Watchmen

[ara87]

Is it gonna be a decent film? I'm hearing lots of bad things about it, but maybe that's just from the people who have idolized the book who are afraid how the movie will turn out.

[One-Way]

Where in the world have you heard bad things? It's been so long since I've seen a film get such positive reviews; both from critics and the general audience.

It's already clear that Watchmen is going to be a literal adaptation of the novel. I wasn't initially interested because I don't quite like the director, Zack Snyder, for his horrible excuse of a film, 300. However, after hearing so many people say he's doing a great job of literally adapting every image from the novel into film, I decided to buy the novel. I'm more than halfway through and can already see what people are talking about.

I haven't heard a single fan of the novel or critic say what they've seen so far -- images, trailers, TV spots -- is less than they hoped for.

[ara87]

It's not exactly the same as the book, apparetly he felt adding a sublot about enviormentalism was eeded to help todays audience relate to the issues in the film

[One-Way]

Actually, it is almost exactly like the book. I haven't been watching this film closely during production but Synder used the comic book images as storyboards during filming. As far as the subplot, I highly doubt that unless you're refering to the ending. The only thing changed from the book is the ending, which has also received extremely positive reviews. Of course, there will be the ocassional hater who points everything out. I'd say it's pretty faithful to the novel, though.

[TomServo]

More dour super/antiheroes!

[Sako]

I guess this movie won't get nominated either no matter how good it is...

[One-Way]

Not a chance.

[Sako]

I'm starting to get what you mean by Comic books not being nominated. There should be like a special Oscar(s) dedicated to these types of movies. What do you think?

[One-Way]

I don't think that's a good idea.

That's not how the industry works, Saco. Sometimes people don't realize how nominations work and it's very simple. If you want to be considered for an Academy Award, it's completely in the hands of the studio.

First of all, the Academy usually considers films that are released at the fourth quarter of the year. So those who wish to be considered for Oscars tend to release their films during the months of October/November/December. This is why Revolutionary Road waited nearly a year to be released and why The Reader was rushed into theatres; unfortunently because of a certain producer, The Reader was only considered. Again, it's all business.

Second, during these months, studios will campain for consideration. The Academy doesn't come in and choose who they will nominate. The studio begins campaining with "For Your Consideration" posters/advertisements, for those they want to have nominated. For example, The Dark Knight campaining heavily for Best Picture; but for Best Supporting Actor, they didn't only put up Heath Ledger's name. They campained for Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman, etc.

So in the end, it's not because Watchmen is being snubbed. In a sense, they don't want to or they already know they won't be nominated. To be honest, they have nothing going for them. Sure, it's the best comic book adaptation because it's so literal to the novel but that's all. There's nothing else that would garner an award. Releasing in March kills their chances and I think they just want it to be a big blockbuster hit.

[Sako]

Thanks for the explanation. But this brings me to another question. If say a GREAT AG related movie came out, would it even be considered? Or would the judges say it's political and shun it off? That would suck real bad.

[One-Way]

Historic and political films are actually very popular for award shows. It would definitely be considered but I'm guessing it would have to break boundries; tell a story we haven't heard yet and just because it's Armenian doesn't count.

[Sako]

Historic and political films are actually very popular for award shows. It would definitely be considered but I'm guessing it would have to break boundries; tell a story we haven't heard yet and just because it's Armenian doesn't count.

Haha, obviously, unless one of the judges are Armenian, lol, which I seriously doubt. I'm glad political movies are appreciated and I guess we actually have a chance of getting the AG out there. I had doubts for some time owing to the fact that the judges might shy away after hearing the angry roars of the Turkish people but I guess a movie is a movie and no one really cares what the Turks will think. By the way, if a movie like this comes out, what will it be rated? Rated R? Rated P for political, lol? Rated NA?

If we make a movie like this, we'll have to be able to screen it in theaters world wide so that's something we have to take into consideration.

And something just hit me, what did you think of Che? Haven't seen it yet but I definitely want to.

[One-Way]

I can't predict a rating for a film that hasn't been made yet. Considering the topic of the film, I'd assume rated R. The filmmakers would never accept an NC-17 rating, so they'd continuously be toning the subject matter down.

I haven't seen Che, but there's a reason why it's only playing in a handful of theatres. The film is extremely long and entirely in Spanish; to me, this is a perfect example of great filmmaking. Soderbergh stayed true to Che's life by refusing to make a typical Hollywood film, and kept the true language in the film. If an Armenian Genocide film is anything like Che, which I think it should be, it will be received the same way.

[Sako]

I haven't seen Che, but there's a reason why it's only playing in a handful of theatres. The film is extremely long and entirely in Spanish; to me, this is a perfect example of great filmmaking. Soderbergh stayed true to Che's life by refusing to make a typical Hollywood film, and kept the true language in the film. If an Armenian Genocide film is anything like Che, which I think it should be, it will be received the same way.

That's kinda what I'm afraid of. I doubt Che will get any awards or anything (or will it?) which I think is what we want. We don't want to just make a movie. Plus, I hear a lot of people haven't liked it, stating that it was clichey or that it wasn't filmed too well. Many especially said that it was too long for no reason. So I'd say we don't want the AG movie to turn out like Che.

I can't predict a rating for a film that hasn't been made yet. Considering the topic of the film, I'd assume rated R. The filmmakers would never accept an NC-17 rating, so they'd continuously be toning the subject matter down.

Well the AG movie will have a lot of bloody scenes, naturally, so I don't know. But let us also remember that a lot of bloody movies got an R rating so I think we might get lucky.

[One-Way]

That's kinda what I'm afraid of. I doubt Che will get any awards or anything (or will it?) which I think is what we want. We don't want to just make a movie. Plus, I hear a lot of people haven't liked it, stating that it was clichey or that it wasn't filmed too well. Many especially said that it was too long for no reason. So I'd say we don't want the AG movie to turn out like Che.

Che was received particularly well by critics. It was entirely filmed on the RED camera and I don't doubt Soderbergh's direction or cinematography behind the camera. I can't speak about the film any more than that, considering I haven't seen it yet. However, a film like Che is what Armenian's need. It's a biopic of a revolutionary, which tells a very personal and intimate story. A film about the Armenian Genocide will, hopefully, bring out the same emotion while staying true to the language. I certainly don't want to see an Armenian Genocide film, which takes place entirely in our homeland, with the main language being ENGLISH.

Oh, and it's not going to get any more awards because award season has already passed. However, the film did receive Best Actor at the Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for the Golden Palm. That's a fine honor in itself, and there's a reason why it was overlooked in America.

Well the AG movie will have a lot of bloody scenes, naturally, so I don't know. But let us also remember that a lot of bloody movies got an R rating so I think we might get lucky.

I think you're approaching this subject matter incorrectly.

First of all, there is no film; therefore, there are no scenes and we don't know what the scenes will contain. I don't even think the MPAA knows how they rate their films; Titanic showed full frontal nudity in 1997 and received a PG-13 rating. There are many gruesome and violent films that receive the same rating. Either way, the studio will not allow the film to see light of day until the filmmakers tone the material down. Unless the scene's are so graphic, and handled in such a way Hollywood has never seen, the film won't be given a rating of NC-17.

Second of all, you're talking about an Armenain Genocide film as if its yours. We might lucky? Do you mean the Armenian people will get lucky and have their film released? As I said, it's going to be a while until a deserving project picks up. Then again, my opinion of deserving might be much different than yours. For example, I wouldn't consider a Mel Gibson film an Armenian Genocide film at all. There are several aspects of his filmmaking which I admire, but I think a deserving project consists of Armenian filmmakers behind the production.

[One-Way]

In relation to Watchmen, here are several reviews after the film's premiere in London.

London Times, Kevin Maher: "It's not for the faint-hearted -- and, despite the preponderance of Spandex outfits, capes and costumes, not for kids either. Limbs are broken, bones are smashed and skulls split."

Britain's Guardian Newspaper: "This is an [R-rated] superhero movie which makes last year's famously brooding Batman sequel The Dark Knight look like Alvin and the Chipmunks."

London Daily Mirror, Steve Anglesey: "Watchmen is unlikely to steal Slumdog Millionaire's tagline of 'the feel-Good Movie of the year!' but it's searing, spectacular and simply unmissable."

Time Magazine, Matt Selman: "It's a serious freak-out. ... Watching the visual world of the Watchmen movie unfold was one of the most powerful experiences I've ever had. Not film experiences. Just Experiences."

Huffington Post, Mike Ragogna: "It will demand your attention and intelligence as it entertains; it's sophisticated and sensationally sophomoric; and for those ... without any expectations or knowledge of the comic's storyline or historical importance, this really will be a blast."

After all those rave reviews, there is one hater in the bunch.

News of the World, Robbie Collin: "This two-and-a-half-hour wannabe pop culture epic isn't the worst superhero movie ever made, mind. But it is one of the most spirit-crushingly disappointing. Because this time round, it was supposed to be all so different. We were promised darkness. We were promised maturity. But what we've got, is 163 minutes of tin-ear dialogue and absurd violence."

[ara87]

wow i had no idea the music in the trailers were the smashing pumpkins and muse

[One-Way]

I love the Smashing Pumpkins song!

[iFemale]

iFemale's avatar FTW!

[One-Way]

Federate, I still haven't seen Watchmen. I know... I know.

I hate how if I don't see a film on its opening weekend, I end up never seeing it!