Comments -

All karas1's Comments

Showing items 2,811 - 2,820 of 3,073
<<  <  279 280 281 282 283 284 285 >  >>  

Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/19/2009 3:44:07 AM

Violator, I did not dislike the movie.  I gave it a B plus.  It would have gotten an A from me if it had been less gory.


SCI FI Channel Becomes Syfy (Article) - 3/17/2009 12:12:02 PM

Well, there is a huge market for the movies.  And I have to admit I've liked a few of them (Mansquito with the shirtless love scene!)

If the cheapo movies finance the good stuff like BSG and *sob* Farscape, we can put up with them.

As for this SyFy thing, on the marketing hand I can see their point.  They can market SyFy original films and everybody will know it's THEIR film, not a science fiction title that happens to be original.  They can put it on t-shirts and ball caps and all their advertising.

On the logical hand, it's assinine.  And I really don't want to see them dilute their brand any more than they already have.  It's one of the most popular basic cable channels with the programming they have.  I don't want them broadening their appeal so much that they lose what is appealing to us.

Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/17/2009 11:43:49 AM

Ok, I've got to admit it, I've never seen SAW so I guess I don't have a good basis for comparison.  Perhaps SAW is much bloodier and gorier.  Then again, there is a reason I never saw SAW.  I don't LIKE that stuff and I go out of my way to avoid it.

And women (generally) do have a lower tolerance for gore than guys do.  It's almost like Snyder was trying to alienate 50% of his potential audience, a strange move.  Relatively low budget films like SAW can aford to appeal to a neich audience and still make a profit.  Movies that cost $150 million dollars to make have to have a broad appeal.  Ticket sales that would make SAW a terrific success would be a dismal failure for Watchmen.

I've only talked to 3 other people who saw the movie.  All 3 hated it.  This does not bode well.

Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/17/2009 4:53:51 AM

Violator, Gauleyboy obviously does care what I think, otherwise he wouldn't be bothering to discuss the film with me.  And I'm sure Zack Snyder and the nice people who financed his film care what I and my coworkers think because it's our money that's lining their coffers and whether we go back for a second viewing and what we tell out friends will have an impact on how much money they make.

Thank you for joining our discussion and contributing in such a mature and adult manner by demonstrating such advanced spelling skills.

BTW, I'm a woman.  Kara S, get it.

Gauleyboy, I was sure that we were coming at the movie from different directions.  I think you have confirmed that.

Reason 2, (the literary aspects of Watchmen) is the reason that I (and many others) thought the book was unfilmable.  Nobody thought that they couldn't film a scene about a rescue during a prison riot or a fight in an alley.  And we all knew that FX would eventually advance to the point where giant crystal clock things flying around on Mars would be easy.  It's that other, literary stuff that doesn't translate so well.  All the flashbacks worked a lot better than I thought they would.  But some of the other stuff..?

I've always said Watchmen was a murder mystery with costumes but my coworker was expecting X-Men.  Who can blame her?  That's how the film was marketed.  But she could probably have enjoyed a murder  mystery with fight scenes if it hadn't been for all the gore.  She was expecting X-Men and she got Saw.  No wonder she thought it was "a piece of Shit".

Shadowprine, I thought the flip from Kovacs to Roscharch was better in the book.  He was faced with a man who tortured and murdered children for entertainment, who wasn't repentant and who was smug, thinking he was safe.  He would do a few years and get out of jail to do it again to some other kid.  I might have chopped him up with a meat cleaver too.

Roscharch, very calmly, chained him up, gave him a hacksaw and set the house on fire so the man he could feel the same fear and experience the same pain and foreknowleg of death.  I found that much more signifigant.

Clive Cussler to Pay Millions in Legal Fees (Article) - 3/16/2009 12:00:45 PM

I really liked Sahara the movie.  I thought it was a fun ride, very entertaining.  On the strength of my enjoyment of the movie I tried reading one of his books but found it disappointing.  I thought it was badly written and didn't finish it.

Just goes to show you, huh?

MACGYVER To Big Screen (Article) - 3/16/2009 11:53:04 AM

Didn't MacGyver have a son?  A MacGyver The Next Generation might be cute.

Battlestar Galactica's Final Farewell (Article) - 3/16/2009 11:48:46 AM

Borden wasn't deliberately nasty to his wife.  I can't go into details without getting spoilery but she was just very sensitive to nuances which she misinterperated. 

Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/16/2009 11:40:42 AM

Thank you shadowprime.  I think you have captured the essence of what I have been trying to say.

BTW, I talked to 2 coworkers today who hated Watchmen, one directly because of the graphic violence portrayed.  The other because he found it confusing (and he's not a stupid guy).

I've been familliar with the story for 25 years so I have been curious how someone coming to it cold would see it and if, without the background of the novel it was comprehensible.  Apparently not so much.

MACGYVER To Big Screen (Article) - 3/16/2009 4:09:11 AM

I loved MacGuyver.  I had the biggest crush on him!  Is Richard Dean Anderson going to do this movie?  If not, count me out.

One thing that always amused me about  MacGuyver, he was so against guns but he had no objection to blowing people up or doing violence to them in other ways.  It's a little hypocritical.

Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/16/2009 4:00:51 AM

Gauleyboy, you're still missing my point.  In his attempt to be shocking Snyder has made his movie unpleasant to watch.  Why should people spend their hard earned cash to see something unpleasant?

Perhaps you and I see Watchmen in different ways.  From what I understand from your arguements (and I could be wrong) you think Watchmen was a great story because it portrayed graphic violence and gore in a way that was not common in comics 25 years ago.  In order to portray the spirit of Watchmen as it was seen then, Snyder had to be as over the top in goriness 2009 style as More was 1985 style.

I don't see it that way.  To me Watchmen was great because it did 2 things.  First it portrayed heros in a more realistic way than they had been portrayed before.  The characters in Watchmen were faliable in ways that comic book characters usually aren't, with real problems that real people might have.  If costumed vigalantes were real they would be more likely to be like the characters in Watchmen than X-Men or Superman.

Secondly, It was a novel with a beginning, middle and end that used literary tricks that aren't often used in comic books, things like foreshadowing and metaphor.  This was the first time (to my knowledge) that a comic book had been written in such a litterary manner.  Believe me, Time magazine didn't vote Watchmen one of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century because it showed pictures of blood and gore.

That Watchmen was bloody and shocking didn't make it great for me and if that is all that there was to it then it would have been forgotten by 1986.


Date Joined: October 3, 2006