TV/Movies Megathread

[Ideologue]

Wait, you people read Ide's reviews? 

It's because you're a good and
Intelligent man
Despite your desire to pummel
My sack

[garbon]

Wait, you people read Ide's reviews? 

It's because you're a good and
Intelligent man
Despite your desire to pummel
My sack

Thanks, lettuce.

[Ideologue]

FUCK YOU
I AM ON A PHONE

[garbon]

FUCK YOU
I AM ON A PHONE

And whose fault is that?

[Sheilbh]

Wrong.  It's completely uncorrelated.  Fanboys hated Watchmen, the best of all superhero films, but they loved the Dark Knight trilogy, which despite the softened heart I've developed for it, is problematic at best and produced only one movie worth praising without heaps of qualification.

Watchmen is a dreadful film. It's boring.

The Dark Knight films (I've not seen the last one) are good, solid superhero films. I, personally, think Batman is still the best of the whole lot, but they're still very good.

That's where Sheilbh's thesis falls apart--if this were anything else, I'd dislike it much more.

My thesis is that generally the more fans of the original hate it, the better a film it'll be.

[Eddie Teach]

My thesis is that generally the more fans of the original hate it, the better a film it'll be.

So you enjoyed Ang Lee's Hulk then?

[11B4V]

Wrong.  It's completely uncorrelated.  Fanboys hated Watchmen, the best of all superhero films, but they loved the Dark Knight trilogy, which despite the softened heart I've developed for it, is problematic at best and produced only one movie worth praising without heaps of qualification.

Watchmen is a dreadful film. It's boring.

The Dark Knight films (I've not seen the last one) are good, solid superhero films. I, personally, think Batman is still the best of the whole lot, but they're still very good.

[Sheilbh]

So you enjoyed Ang Lee's Hulk then?

A bad film can still be a bad film

The problem I have is I think there are lots of films that reboots or comic books that could be good or great but are overly reverential. They're normally decent enough adaptations but I don't think they're really great films and normally I feel it's because there's too much respect for the source.

I'm still waiting and hoping for even a decent video game adaptation though

[frunk]

A bad film can still be a bad film

The problem I have is I think there are lots of films that reboots or comic books that could be good or great but are overly reverential. They're normally decent enough adaptations but I don't think they're really great films and normally I feel it's because there's too much respect for the source.

I'm still waiting and hoping for even a decent video game adaptation though

In Watchmen's case (and V for Vendetta as well since we are talking about bad Alan Moore movies) that reverence is strictly for the visual style of the source material and are actually pretty lousy adaptations of everything else.  Watchmen completely loses the "these are human beings who are quite a bit crazy underneath their masks" in Snyder's drooling over "watch this normal human hero punch through a cement wall because, well, isn't that cool?!?!"

[Barrister]

I quite liked Watchmen.

[Ed Anger]

Admiral Yi has joined the No Punch in Ide's Nuts Faction.

Yi has joined part of the problem faction.

EMBARGO! Ed runs barter town!

[garbon]

Breakfast Club

I'm going to knock your dick in the dirt.

[lustindarkness]

Watchmen was good.

[Ideologue]

So you enjoyed Ang Lee's Hulk then?

A bad film can still be a bad film

The problem I have is I think there are lots of films that reboots or comic books that could be good or great but are overly reverential. They're normally decent enough adaptations but I don't think they're really great films and normally I feel it's because there's too much respect for the source.

You know, I still need to see Lee's Hulk.  I bet it's fine.  Although I have heard it's dull, and if The Incredible Hulk is the exciting one... :yuck:

I think a desire to anger fanboys is silly.  First, because there is no monolithic fandom that can be pissed off by the same things--I am a huge Watchmen fan, for example, but while it would've been cool to see, I understand why they removed the squid, and fully recognize and embrace how much more sense running a false flag operation with Dr. Manhattan's energy signature makes than the squid ever could.  Despite my own acceptance, this pissed off a lot of people, even though it's a highly surface element.

Others, like frunk, felt that the thematic elements were undermined, and I can only imagine they do so because they watched the movie high.  No, seriously, that baffles me, dude.  I think Snyder fully understood and communicated the fucked-upedness of the characters, particularly Rorschach and Osterman, but all to one extent or another.  And, naturally, I still have the highest of expectations for Man of Steel--although I'm wondering now if that's wise given that having great hopes for Star Trek clearly didn't do me any favors.

Secondly, to the extent there are shibboleths held dearly by fans, often it is for a reason; just as often, changes are made without sufficient justification for their existence or the talent to execute those changes in a pleasing way.  See, e.g., Catwoman, the ST: Next Generation movies, the Star Wars prequels, the Fantastic Four movies, and so forth--although as you say a bad film is still a bad film and those would likely have been just as bad, given the level of competence apparently involved, even if they had hewed (hewn?) more closely to their sources or their canon, respectively.

I'm still waiting and hoping for even a decent video game adaptation though

I saw an ad for Halo 4 in the theater about a year back, and for a brief moment thought it was a Halo picture.  How that property has escaped being turned into a movie, I have no idea.  It's already extremely filmic, and involves a very fleshed-out and (theoretically, I tried reading a book once--ultra-meh) interesting SF universe.  Remember when Peter Jackson was attached?  Remember how this was right after King Kong, which is amazing?  Remember how he wound up doing The Hobbitt instead?  Remember how there's going to be two more of those?

Oh, also, I'll point out that according to your hypothesis, Super Mario Bros. should be at the apex of all adapted works.

[Ideologue]

A bad film can still be a bad film

The problem I have is I think there are lots of films that reboots or comic books that could be good or great but are overly reverential. They're normally decent enough adaptations but I don't think they're really great films and normally I feel it's because there's too much respect for the source.

I'm still waiting and hoping for even a decent video game adaptation though

In Watchmen's case (and V for Vendetta as well since we are talking about bad Alan Moore movies) that reverence is strictly for the visual style of the source material and are actually pretty lousy adaptations of everything else.  Watchmen completely loses the "these are human beings who are quite a bit crazy underneath their masks" in Snyder's drooling over "watch this normal human hero punch through a cement wall because, well, isn't that cool?!?!"

Oh, and V For Vendetta was broken specifically by one scene, one shot really, I think it was maybe thirty seconds.  YOU KNOW THE PART.

The rest was fine.  But intimating that V wanted a romantic relationship with Evey was at best a misstep, and for Korea and I at least really ruined the whole movie.  Shaun is now locked into the belief that it's the greatest movie ever made.