b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9249453 (Thread)

# There was this blue feller...
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:07, archived)
# hahahahaha
liked the film in a its not as good as the watchmen but it sure was fun, kind of way
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:09, archived)
# Most people seem to be happy with its faithfulness to the storyline
...
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:11, archived)
# *spits coffee over the monitor*
er, no. the ending is like a shit version for cretins who don't think it through.
It had to be an extra terrestrial threat, Jon was made by the US, working for the US and therefore the attacks were US born. No unity would come from that, or if one did it would only last a week. The film provides a kneejerk reaction/poor scapegoat option - hate the blue guy, he's different to us. it works for a second but then some people question it and it all falls apart.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:12, archived)
# It started off really great
and I was living the comic. Then the noticeable things started to appear ( or be omitted more like ) but you know that's inevitable and you soldier on. By the end I thought, "what's this I'm watching again?"
Good but they did say that it was not a filmable story and I think that in it's entirety that's correct.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:41, archived)
# I think what is there is brilliant
there are a few naff moments, but all in all its a great bit of cinema.

If you've read the book however you'll have a lot of irritants and a real "fuck off you cretins" moment at the end.

But either way, Rorschach without his mask on is awesome (a little less so and overly batman gruff voice-y with it on). I am pissed that a character who is all about no compromised was so badly compromised with the removal of the leg sawing scene :(
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:44, archived)
# did they do the rape scene?...bet they didn't


/not seen it yet
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:47, archived)
# They did,
and it's quite brutal.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:49, archived)
# blimey...well at least they had the balls to keep it in the film. :)
I wanna go see it soon
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:52, archived)
# the non rape you mean? (he doesn't, hooded justice interupts in the original and film)
and yes, they do and its really, really nasty
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:52, archived)
# All I can say is
'dogs' and 'cleaver'

They fucked that up.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:50, archived)
# the cleaver in the head is cheap and shit in comparison
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:53, archived)
# I'm trying not to be a bastard and spoil it for anyone
but that whole episode is fundamental to the turning point of the character and for me that was one thing that should have been done verbatim.
It's defines him and also tells the viewer that things have changed. This would not have happened previous to this episode and now we have 'Rorschach'
Just one of my niggles, probably the biggest after the squid.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:57, archived)
# The Scourering of the Shires never happened either!
To admit something totally heinous.,as comic book movies go I do love Josie and the Pussycats. My No 1 comic film still has to be The Crow (whilst spitting and spewing over every sequal they made afterwards the cash grabbing cunts!!!).
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:58, archived)
# I thought 'Josie and the Pussycats' was brilliant!
Far too subtle for the children it was aimed at.
The songs were great too.
:D
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:02, archived)
# I loved the songs
The great bit was the movie was based around subliminal messaging and the songs used harmonic minors and C major at about 60 BMP and that's about as a subliminal music liking format that you can get.
The cash were great as well.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:05, archived)
# SCIENCE!
*fears*
;)
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:13, archived)
# Better still
Music theory!

60 BPM is the rate of the average heartbeat. C major scale has no minors in it so is very rousing and the harmonic minor is basically a minor scale (so bluesy) with a nice little melodic run in it.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:18, archived)
# I'm leaving in the next hour to go see it
Be safe in the knowledge that I'll probably be giggling like a lunatic through it because of this.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:26, archived)
# :)
enjoy the film, it's great eyecandy
but don't think of it as the clever bit of writing that the original was
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:38, archived)
# Shhhh
Not seen it yet!
(Was Wonder Woman as hot as they say she was?)
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:42, archived)
# I hear that the bloke that created her
also invented the polygraph test.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:01, archived)
# It's getting a lot of flak from some people
but I think it's the best adaptation they could make from such an unfilmable book.
(and yes, the squid-ending would have worked just fine!)
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:43, archived)
# it's great, but it's not the genius of the source material
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:54, archived)
# Now THIS was what you call unfilmable. Cronenberg tried but failed IMHO.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:57, archived)
# "i can think of at least two things wrong with that title"
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:31, archived)
# Arf!

(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:12, archived)
# I still don't get that poster (the original), did the Daily Mail make it?
why is his groin so high up?!
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:14, archived)
# I have no idea :)
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:14, archived)
# Look upon my works ye mighty, and dis pair
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:15, archived)
# look upon my......
and repair with the clone tool ;)
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:52, archived)
# Don't ya know?
Everything that appears in The Daily Mail gets nicked and appears here!
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:35, archived)
# speaking of the mail
their review of the film is beatifully teeth gnashing and outraged, and includes a complaint about a scene that is neither in the book nor fim
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1159801/Watchmen-Superheroes-sick-slick.html
"This despicable trash will find an audience among sad sociopaths, deranged pseudo-intellectuals and brutalised, immature men of all ages."
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:47, archived)
# Which scene is that?
I refuse to read the daily mail :)
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:54, archived)
#
"a six-year-old girl is torn apart by dogs."

it does happen in the plot in all fairness, but they heavily imply that you see it on film, which you do not (i am told, i've not actually watched it yet myself)
edit: actually it doesn't happen in the plot either does it? the remians are disposed by being fed to the dogs, which is a different thing.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:59, archived)
# Fucking morons!
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:10, archived)
# "...and a six-year-old girl is torn apart by dogs."
Cunting Daily Fail...
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:59, archived)
# "set in a world where crime-fighting superheroes have been outlawed"
Unoriginal? It fucking invented that idea!
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:55, archived)
# that's a bit odd that review
but no less than I'd expect from them. tell people how bad something is without actually describing the thing in question
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:56, archived)
# yes. a bit a bone
with a shoe on it. BAN THIS SICK FILTH NOW. has the reviewer even see the film??
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:19, archived)
# possibly only half
their review of "the dark knight" whs a similiar trip down what-the-fuckery road.
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:28, archived)
# hahaha!
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:14, archived)
# I'm whoring this like Max Clifford
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:36, archived)
# HaHaHaHaHa!
This is ACE!
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:01, archived)
# hahaha
wont be able to see the dr in the same way again! needs more willies
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:17, archived)
# Pfft!
I'll just pop this pea in here then...
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 18:42, archived)
# And I'll pop this in here!

(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:04, archived)
# Hahahahahhaha
hahahaha
:D
(, Sun 8 Mar 2009, 19:49, archived)