9 Directors Who Could Direct The Hobbit Comments - Mania.com


Showing items 51 - 60 of 87
<<  <  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  >>  
Chopsaki 6/3/2010 5:38:03 PM


axia777 6/3/2010 6:01:39 PM

 karas1 - "A big budget movie like Watchmen needs to be more accessible to a very broad spectrum of moviegoers."

No, it doesn't.  It made a whole lot of money the way it was.  Leave our ultra violence alone please.

gorbal 6/3/2010 6:05:06 PM

 I hear Ang Lee is free.

asromatifoso 6/3/2010 6:44:57 PM

 The only issue I have with this article is the comment that Benjamin Button was kind of boring.  It was certainly slow-paced but definitely not boring.  Oh, wait, one other comment and it's a major one.  Gore Verbinski doesn't belong anywhere near The Hobbit.  I would much rather take a chance on an unknown like Blomkamp (his only movie was awesome!), or Rinsch than have Verbinski touch it.  Just my opinion, of course.  I like the idea of Brad Bird or Cuaron dloing it, as Incredibles and Children of Men are easily two of my favorite movies of the last decade.

Chopsaki 6/4/2010 12:17:47 AM

karas1 "A big budget movie like Watchmen needs to be more accessible to a very broad spectrum of moviegoers."

I liked your response right up untill I read this last line. I couldn't disagree more. This struck me as something a corporate executive might say. I understand that movies are just like any other business with the intent to make money but to do so at the detriment of creative and artistic freedoms would make going to the movies quite boring.

T. S. Eliot: "Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go."

karas1 6/4/2010 4:01:48 AM

Chopsaki, there are different kinds of movie.  Some movies are really expensive and made for very broad audiences and some are less expensive and can afford to cater to neiche audiences.  They spent a HUGE amount of money to make Watchmen and at the risk of sounding like a corporate shill, the movie studio deserved to make a return on their investment.  If such an expensive movie flops then the studio won't make any more films like that again.  Many people were repulsed by the ultra violence in the film and such an expensive picure can't afford to offend large segments of it's audience.

Perhaps if it were extreme in a way that didn't repulse me I would feel differently.  For instance, I was happy to see that they kept the part of the film where Dr Manhattan didn't wear clothes because his refusal to continue to accept the conventions of society was a big part of the character.  But I'm sure many people were offended by seeing a naked man wave his penis all over the screen for the whole film.  I was happy to see the nudity but to be honest, if they had dressed him in the bikini briefs he was shown in in parts of the comic I would have understood.

Perhaps it was more the fault of the marketing department than Snyder but Watchmen was marketed as a film in the superhero genre and people who had never read the book were justified in their expectations that it would be similar to Superman and X-Men.  Those films had simple stories and while they showed a fair amount of violence, it wasn't gorey and terrible.  Watchmen was not a simple story and contained material that was bound to offend large segments of the audience with it's ultra violence and nudity.  I'm sure that many people could have enjoyed a shades of grey mystery instead of a black and white tale of superhero bravery, even if they were just expecting a standard popcorn cruncher.  But the offensive material was an unpleasant surprise.

I'm glad that Snyder made the movie so faithfully to the book.  It succeeded well in some ways and dropped the ball in others.  It was a brave attempt.  But IMHO it went way over the top with the graphic violence, not in a good way.  It would have been just as effective without broken bones sticking through the guy's arm and intestines hanging off the ceiling.  More effective because personally, I was so busy going "Ewwwww, gross!" that it took me out of the film and broke the flow of the movie for me.

There are segments of the audience who like the ultra violence.  That the Saw franchise continues to flourish is proof of that.  But those films are successful because they have modest budgets and the modest income they can make from their neiche audience can support the films and make a tidy profit. 

If you like that kind of thing, fine.  Go enjoy it.  Don't eat too much popcorn.  But don't dress it up in a cape and make people expect that it will be a mainstream film and act all suprised when they object.

Back to the subject of this article...  Perhaps Snyder could do a good job on The Hobbit if he recognized that it was meant to be a mainstream film and did it with violence that was no more graphic than that shown in the LOTR.  But would he be interested in making a film that way?  Because from what I've read, the extreme slo mo violence is his trademark.

redhairs99 6/4/2010 5:25:27 AM

I don't think anyone called "Children of Men" "the worst."  I just didn't care for it at all.  No, the worst film I've ever seen is a little gem called "Project Gensis," though IMDB calls it's "Strange Horizons."  Either way, that was by far the worst thing I've ever seen.  Compared to "Project Genesis," "Children of Men" is "Citizen Kane."

Karas, I was disappointed too that the reveal in NY of the destruction in "Watchmen" was no where near as messy as portrayed in the book.  Of course, I was glad that it wasn't a giant mutated octopus like the comic had.  Still, the Ulitmate Cut is a much better film than the theatrical version that was released. 

As for Snyder's other work with "300" I enjoyed..."Dawn of the Dead," not so much.  I've never been a fan of the "fast-zombie" genre.

karas1 6/4/2010 6:12:25 AM

Redhairs, perhaps the squid would look hokey on film (it even looks a little hokey in the book now) but I think the idea was that it was supposed to have been an attack by aliens.  Squid or no squid, Snyder should have manifested an extraterrestrial of some kind. 

My feeling is that pinning the destruction of the cities on Dr Manhattan wouldn't have worked.  Dr Manhattan was an American, and not just any American, he was the major dererrent the US had against nuclear attack.  My feeling is, if Dr Manhattan had attacked foregin capitals without provacation it wouldn't have united the planet against him, it would have united the rest of the planet against the USA and probably triggered the nuclear war that Veidt was trying to prevent. 

So that was one way in which I feel that Snyder dropped the ball with Watchmen.  I also feel that cutting all the non-superhero characters out of the movie was a mistake.  At the end, every character in the book who didn't wear a mask was standing in Times Square.  The news vendor was there, the kid with the comics, the cab driver and her artsy grilfriend, the psychologist Roscharch saw in prison and his wife, even the locksmith who repaired Dreiberg's door.  We had been learning about these characters for 12 issues and we knew them as well as we did Roscharch and Laurie.  It was THEIR lives that Veidt was sacrificing for his hope of world peace, not some anonymous strangers'.  I felt that made the movie a lot less powerful than it could have been.  Instead of the bodies of people we knew, Dr Manhattan and Laurie saw empty streets.  What a shame.

As for the squid itself, I thought it had a cool lovecraftian feel.  New York was attatcked by Chthulu.  Scary.


Hobbs 6/4/2010 7:32:58 AM

Watchmen was rated R...how could people think it was like the X-Men? There was no mistaking the marketing on that film...people choose to see what they want to see and they saw it as an X-Men film not questioning why it was rated R so when they brought their little kid in to see it they were horrified. That's on the people who didn't pay attention, not the marketing.

I'm not ripping your opinion kara, just disagreeing with it. You like dumbed down violence, I get it and I admit there is a place for it. All depends on the type of movie and in Watchmen that graphic violence was needed and would have been a major disappointment if it wouldn't have been in it. There was no way to make Watchmen kid friendly without destorying the essence of the story.

Hobbs 6/4/2010 8:32:30 AM

As far as the ultimate cut of Watchmen, I haven't seen it nor do I see myself having the time to watch a 4 hour plus movie but a good friend of mine that loved Watchmen like no other said he wasn't impressed with it and said he wouldn't recommend it.  He told me the directors cut blu-ray it good enough.  Just an FYI

<<  <  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  >>  


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.