TV/Movies Megathread

[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.

[Ideologue]

FUCK YOU
I AM ON A PHONE

And whose fault is that?

Darwinian capitalism's.  I still want to know what the review said about me.  I think it said I don't like the IMDB quotes page from Star Trek II put to film.

It may also have said I was pedantic, but I don't see that either.

[Sheilbh]

I think V for Vendetta's fine and was discussing Super Mario Bros in a generally positive way (though it's still awful) just yesterday.

I'll continue tomorrow.

[frunk]

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.

The problem wasn't with the fucked-upedness of the heroes but with their humanity.  They were supposed to be normal humans with no powers other than training and in some cases mildly nifty gadgets.  What we get are heroes that aren't remotely bounded by human physical limitations and in fact instead of being contrasted with Osterman's superpowers are closer to him than to us.

[Barrister]

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.

The problem wasn't with the fucked-upedness of the heroes but with their humanity.  They were supposed to be normal humans with no powers other than training and in some cases mildly nifty gadgets.  What we get are heroes that aren't remotely bounded by human physical limitations and in fact instead of being contrasted with Osterman's superpowers are closer to him than to us.

I didn't get that at all from Watchmen.

[Ideologue]

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.

The problem wasn't with the fucked-upedness of the heroes but with their humanity.  They were supposed to be normal humans with no powers other than training and in some cases mildly nifty gadgets.  What we get are heroes that aren't remotely bounded by human physical limitations and in fact instead of being contrasted with Osterman's superpowers are closer to him than to us.

Yeah, there were some stylistic choices Snyder made that suggest superhuman strength and speed, but they didn't bother me, since they were just style and didn't impact the substance (and generally looked pretty cool).  I think it's a valid criticism in the general case, though I don't think by any means this made them even approach the godlikeness that Osterman.

Dreiberg still looked like a dork.  I got what I needed.

And Veidt was presented in the book as peak human anyway.

(Tangentially related: in addition to the flaw with the squid--its human DNA would have been detectable, revealing the lie, and perhaps even traceable, revealing Veidt--Snyder and friends got rid of the only other identifiable flaw Watchmen the book possessed.  Thankfully, they took out the bulk of the Chris Claremont-Plus monologue Veidt spews during a fistfight with Rorschach that happens to take place over nine panels but in reality couldn't have lasted more than three seconds. )

[Ideologue]

Oh, I did think of a movie that helps Sheilbh's case immensely--the 1986 Transformers.  I've spoken many times of the boldness of its choices and the brutal nature of its treatment of its target audience.  Hey, kids, you like Optimus Prime?  DO YOU LIKE OPTIMUS PRIME GETTING GUNNED DOWN LIKE A DOG?

I did.

[frunk]

I didn't get that at all from Watchmen.

There isn't a single fight scene where what happens could be done by humans.  If they can do things that other humans can't do all of the questions over why they should be allowed to do what they do (vigilantes in the face of the rule of law) become muddier.  Since they are "superpowered" humans rather than "aggressive/sadistic but otherwise normal" humans they are in the same category as Dr. Manhattan.  By their nature should they be subject to the same laws as others, or should greater allowances be made?  Instead of Dr. Manhattan being on the contrasting side of the heroes in this argument they all end up in the "greater than human" bucket.

[CountDeMoney]

Christ, fucking Transformers.*   I'd say Ide's taste in movies have jumped the shark, but jumping the shark jumped the shark a long time ago.








*Was cool to see Optimus Prime get his shit pushed in, though.  Stupid fucking truck.  Not even mil-spec, fucking commercial grade.

[garbon]

Given my mother's militancy about violence, I still don't understand how I had an Optimus Prime action figure. Maybe my father smuggled it in to counter the Popples and My Little Pony.

[Ideologue]

I didn't get that at all from Watchmen.

There isn't a single fight scene where what happens could be done by humans.  If they can do things that other humans can't do all of the questions over why they should be allowed to do what they do (vigilantes in the face of the rule of law) become muddier.  Since they are "superpowered" humans rather than "aggressive/sadistic but otherwise normal" humans they are in the same category as Dr. Manhattan.  By their nature should they be subject to the same laws as others, or should greater allowances be made?  Instead of Dr. Manhattan being on the contrasting side of the heroes in this argument they all end up in the "greater than human" bucket.

The things they do is just a comic book, if not action genre, trope--"training" = near-superhumanity.  That's why Batman has not been shot to death by a random street thug several thousand times.

Of the examples of superhuman strength in the movie, the only ones that really get me are Blake putting his fist through what looks like stone (though that's not technically impossible, I guess) and Veidt jumping like twenty feet (although that may be technically possible also).

The fighting skills they seem to possess are just unrealistic, rather than totally impossible--no one is likely to be that perfect--and it all gets amped up by Snyder's style.  But as far as this is a problem, it's hardly limited to just Watchmen, though I can understand your qualms with it.

*Was cool to see Optimus Prime get his shit pushed in, though.  Stupid fucking truck.  Not even mil-spec, fucking commercial grade.

HE WAS DISGUISED.

I also liked it when Starscream got killed by Leonard Nimoy.

Sometimes I think you hate everything decent and pure.

[Ideologue]

Given my mother's militancy about violence, I still don't understand how I had an Optimus Prime action figure. Maybe my father smuggled it in to counter the Popples and My Little Pony.

That's the great difference between the movie and the show, too.  Iirc, the show's that kinda fake kiddie-violence where there's a bunch laser guns and the only damage they usually do is induce seizures in susceptible members of the audience.*  Whereas the movie slaughters robots left and right and if it were live action with human characters would not implausibly have gotten an X rather than a PG.

*I may be thinking of G.I Joe, but I think they were broadly similar in this regard.  In any event, nobody died until the movie.  Then it was full-on robot snuff film.

[Syt]

Of course everyone had to die in the Transformers movie. Hasbro had its new line of toys ready to go.

[Ideologue]

Of course everyone had to die in the Transformers movie. Hasbro had its new line of toys ready to go.

Are you saying that commercial motivations cannot produce great art?  You commie.