Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Cutting Room Floor' started by Thread Manager, Sep 13, 2016.
That's not saying much t:
It really isn't, but if you're a Warcraft fan, there is a lot to love.
Fair enough! I remember enjoying Silent Hill many years ago, though I had no familiarity with the games. Other than that I can't think of any video game film that's been decent.
Silent Hill is still my favorite video game adaptation. I like the RE movies, too, but more as a guilty pleasure type of thing over legitimately good films. I actually think the first SH movie is a good film by itself. I've not seen Warcraft, and I probably never will.
Man...just nevermind lol. I can't even begin to go through most of all of this. Agree to disagree.
How's this for unpopular: I kinda like Queen of the Damned.
Gimme Ezra Miller as The Flash, and give him full gloves for his solo movie and JL sequel.
I like Batman, Batman Returns, and Batman Forever better than TDKT.
I also like Blade's trilogy, Capt America's, and Iron Man's more.
Am I the only only one who doesn't think Watchmen is unfilmable as a movie
I don't think it's unfilmable.
I'm not a fan of Snyder... at all. But I think his Watchmen was pretty good. It's probably my favourite Snyder film.
I mean there is a lot wrong with it. But there is some amazing moments.
The Comedian's funeral, the way it was put together, is top quality film making for me. It's the proper use of a montage. The way it shows each characters important interactions with him is great because it SHOWS us The Comedian, who he was.
Dr Manhattens origin sequence blew me away. I mean come on there has to be a grudging respect from haters there.
I also really like the death of the original Night Owl. Really cool how he was imagining his glory days as he was fighting the Top Knots. It fit his character... there was substance with the style.
Zack Snyder is soooo ****ing frustrating. It's because he clearly has it in him to be a top, top film maker. But he is just so inconsistent. Not just from movie to movit... but even within the same film! From concept to execution!
Hell look at Sucker Punch. The idea of abused, traumatised girls escaping into a metaphorical fantasy world to deal with the pain is awesome if you ask me.
The execution though? Load of old cobblers.
It's not. LOTR was considered unfilmable even by Kubrick and look what happened.
Nothing is unfilmable if you make a proper adaptation. The problem is when people say that word they just think strictly in terms of looking at the source material. Snyder's problem was "Welp, I'll just copy and paste the comic to screen, that means it's faithful and we don't have to worry!" Being faithful to the source material doesn't automatically do justice to the material.
I agree with Moore saying that Watchmen only works as a comic, as his work and that is an example of what the medium can only do that nothing else can. But set all that aside and make a movie, that means make Watchmen and translate that idea into something only the medium of film can do.
David Hayter's draft is online somewhere. It takes place in modern day (2003) but at 130 pages, it's closer to the comic than the Snyder film ever got. And it's quite good. Even Moore approves of it, and this was before Hollywood ruined his stories.
I feel like most of the good stuff from Watchmen was the stuff Snyder basically lifted from the comic, with the big exception of the opening credits sequence which was, admittedly, incredibly well done. But a lot of the other prime stuff, like the Dr. Manhattan origin, the Mars sequence, the funeral were really just the comic put into motion. Not to say that doesn't take talent per say, but it feels a lot like less of an accomplishment to me because of that.
Yeah for me I think Snyder's version, for a majority of it, worked on a script level. THere were a lot of other issues even though I still like the movie, but as a script I think it was a very good adaptation of the work. Would a 12 part mini series work better? Sure. But I still think the script for Snyder's version was a very good representation of the comic. Some tweaks and it wouldve been a phenomenal adaptation
You know... I never realized that. A lot of the script works (not including the logic of the change of the ending) It's Snyder's directing choices that hold it back. Casting, shot composition, ****ing slo mo, the choice of lifting moments from the comic to the screen.
I just hope the script wasn't tailored to create those moments for Snyder.
You know it's weird, I feel like if Watchmen was made today, the giant squid would be in. It came out at a different time when weirder stuff we see today in comic films weren't common. That choice seemed to be driven by the fear of audiences thinking it was too silly. Sure enough in the Avengers, we see several giant alien monsters attacking a city.
I honestly like the film ending better or at least I like the change of making Dr. Manhattan the alleged source of the destruction vs the giant squid from the coomic. The concept of that is better to me than the squid monster, but the actual execution is not all the way there.
My biggest problem with the ending is what happens after the death or Rorschach (which again I thought was better handled in the movie than the comic. I loved how Dan actually had emotion surrounding Rorschach's death) is that they took away Dr. Manhattan's line of "nothing ever ends" or something like that and gave it to either Dan or Laurie (I can't remember) and having it be a throw away line.
It's supposed to be this major moment saying: "Yeah you did all this but how long will it really matter? All you just did is a short term solution and is futile in the end"
Also didn't like how Dan and Laurie didn't switch identities.
But as I said the script they had, with some a few switches it wouldve worked damn near perfectly on a pure script level. The next step is getting a director who understands the material
Not sure why I discuss the movie when I never warmed up to the source material.
Something I noticed about him when it comes to BvS from pre-release to the outcry of foul and how lame that movie turned out to be; he let's his ego gets in his way too much. People who watched Sucker Punch point out things that lead me to the same conclusion.
I agree that he has it in him to be a great filmmaker, I want him to focus more on making a movie great and less on what he views as art while tripping over his own ideas.
Magnificent Seven 2016 final town battle>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>airport fight in Civil War
I'm going to assume it's because it actually served a purpose to the film.
Creed. Absurdly overrated, bland, sleep-inducing flick. I liked the first movie. I liked the one with Drago. But the rest, and especially this one...
Fast & Furious series. I don't know, I don't think I'm the kind, who prefers only something sophisticated or "not for everyone". Often I enjoy pure dumb fun. But I just don't understand the popularity of F&F. What's even more weird, how opinion of critics changed with time. Earlier movies received solid "rotten" ratings, but suddenly it became "fresh". When nothing really changed in the series itself.
A lot changed in the F&F series from 1 to 5. 5 stopped taking itself so seriously and became dumb ridiculous fun with incredible set pieces. Come on they went from street racing and highway heists to swinging a safe through the streets of Rio to jumping cars out of a plane. I like F&F1 and 2 Fast but they are very different than Fast Five on
Fast and the Furious is one of the prime examples of how a franchise can reinvent itself, without rebooting/recasting for the better. Also Mission Impossible, in the first MI I dont think Tom Cruise fired his gun once. Or if he did it was only a little. Now look at 5 he's getting into motobike chases, gunfights, and hanging off the side of a plane
Nope, they speak their lines with the same deadly seriousness.
Also, IMO, hate for Judge Dredd '95 is so blown out of proportion. It's not that bad.
ok but still saying the series hasnt changed is silly because you can literally see the changes in the stories and the set pieces and how the characters are used. So saying "nothing has changed" isn't really accurate
I'd even agree the lines are different too other than Vin Diesel's stuff
I think the Fast & Furious franchise lost something when it became about car stunts that have no basis in reality. Vin Diesel Superman catching Michelle Rodriguez in mid air is when the series jumped the shark for me. Plus I'll never get over how unsympathetic the characters outside of Luke Hobbs are. Hell, Deckard Shaw has more honorable intentions in avenging his brother than Dom's family do in robbing millions from a poverty stricken nation. Mission Impossible is the way better "heist" franchise.
Also, I'd gotten an hour into Warcraft last night before falling asleep. Honestly, I was digging it. I thought I was only 20 minutes or so into it.
I'll say this regarding F&F - the cars/stunts in general are the ONLY things that ever made that series worthwhile. The characters/writing are bunk. So when it actually embraced being about the cars/stunts and wasn't afraid to go OTT with those (I'd say with Fast Five), that's the first time I even started to like it.
BUT. When they started going full ridiculous CG-based stunts like the aforementioned thing with Vin Diesel flying through the air to catch Rodriguez, they lost me again. So they really only had me for like a movie-and-a-half, lol.
I'm always here for awesome practical stunts, though. And yes, Mission: Impossible is BY FAR the superior "heist" franchise. I didn't know that was in question.
There was a basis in reality to begin with?