and the movie version of Watchmen.
No, that's not the rare breed.Quote:
The same also applies to V For Vendetta
That's the rare breed
I adored the Watchmen novel and I loved the movie. Just about every fan I've found or heard of likes the film adaptation of Watchmen. I'm sure there are some who don't like it, but the majority are happy with the vast respect shown to the source material.
Then it must just be my friends and acquaintances. Those I know who saw the movie without reading the novel really enjoyed it. Those who had read the novel had reactions ranging from an 'It was okay-ish' to outright blasphemy. Never did get that one as I thought it was a faithful adaption myself but he really hated that they changed the ending and that the Black Frieghter story was missing (even though you can get it seperately) - he just couldn't get by it.
And I reread the above posts and nobody did say anything regarding liking one and hating the other. I'll put it down to end of the night sleepyheadedness (yes that's a word).
My bad.
Quote:
Sorry to be one of the people who bugs you, as I also get offended when a different medium bares only passing resemblance to the source material. I thought LOtR was excellent, and only have two minor beefs with it.
When that isn't done, when something on film has no feel of the world from the book version, when the story is slashed and twisted to a point where people who haven't read the books have a completely different view of the story and what it's about... Yeah, then I happen to think they're travesties. If someone wants to make a film version of a story, they should make a film version of the story, not a different story with a few similarities. JMHO.
I'm not doing very well as I don't think I got my point across here either. D'Oh.
What I was on about that bugs me is this:
A particular scene or chapter may work in a book, for instance, but that same scene wouldn't necessarily work on film (or isn't needed to further the plot). So the film makers miss that piece out or change it so that it does work.
Some fans get 'up in arms' and all upset about it (which is their right of course) and claim that the film is a travesty etc etc. That's what bugs me. Minor-ish quibbles and problems that don't change the main plot/story in any significant way.
Take LOTR for example. This is my favourite film of all time (please note 'film' not 'films' as I see it as one). I waited so many years hoping that someone would come along and do a faithful adaption. And I think that the extended editions are about as perfect as they could be.
But some folks didn't like the fact that Glorfindel was changed to Arwen, or that Arwen got a more prominent role. Or that Saruman's death was different from the novel.
Minor points to me. But some folks couldn't get by it. Again maybe it's just posts I read at the time or folks that I know.
My only two problems with the film is that the ending is too long and that we never got to see The Scouring Of The Shire, which is odd as this would have made the ending longer!
I am with you though when little regard is paid to the source. When they keep the title and maybe a few names and basic plot points. If you want a different film call it by a different name.
But having said that if the film works well in it's new form then I can treat them seperately, as different entities, if you like. I gather the Bourne movies don't follow the books (I haven't read them) but I think the movies are fantastic.
Does that clear things up a bit or am I still in the foggy area.
"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There are few exceptions though: Kubrick, for one, is well-known for sticking close to the original source material. A Clockwork Orange, one of my all-time favs, was one genius piece of work by the master filmmaker. I read the book after seeing the film. 2001: A Space Oddyssey was another (didn't read the book). So, it is true that a great film is when it compliments the original medium and creator's vision. Kubrick had a way of injecting his vision within the author's creation. Genius!
Well, the genius of 2001 was that Kubrick knew enough to know what he didn't know - and he went to Arthur C. Clarke for collaboration on the screenplay. 2001 really came from the Arthur Clarke short story "The Sentinel" - and you really should read that one. You'll be amazed not only at its brevity, but at all the stuff that Kubrick and Clarke THEN had to think up to follow it, because The Sentinel is really barely a jumping-off point - its entirety is pretty much the stuff that happens on the Moon in the movie, and that's about it. It's about finding something on the Moon that is basically a "burglar alarm" - it requires a nuclear explosion to "open" it, which proves a couple things to those who left it there: 1) that mankind has indeed progressed and become a viable, intelligent species capable of some level of space flight, and 2) that we have reached the capability of having nuclear weapons, and haven't wiped ourselves out with them (not yet, at least). All the rest of the story, the Jupiter mission, the prehistoric monkey-men, the star-child, all of that was just Kubrick and Clarke collaborating, and saying, "...And THEN what would happen?"
The monolith was somebody's messaging system to wake them up when we did something interesting, which would indicate that maybe we were ready to join the larger universe, or at least meet those who'd been out there for so long already...
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
some folks didn't like the fact that Glorfindel was changed to Arwen
I don't mind that. I understand why they wanted to simplify the character base, so to speak.
Quote:
or that Arwen got a more prominent role
Again, I understand why she had a more prominent role. I wasn't all that crazy crazy about it, and all the stuff that wasn't in the books in any form bugged me to a certain extent (her fate being tied to the ring, for example, I thought was a little ridiculous.) My dad can go on whole long rants about how much the film version shouldn't have featured the Aragorn and Arwen story, but he still loves the movies. I didn't mind the things they included from the appendices, but yes, it did bother me a little that they started making things up. I guess that could be a third beef of mine.
Quote:
Or that Saruman's death was different from the novel.
That did bug me, and is tied into the Scouring of the Shire, which I agree with you on wanting to see. This is one of my beefs with the film. The main one, though? This is going to sound absolutely silly, no doubt, but my biggest, hugest problem with the film adaptation was Sam turning back. It made me angry that they put that in there. Sam never turns back. He never leaves Frodo. Not ever. He is the true and indisputable hero of the saga. He doesn't waver and he doesn't leave and he sees the thing through to the end. It certainly doesn't ruin the film for me. I think the film is gorgeous and epic and quite respectful of the story, but that's the one change that made me actually angry.
Gotten a little off-track here, haven't we?
Sorry, everybody.Quote:
If you want a different film call it by a different name.
Yay verily! We seem to be on the same page, there.
Quote:
Does that clear things up a bit or am I still in the foggy area.
Loud and clear
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME