Watchmen -= Zaxk S7ynder

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 19 Jul 2008, 15:18

Adaptatrion of hte famous ALan Moore graphicx novel. Directed by7 Zack Synder.

480p
730p
1080;p[

I remember readiunfg that Synder hoped that Alan Moore would some day see hisd movie and approvre of the adaptation. Moore has said in the padst that he 33333333 has learnt to igfnore any and all of the adaptatruions of his work after the disaster that was The Lefague of Gentlmen Apocalyp;se Npow.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 19 Jul 2008, 15:21

is there a forum in-joke i'm missing out on here

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 19 Jul 2008, 15:24

a woirk volleguwe was leacving and we all went out drinking tol bkid her farewel l.

Back ontgopic, this film lokks promising. Synrder has proven himself to be as dtrong visual director with films such as 300. He is obviously a fan of the respective comics, uynlike Tim Burtuon and Bryan Singrter. The evidence is in their resprectoive films.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Jul 2008, 15:37

WOW! That looks ace but it could all fall to shit if the screenplay is bollocks.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Jul 2008, 15:43

bradavon wrote:WOW! That looks ace but it could all fall to shit if the screenplay is bollocks.

I take it you have never read anything about it at all then

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Jul 2008, 16:04

Correct. Not that that is relevant, as you've said many times in the past. This is a movie adaptation not the graphic novel.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Synrder has proven himself to be as dtrong visual director with films such as 300. He is obviously a fan of the respective comics, uynlike Tim Burtuon and Bryan Singrter. The evidence is in their resprectoive films.

He may have proven himself to be a visual director and a fan but he's not proven himself to be a decent director.

Both Burton's Batman and Singer's X-Men are solid movies, even if they may not adhere to the comics origins.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Jul 2008, 16:08

Go study up on it then.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Jul 2008, 16:13

bradavon wrote: He may have proven himself to be a visual director and a fan but he's not proven himself to be a decent director.

To say you have no clue what you are talking about does not even come close. Like you have even seen his films.

He is a staggering Director, Dawn of the Dead and 300 are fucking superbly directed in every single way, the only flaws are scipt bassed, not director based.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Jul 2008, 16:15

romerojpg wrote:Go study up on it then.

I'd rather just watch 300

.

romerojpg wrote:He is a staggering Director, Dawn of the Dead and 300 are fucking superbly directed in every single way, the only flaws are scipt bassed, not director based.

Go re-read my original point you dumb fuck. I specifically mentioned the screenplay.

Regarding my point above about Synder not being a decent director, that was specifically in response to Eva saying Burton's Batman and Singer's X-Men/X2 aren't very good. When they're solidly made films.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Jul 2008, 16:19

Bloocks edited the wrong sodding post! thanks Tom!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Jul 2008, 16:25

Thank fuck for Adblock Plus

.

romerojpg wrote:YOU FAIL

Learn to understand English. I said "original" point, where I said:

WOW! That looks ace but it could all fall to shit if the screenplay is bollocks.

What you quote isn't my original point

.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Jul 2008, 16:29

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 20 Jul 2008, 17:29

bradavon wrote:WOW! That looks ace but it could all fall to shit if the screenplay is bollocks.

You could say that about any film or film trailer ffs! Wow that looks ace! But it could all go to shit if the direction is bollocks, or its badly produced, or the screenplay is shit, or the performances are shit OH NOESSSSS!!!!!!!

Dawn of the Dead's screenplay is perfectly serviceable for what is essentially just an action gore-fest. 300's script also suits the tone of the action & is pretty faithful to the original source. It's only the added "Spartan politics" subplot that sucks, and that's not exactly the biggest chunk of the film.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 20 Jul 2008, 18:03

He hasn't seen 300 nor the Dawn remake.

bradavon wrote:He may have proven himself to be a visual director and a fan but he's not proven himself to be a decent director.

Thus judgements such as this are uncalled for.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Jul 2008, 18:39

EvaUnit02 wrote:Thus judgements such as this are uncalled for.

Like I said earlier. That was in direct response to your claims about Burton and Singer. You're taking it out of context.

Shingster wrote:You could say that about any film or film trailer ffs! Wow that looks ace! But it could all go to shit if the direction is bollocks, or its badly produced, or the screenplay is shit, or the performances are shit OH NOESSSSS!!!!!!!

Yeah I know

, but I have little faith in a decent screenplay being used, hence the comment.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 20 Jul 2008, 18:40

I love Batman (1989) but it's not really Batman film, it's just another by the numbers Tim Burton gothic fantasy film dressed up with a franchise license. Let's not forget how poor the dialogue is, almost George Lucas calibre.

The X-men films have shockingly poor scripts, with scores of lead characters with next to none weight nor development. Major characters such as Jean Grey and Scott Summers could have easily been fleshed out in 90mins+, let alone the 120+ mins of the 2nd one. Also only a fucking unobservant moron wouldn't be able to spot Singer's clear gay rights activism intentions present throughout both films.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Jul 2008, 18:42

EvaUnit02 wrote:I love Batman (1989) but it's not really Batman film, it's just another by the numbers Tim Burton gothic fantasy film dressed up with a franchise license.

And? It still works perfectly well.

EvaUnit02 wrote:The X-men films have shockingly poor scripts, with scores of lead characters with next to none weight nor development.

Agreed about X-Men but I disagree when it comes to X2 (except for Cyclops), which is much, much better. It's a very good movie indeed.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Also only a fucking unobservant moron wouldn't be able to spot Singer's clear gay rights activism intentions present throughout both films.

A: You're the only one to either bring it up or have an issue with it.
B: It's in the source material. The X-Men being an analogy for depression: Race, sexual orientation etc...

So what?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 Jul 2008, 18:46

bradavon wrote: Yeah I know , but I have little faith in a decent screenplay being used, hence the comment.

Err and you basis for this in any way? nothing.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Jul 2008, 18:50

I may not have the best English skills in the world but bloody hell Romero your English is awful. I regularly have to re-read your posts at least once.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 Jul 2008, 18:53

If you cannot understand that simple post, you are a dumbass beyond words.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Jul 2008, 19:04

Of course I can understand it

.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 20 Jul 2008, 19:13

bradavon wrote:B: It's in the source material. The X-Men being an analogy for depression: Race, sexual orientation etc...

So what?

X-men used the analogy of mutants to represent RACIAL bigotry, discrimination, prejudice - NOT sexual. Get a clue.

Oh and depression? WTF?!

bradavon wrote:Regarding my point above about Synder not being a decent director, that was specifically in response to Eva saying Burton's Batman and Singer's X-Men/X2 aren't very good. When they're solidly made films.

You missed my original point entirely, the quality of the films is not what's being discussed, it's the strength of their adaptations of the source material - which are both frankly piss poor.

bradavon wrote:
EvaUnit02 wrote:[quote=""Bradavon""]He may have proven himself to be a visual director and a fan but he's not proven himself to be a decent director.

Both Burton's Batman and Singer's X-Men are solid movies, even if they may not adhere to the comics origins.
Thus judgements such as this are uncalled for.

Like I said earlier. That was in direct response to your claims about Burton and Singer. You're taking it out of context.[/quote]No, it's not out of context. You have no justification in making statements in anyway to suggest whether or not Snyder has even cred to be considered a decent director, you've seen neither of his released films.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 20 Jul 2008, 20:08

bradavon wrote:I may not have the best English skills in the world but bloody hell Romero your English is awful. I regularly have to re-read your posts at least once.

Instead of pedantically moaning because he mispelt "your" (you're guilty of far, far worse grammatical mistakes) why don't you answer his completely appropriate question: What do you know about Zach Snyder or the comic on which Watchmen is based?

Yeah the scriptwriters don't have a fantastic track record, but they're not writing an original screenplay, they're writing an adapted one & the source material is excellent.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Jul 2008, 20:32

EvaUnit02 wrote:X-men used the analogy of mutants to represent RACIAL bigotry, discrimination, prejudice - NOT sexual. Get a clue.

And sexual orientation isn't a form of discrimination and prejudice? When the comics were created racism was big thing in the media not homophobia.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Oh and depression? WTF?!

Oops

= Repression.

EvaUnit02 wrote:it's the strength of their adaptations of the source material - which are both frankly piss poor.

I got that but I don't really care.

Shingster wrote:Instead of pedantically moaning because he mispelt "your" (you're guilty of far, far worse grammatical mistakes)

Except I wasn't. Romero's spelling generally speaking is worse than I've ever been. Not that you'd admit to agreeing with that. I wouldn't dare pick at a particular bad spelling, god forbid.

I'll leave that up to you and Eva, you enjoy it too much.

Shingster wrote:why don't you answer his completely appropriate question

You're defending Romero?

.

Shingster wrote:Yeah the scriptwriters don't have a fantastic track record

And your question is answered.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 21 Jul 2008, 00:46

bradavon wrote:When the comics were created racism was big thing in the media not homophobia.

There's your answer right there.

bradavon wrote:
EvaUnit02 wrote:it's the strength of their adaptations of the source material - which are both frankly piss poor.
I got that but I don't really care.

You obviously cared enough to quote my original post and to argue a counter-point.

I really don't understand why you even bother to post in some threads. Ie You often have no interest in the topics or films being discussed, but feel the need to reply anyway. This is a prime example. Instead of posting in threads that hold no interest, how about watching some of those DVDs that you supposedly rarely have the time of day for?