I like both sex and violence, but that doesn’t mean I like all sex and violence. If an ‘R’ rating and a lack of puritanism is used to better give me what I like, awesome, but not simply because it’s not PG.
It’s gonna be bad. Armageddon bad.
Didn’t you notice that a Legendary Movie had its title on the marquee AFTER Civilization collapsed?
Shouldn’t that have been the Watchman movie? And that one, IMHO, failed because instead of posing the right question(what if MOVIE superheroes started appearing in real life?) it clung to the original material which asked a different question, for a different time.
Watchmen didnt “fail.”
No, not really. Their interaction is perfunctory and flat.
Not really. In fact, he doesn’t seem to keep a low profile at all, which is why Lois Lane tracks him down fairly easily. Also, while he does save people, he gives little-to-no indication that he particularly cares.
He also doesn’t seem to have any compunction about killing. He does so frequently and just as frequently puts people in danger, and aside from one moment the death of Zod doesn’t seem to have affected him.
Yes, I know what Jonathan Kent thinks, despite the fact that he changes it a few times. No idea what Clark Kent thinking about it, or anything else.
No, not really. I could guess, but he shows no real indication that this was his reasoning, nor that he had any interest in reporting.
No, that’s what Pa kent told him. Clark never seems to particularly care.
No, not really. He seems more annoyed with her than anything else.
Well, her interaction with him when he’s a little kid overwhelmed by his super-senses seemed pretty emotional. And, years later, he speaks pretty positively about her helping him through it – shortly after he loudly talks about her while plowing into someone who thought it was a good idea to threaten her.
I’m not sure I could say I don’t know if he really cares about her.
Well, you’ll at least give him credit for moving on from whatever life he’s been leading every time he uses his powers, right?
That said, Lois doesn’t seem to think it was fairly easy to track him down; she specifically mentions that he’d covered his tracks, before explanning that she’d had to work her way through friend-of-a-friend claims about a cipher who never quite fit in.
And, again, he eventually decides to help people as Superman, but makes a big deal about keeping his identity secret – to the point of roughing up that surveillance stuff, because On My Own Terms means Privacy; it matters to him; he’s explicit.
Well, look, you can of course fault Cavill’s acting – but so long as the character keeps talking about wanting to save people, and keeps doing stuff consistent with that, then we’re basically getting spoon-fed explanation, yeah? I mean, he keeps winding up in situations where he can save lives, and he keeps saving lives, even though he then has to take steps to cover his tracks, which he then does, as per his conversations with Jon Kent, which he expressly references.
I admittedly could’ve missed that. Who else does he kill?
Sure you do. Before dying, Jon Kent told his son a bunch of stuff about what would happen if the general public became aware of an alien with godlike powers living among them. His son then (a) spent rather a lot of time keeping a low profile instead of letting the general public known that Clark Kent is an alien with godlike powers, and then (b) had a conversation with Lois about what Jon said regarding people freaking out if they ever learned the truth.
No, that stuff I wrote isn’t guesswork; it’s what Clark flatly said. I’m not asking you to connect the dots on that one; it’s just one dot, right there, by itself.
Well, yes, it’s what Pa Kent told him. And it’s also what Clark then did. I’ll grant that, for once, yes, that’s two dots we need to connect, but, c’mon: if Clark didn’t care, then why the heck else did he live the way he did, while expressly mentioning what Jon had said about living that way?
Jon said it; Clark did it. (Good heavens, I sound like a bumper sticker.) Clark then talked about what Jon had said, after spending years acting exactly as if he’d taken it to heart. That’s – not much of a mystery, y’know?
If I see a movie where some mugger guns down the Waynes in a Gotham City alley by some mugger, and their son then (a) dresses like Dracula when beating the hell out of muggers in Gotham City’s alleys, and (b) mentions swearing an oath to wage war on crime because of said parents getting gunned down by said mugger in said alley, don’t the dots pretty much connect themselves?
What? Like I was just saying, he tells her all about Jon Kent’s belief that people would freak out in fear upon learning the truth about him; she – doesn’t freak out, and doesn’t fear him, but instead just treats him like a good-looking guy who healed her injuries, and he kisses her because she’s Amy Adams and he’s heterosexual.
We should probably not have this argument in this thread, lest we destroy it as thoroughly as Superman and Zod wrecked Metropolis.
THERE’S ONLY ONE WAY THIS ENDS, BANDIT: that one, the one you, uh, just said.
Rob Liefeld… “dark age”… wha?
Was that supposed to be a “name three examples but make sure the third one is bizarrely inaccurate” trope?
It’s neither a good adaptation of the comics, what with unnecessarily changing many things and weakening the story and meaning, nor an interesting film in its own right. I’m not sure how that isn’t an utter failure.
As for the DC cinematic universe, it shows all signs of crashing and burning, at least in terms of making good films.
Well Moore hates all of his movies (but loves the money). But it was a box office success, won some awards and did OK with the critics. *You *seem to not like it, but that’s not a measure of success.
Dude: “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
Thank you for posting this. I thought I was the outlier.
There’s a very strong argument to be made that Liefeld is responsible for a dark age in comics, but I don’t think that’s the sense Chihuahua meant it in.
$185 million on a $130 million budget? That’s – not great; Norton’s outing as the Hulk did better than that; Bana’s outing as the Hulk did better than that. Clooney’s outing as Batman did better than that, even. None of 'em doubled their budgets, of course; but they all outperformed WATCHMEN, despite all being disappointments.
But it’s by no means a failure.
In Hollywood, it probably was. You have to consider the capital outlay and the opportunity cost.
That said, I liked the film for what it was and consider it fairly strong. The narrative of Watchmen had the advantage of adapting a work that was itself broken into many smaller portions, so at least that never felt out of place. (To note, I haven’t read the whole of the comic, and I do know there are significant differences.)
Moore doesn’t accept money for films that are adapted from his works–he usually gives his share to co-creators. Cite, with tons of links to other articles stating the same thing. As a matter of fact, he’s pretty famous for not accepting money for his films.
It’s my understanding that the $130 million was just the cost of making the movie: sets, props, costumes, actors’ salaries, a special-effects budget sufficient to do everything associated with Doctor Manhattan, and so on; and that marketing the movie is some additional amount of money that doesn’t get accounted for in that figure. It’s not like hiring a bunch of stuntmen or paying to blow up some cars; it’s a completely separate amount.
Oh, the color palette sucks, but as much as I hate the man who said that directors like him existed to save us from directors like Terry Gilliam, I have to give him credit for being a creative visual thinker. Sucker Punch is a beautiful movie. Man of Steel had the best depiction of superspeed and superstrength combat I’ve ever seen in live-action.
He just writes characters as if he were an angry ten year old.
Did you miss the part where I said
?
Or am I not entitled to my own, honest opinion, because I’m in the wrong forum? :p;)