San Francisco, 7:40 AM
Mon Mar 22
15 posts in the last 24 hours
IO9 TEAM
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
Managing Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Senior Reporter:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Cyriaque Lamar |
Graphic Design:
Stephanie Fox |
Contributors:
Tim Barribeau |
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Interns:
David Daw |
Mary Ratliff |
Cayman Unterborn |
The movie had its flaws, sure, but I could totally see it working on the small screen. Actually, another film I would love to see continued on the small screen is Next, which had a totally kick-ass premise and Peter Falk.Reply
@Smeagol92055: Aasimo: I could see that working. I really did like the movie, especially the part where he effectively dodges bullets. Next, that is.Reply
@Anekanta - Go Play!: I agree and enjoyed the movie more than I thought that I would.
I liked the setting and the gritty reality. I enjoyed how their special skills were treated just like any other weapon, like being able to shoot a gun or being skilled at martial arts. The fact that Nick hadn't fully mastered his skills added to the 'realism'.
If they stay true to the tone of the movie I would definitely watch.Reply
@it must be bunnies: The tone of the movie was good. I did feel it sort of fell apart in the second half; and got a little convoluted. But on the whole I enjoyed it, and would definitely give a TV series a chance.Reply
What is up with all of the hate for the film ending of the Watchmen?
I can understand the propensity for fan dissatisfaction towards comic-adaptations...most of the time the 'artistic licensing' taken by the studios is ham-fisted and moronic. In this case, I'd beg to differ. I won't crack open the ole 'film and print are vastly different beasts' chestnut, but it sums it up really nicely.
You just can't introduce something completely new and almost entirely out-of-context in the final scenes of a film and expect the audience to keep a straight face. "I mean, comon, a giant genetic monstrosity fools us all into uniting under an alien threat?! That's a far cry from a genetically-modified cat."
With everything being condensed for a film, without the extra exposition that print can afford, not to mention the time to absorb new details, the movie needed an ending that would lead to the same result, while keeping concepts concise. Humanity needed a threat. They already had Dr. Manhattan. Why not tie him into it all and leverage an existing 'evil'? Either way, humanity will likely be uniting under a threat that they will never encounter again...and Vedht could just as easily fake further incidents involving an alien as he could Dr. M.
Is this dumbing down for the masses? No. It's simply being concise. Honestly, I feel like the book's ending worked fantastically for the book, whereas it would have been a mistake for the movie. The movie's ending worked fantastically for the movie and allowed for an element of surprise even though I was familiar with the story.
To be honest, I'd rather see a director take a property, add elements to it, and still manage to create something worth watching than pump out a scene-for-scene duplicate or garbled mess.Reply
@adambeckdesign: I agree for the most part. I quite enjoyed the movie. I do wish they had left in the part where SS and the others walk around and see all the bodies. I think it took some of the punch out of it.Reply
@adambeckdesign: the version that Hayter wrote was even more neutered. This was back in, like 2002-2003, so large scale destruction of NYC was still taboo.
I think it involved a space laser. Or something.Reply
Regarding Hayter's Watchmen screenplay; his original screenplay was completely different. He wrote the original draft of it, and it was a much more modern version of it. Alan Moore even looked at it and said it was about as close to his comic as it could probably get. Then Hayter got into a disagreement with the studio and left. WB handed it off to Alex Tse, who took some things from Hayter, but in the end butchered it.Reply
he pretty much said he was the one who changed the ending. Tse and Hayter worked together from what I got, and when I asked, point blankly "who took the bodies and death out" Hayter said he was. Seems like a great guy, awesome as Snake, and I really enjoyed his work on X2 and X-Men, but I'm just too much of a Watchmen fan I guess.Reply
Push is a good concept. A nice intro to a world that could tell even more 'superpowered' individuals.
The movie however... just needed to have a different lead actor. What, no Tatum Channing, Paul Walker or Robert Pattinson wanting to play the lead role as a "Pusher"?Reply
Like a lot of posters here, I was disappointed in Push. FANTASTIC set-up -- I loved the different categories of powers, loved that the powers were clearly defined and made finite, and thought the set-up of good v. evil shadowy gov't powers worked.
And then I watched more of the movie. Yeah, it fell apart. The convoluted story was full of plot holes, the master plan for saving the day relied way too much on coincidence, and the ending just . . . ended. Like they forgot the third act.
I think it could be really great as a TV show -- but the guy who wrote the movie script is still in charge of the writing? Gives me pause.Reply
Edit: Actually, Hayter's script for Watchmen was not the one that was finally used. Alan Moore actually praised (sort of) that script, and then the ultimate script ended up pulling very little from Hayter's. You're blaming him for someone else's mistakes.Reply
he pretty much said he was the one who changed the ending. Tse and Hayter worked together from what I got, and when I asked, point blankly "who took the bodies and death out" Hayter said he was. Seems like a great guy, awesome as Snake, and I really enjoyed his work on X2 and X-Men, but I'm just too much of a Watchmen fan I guess.Reply
@Meredith Woerner: Wasn't his original script also a modernization, though? Point is, perhaps the ending makes more sense with the rest of the script, which was legitimately changed around after Hayter was finished.
Of all the films that have supprised me and gone against my better judgment, this one was the biggest to do so. The trailer looked naff, the actors looked naff, the story sounded stupid. But infact I actually thought it very very cool. I suppose it was riding in on the tailcoats of Jumper and other such things, but this (for me) ticked all the rights boxes.
If this is getting made into a series i'll definatly watch it. Not just to kill Heroes (scoff), but to actually see the push universe expanded. In the film subtle hints were given about how far peoples powers had reached. They even showed that chinese fellow on the boat who seemed to have kept his power a secret. Yeah, I can see this working just fine.
Dakota Fanning is still iritating though. But judging by War of the Worlds Tom Cruise could have been more annoying!!Reply
I haven't seen the movie, but this sounds like it would constrain the characters to having a much more limited, well-defined set of powers, forcing the emphasis to be more on writing and characterization. I can definitely see the potential in that.Reply
@braak: You are, as usual, completely correct.: That popped out at me too. I thought the movie was ok. But the ending was too much of a perfect Rube Goldberg series of coincidences to be believable. Everything fell just too perfectly into place.Reply
@Schrodingers_Cthulu: Wasn't that ostensibly because the prophets in the movie were helping coordinate said coincidences? Or am I giving them too much credit..Reply
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.