He was a perfect fit compared to the casting of Laurie. Akerman only measured up in a few scenes and was an overacting princess in the rest.
That line was quoted verbatim in the movie. The only reference to Veidt’s possible homosexuality in the film, though, other than the cryptic “boys” folder. I think there are other references in the snips from “Under the Hood” in the book.
I thought there was a snarky comment by Mason about “others” in referring to the original two. Could be wrong, as it’s been a while since I read the book.
I blame Snyder. Matthew Goode is a fine actor, and perfectly capable of playing a warm, sympathetic character. The fact that he came across as a creep had to have been a conscious directorial decision.
Chiming in as another who loved the movie. The opening credit sequence really is the best part of it, though.
That seems quite present in the movie, too. It’s such a deeply embedded theme that I’m not sure how you could tell basically the same story without it being very clear.
People who’ve seen multiple versions, I think I’ve seen the theatrical version, but how would I know? Is the extended better enough to watch it instead? I don’t care about the pirate interstitial story.
I just rewatched the film last week when it was airing on IFC, I loved it when I first saw it and had wanted to rewatch it for a while. I’m guessing it was the theatrical version that was on TV, can someone who has seen both that and the director’s cut list what was added?
Yep, precisely. Your second comment underscores my point which you addressed in your first comment. He had a different, full-linear time perspective on time, but just because he could see the river didn’t mean he could swim against the flow. His own actions and responses were predetermined.
He’s really nailed down the whole “scary intense” thing - if you have access to Amazon shows his Odin Quincannon in Preacher is mesmerizing and his brief scene as The Terror in the new Tick series pilot is, well, genuinely terrifying. See it if you can. “YOU’VE GOT NOTHING!”
I’m a huge fan of the original series and of Alan Moore’s work in general (discovered him when he was still writing for 2000AD in the UK). And yep I think both the Watchmen and V for Vendetta are pretty good adaptions overall.
Alan Moore is an incredibly talented writer but his attitude towards adaptations of his work is so extreme it’s almost comical. He hates every single adaptation into another format that’s ever been made of his work.
Personally I think a lot of the fan hate for Watchmen was them hating it because Alan Moore told them they should hate it, not their own opinion.
Because, like, he’s all up in Egyptian shit and stuff, so let’s have him play the role as if he’s really a cobra! (Thinking mostly of the glassy stare and deceptively soft movements.)
As I understand it, Moore threw a hissy fit because someone at Warner (I don’t think it was Snyder) said Moore had approved the adaption. That was untrue. Moore asked Warner to publicly retract the statement. Warner prevaricated. Moore publicly resolved never to work with DC (a subsidiary of Warner) again.
Moore has said in at least one interview (from memory, in the context of the lacklustre “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” movie) that he doesn’t get upset by crappy adaptions of his work, because he doesn’t consider the adaptions to be his work.
I absolutely agree. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was born to play the Comedian.
Sadly for him, now he has. Every performance since has been mediocre at best. You can do a lot with that dirty smile as the Comedian, but not with every character ever written.