Live Action Akira to be PG-13

[Max Payne]

Baz Luhrman's Romeo+Juliet was excellent. Also, it's worth noting that Moulin Rouge! was more-or-less adapted from the 1952 film as well as the opera La Boheme. Yet Luhrman's take on the story is completely different and much more awesome

Damn, you're right. I love Moulin Rouge too. It's an awesome imagining and retelling.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

No it wouldn't, because it still wouldn't be akira. Just a story inspired by it.

I fail to see how changing the geographical setting automatically gridlocks the themes.

Except Synder left out a lot and added some bits and pieces, and changed the climax a good deal.

The bits and pieces added can be counted on one hand (no exaggeration), and the ending -- while the biggest change from the book -- isn't different in any significant way. The squid vs. framing Manhattan debate is more or less irrelevant to me, as it's one plot device versus another with identical results.

If Hollywood is any indication, then yes apparently you do.

A lot of good adaptations have been brought up in this thread.

You could argue that, but it wouldn't make much sense beyond personal opinion.

Sort of like "The 'Watchmen' movie was a fantastic film."

Yeah, no. There's nothing special about taking someone else's ideas and use those instead of coming up with your own.

I'm going to have to disagree. I think what's been done with airplanes since the Wright Brothers' days is pretty fucking awesome.

Okay, bad example maybe. But I do disagree. How many times has someone said "I'm going to take this classic theme, archetype, etc. and put a new spin on the idea" -- and then made something awesome with it?

Hell, you're going to tell me there was nothing special about Gaiman's "The Sandman" because he drew so much on the past? His "Books of Magic"? In my opinion, you're forfeiting the discussion if you're going to do that.

Grant Morrison is a professional writer that worked with DC(a company that thrives on changing with the times, and pays its people to do it) for years and consulted with many of the writers that conceived the character for his run, and did an assload of research into it. Are you really comparing that to some mediocre fanfiction?

The repeated use of loaded words from you and Mako like "mediocre," "butcher," "cash-ins," "weak story," "nonsensical story," etc. has required me in every post to reiterate "No, I'm not defending 'that thing Hollywood does'/crap/whatever synonym for bad shit you want to insert here."

Why do you guys keep doing it? It's like I have to keep pushing away the position you guys want me to have before I restate my own -- only to then get my own brushed aside again so that the position I don't have can be shoved back my way for another round.

Assume that if I'm defending an idea about a hypothetical something that this something is of high quality. I'll let you guys know if I do something different.

Anyway, to respond to the point: I see no reason why someone couldn't look at interviews from people who have written a character in the past, read past issues with that character (that research thing you were talking about), and then write a good story with that character.

Since I'm sure I'm going to have to make the point in the next post if I don't do it now, the assumption here is that the individual doing the writing has great love for the character, respect for their history, and is a decent writer.

And before the claim is made that someone who fits all those criteria would never do anything but write about a "completely original" creation instead, I just want to point out that we have plenty of good comic writers who came up with their own ideas for stories about pre-existing characters, wrote those stories, pitched those stories, and got those stories approved for publication.

No it isn't. It's not their characters, it's not their world. They're taking someone else's stuff and working with it. THAT is disingenuous.

Again, there's nothing inherently disingenuous about it that I can see. If that's the position you're putting forth, I'd like some reasoning for it beyond the assertion itself.

No, that comparison is weak man. Morrison, Miller, ANY comic artist takes characters from their owners, and are PAID to take stories in a certain direction after their ideas are approved to improve current canon/make a neat standalone GN. In a lot of ways it's just another job, and not that creative an endeavor. Sure writers try and reinvigorate the brands, but they can never change too much. Their hands are always tied. Those stories are only theirs by name, the company owns them,they were just the fuel and in the end, even those will get phased out with time. Those characters, those worlds, they don't own any of it. They were just paid by the owners to craft a story within their confines. That's not the same as fanfiction, and it's not the same as writing your own original IP.

It's creativity. It's the creation of art.

Whether it's the same thing as fanfiction or writing your own IP (which it clearly isn't, the same way a drop of rain isn't a hailstone) was not the discussion on the table, and I'm not sure why you're suddenly holding everything to this strangely chosen Holy Grail standard that I wasn't even aware we were discussing.

Hell, being a comic book writer for Marvel and DC's existing properties is pretty disingenuous, versus having IMAGE publish your own brand of new interesting properties. It's fun, and you can make your mark on the industry, but it's not as good as making your own stuff. Morrison's Batman is awesome, but Joe the Barbarian is more interesting and entertaining, simply because it's something different that can he take risks and do much more without restrictions.

Any story with an established character like Batman -- who has an extensive history, a large sandbox to play in, the backing of the premiere comics publisher, and a mystique that invites thoughtful writing -- is inherently more interesting and entertaining than some mediocre IP about Dildo the Fucktoy that Joe Schmoe shat out and got published at Nick & Tony's Printing Presses.

For the record, that entire paragraph was facetious, but hopefully you'll see now that if you load up a description of something you want to paint a bad picture of like it's a baked potato, then you can make anything look better without even really justifying the position.

That's kind of what I feel like I'm dealing with. I keep being told that this or that is inherently better than this or that -- usually with the second set of "this or that" being accompanied by negative adjectives.

Now, if you tell me that the value assumption you bring to the table is that "art" is most accurately defined when it's something that generates controversy (I've heard this argument before), then I'll be able to understand why you would use an argument like "he can take risks and do much more without restrictions" as a point for your position that Joe the Barbarian is better at being art than anything Batman could ever be.

I'm still going to disagree, because I don't define art like that (I'd go with something closer to Vaughan's quote about the timeless metaphors about our real lives), but I know you're more analytical than to just be making assertions without having thought about the reasons behind it, so I want to know what those reasons are.

That's not comparable to herp "I want to see Cloud smooch Aeris and cut the moon in half!" derp.

Again, this is the kind of position I'm tired of reiterating I don't have.

Fanfiction is just people taking characters and worlds and dicking around in them without much context or consequence. NONE of it will ever matter. Simply because it's not their IP, and they can't do a damn thing with the story, most people will never be exposed to it, and it will never have any weight in the world of literature.

In the age of the Internet, people can be exposed to any damn thing, whether officially authorized or not. For God's sake, man, fucking "Mortal Kombat: Rebirth."

Something inspired by something, but not a direct ripoff with it's own themes, plot, and characters will always have more value than a person shitting all over another person's hard work.

More loaded words. "Another person's hard work." In a discussion where the prevailing opinion is that most things created are lazy suck, why is it that the automatic description for someone making use of another's creation is a reduction to "shitting all over another person's hard work"?

Let's not look at it on a case-by-case basis and see what we're actually dealing with or anything. That would just be silly.

So you want to tell me something else I know?

Giving examples of what I'm talking about isn't talking down to you, man. It's just the influence of writing a shit-ton of papers over the years.

Good for you, but if they change the setting, characters, and plot, then it is not Akira.

Wow. Someone needs to inform Katsuhiro Otomo that his anime film called "Akira" is not, in fact, "Akira" since the characters and plot are changed from the manga.

Again, dude, if any retelling feels enough like the original (which I would argue that the anime film does) then I don't see a problem with using the same title. It kind of makes sense to do so, in fact.

Naming something isn't difficult as long as you keep the plot and themes in mind.

I think the simple name itself is a hallmark of the film.

But no, in the original story, that setting is MUCH more important than you let on. Setting and characters are not interchangeable within the context of the original plot. They are not, and they absolutely integral to the plot of that story. Not some niggling detail.

No one said they're a niggling detail -- but settings aren't always as vital as you're making them out to be. I love "Seven Samurai" and "The Magnificent Seven" as much as anyone, but the setting in either really doesn't influence anything beyond the weapons of the heroes and the title they carry.

Not even getting in to that one, simply because you could not have chosen a film I have less interest in.

In the event that you've seen it, I'd still appreciate a response to the point, as I think it's a great example. And if you haven't seen it, you're missing a great movie.

 

[Max Payne]

I fail to see how changing the geographical setting automatically gridlocks the themes.

I don't see how you can fail to see that changing something as important as setting, location where the story takes place, makes it a different story. Events take place in different locations, locations which affect the events that happen in the story.

The bits and pieces added can be counted on one hand (no exaggeration), and the ending -- while the biggest change from the book -- isn't different in any significant way. The squid vs. framing Manhattan debate is more or less irrelevant to me, as it's one plot device versus another with identical results.

The removal of the scene the scenes with the town folk and Rors' shrink is a pretty big change to a very important bit of plot. Also, framing Manhattan and him becoming world enemy no 1 is a pretty big change imo.

A lot of good adaptations have been brought up in this thread.

Yeah, "adaptations" that are more reimaginings of entire films. They're not trying to be the exact same as the original plot, just taking a heavy bit of inspiration from them to craft a new film, and realizing that it necessitates a change in title to accompany those changes.

Sort of like "The 'Watchmen' movie was a fantastic film."

Not going to post a macro, not going to do it.

Okay, bad example maybe. But I do disagree. How many times has someone said "I'm going to take this classic theme, archetype, etc. and put a new spin on the idea" -- and then made something awesome with it?

Okay, that was phrased badly. There's nothing special about taking someone else's hardwork, their lovingly crafted worlds, characters and stories, and running with them. Hell, you yourself have criticized Hollywood for this very reason, lack of originality and creativity.

Why do you guys keep doing it? It's like I have to keep pushing away the position you guys want me to have before I restate my own -- only to then get my own brushed aside again so that the position I don't have can be shoved back my way for another round.

Because that is the implication you've given or had given, if that's not the position you're trying to argue, but that's what you make it seem like, you need to reevaluate how you're trying to say what you mean.

Anyway, to respond to the point: I see no reason why someone couldn't look at interviews from people who have written a character in the past, read past issues with that character (that research thing you were talking about), and then write a good story with that character.

Because, when the person who wrote it has depicted a character a certain way he's the only one who can properly determine how exactly that character will respond in any given situation, for anyone else it's educated guesswork. To be honest, it's not their place to decide what someone else's character will be, or to write stories about them, or decide where their stories will lead, unless dictated otherwise by the original author.

I won't deny that they could manage to do that faithfully(few people who aren't professional writers can manage this), but you can't do that by changing things arbitrarily changing this to accommodate what you want to see, or what you think other people what to see for whatever stupid reason.

Anyway, that doesn't change my opinion that it's not really very creative, if at all. It's not much of a creative exercise to do something like that, unless you're doing it purely for the art. As in doing it to improve your craft, not because you think you can write your favorite characters as well as those that created them.

But I will say this, sometimes creators themselves lose their vision and fuck up their own shit. But hey, it's their shit to fuck up!

Again, there's nothing inherently disingenuous about it that I can see. If that's the position you're putting forth, I'd like some reasoning for it beyond the assertion itself.

Ok, maybe disingenuous isn't the right word for this context. Creatively bankrupt is probably more appropriate. Or something in that vein.

Whether it's the same thing as fanfiction or writing your own IP (which it clearly isn't, the same way a drop of rain isn't a hailstone) was not the discussion on the table, and I'm not sure why you're suddenly holding everything to this strangely chosen Holy Grail standard that I wasn't even aware we were discussing.

I'm not? You're the one who compared fan-fiction to professional writing for a company that appoints different stewards to their properties. Writing about someone else's characters isn't very creative man imo man.

Any story with an established character like Batman -- who has an extensive history, a large sandbox to play in, the backing of the premiere comics publisher, and a mystique that invites thoughtful writing -- is inherently more interesting and entertaining than some mediocre IP about Dildo the Fucktoy that Joe Schmoe shat out and got published at Nick & Tony's Printing Presses.

Well, duh? But that doesn't mean writing about him is very creative, versus making your own original work, ESPECIALLY given the constant editorial mandate imposed on working with the character for DC.

For the record, that entire paragraph was facetious, but hopefully you'll see now that if you load up a description of something you want to paint a bad picture of like it's a baked potato, then you can make anything look better without even really justifying the position.

Dude, not gonna lie, it feels like you're just babbling out of frustration rather than really addressing what I said.

That's kind of what I feel like I'm dealing with. I keep being told that this or that is inherently better than this or that -- usually with the second set of "this or that" being accompanied by negative adjectives.

Not being as creative and visionary enough to create your own stuff, versus being enamored by someone else's enough to want to write your own stories about those characters isn't inherently bad. I never said that, but it isn't very creative, and it isn't as heartrending as creating your own things. You don't put as much of yourself into someone else's characters as you do your own stories. Grant Morrison said it himself.

Now, if you tell me that the value assumption you bring to the table is that "art" is most accurately defined when it's something that generates controversy (I've heard this argument before), then I'll be able to understand why you would use an argument like "he can take risks and do much more without restrictions" as a point for your position that Joe the Barbarian is better at being art than anything Batman could ever be.

Yeah, I'm not that pretentious. I made that point, because Joe the Barbarian is more interesting than Grant's Batman stories are because it's much more creative, and he can go wild with his classic Grant Morrisson nuttery when he wants to without anyone (DC) holding him back. He can write what HE wants. When you write someone else's characters, you are restricted to the boundaries of those properties, lest you risk fucking everything up.

That said DC has given Grant a lot of leeway, which is surprising given the amount of bitching from a portion of fans, which almost always has an effect on how the company moves in any given direction.

I'm still going to disagree, because I don't define art like that (I'd go with something closer to Vaughan's quote about the timeless metaphors about our real lives), but I know you're more analytical than to just be making assertions without having thought about the reasons behind it, so I want to know what those reasons are.

I'm going to put it this way

Again, this is the kind of position I'm tired of reiterating I don't have.

I didn't say that you did, I was being facetious out of frustration. Even though you did seem to give the implication.

In the age of the Internet, people can be exposed to any damn thing, whether officially authorized or not. For God's sake, man, fucking "Mortal Kombat: Rebirth."

Dood, you know good and well it takes the multimedia hype machine to expose anything to a sizeable amount of the population. Word of mouth only goes so far. MK Rebirth was exposed to so many people, however, simply because of the SIZE and relevance the IP already has.

More loaded words. "Another person's hard work." In a discussion where the prevailing opinion is that most things created are lazy suck, why is it that the automatic description for someone making use of another's creation is a reduction to "shitting all over another person's hard work"?

It's how I feel. Maybe I was too extreme in my words, but I think my point remained the same. Someone taking someone else's lovingly crafted work and doing whatever they want with it IS creatively bankrupt as far as I'm concerned. They can go and do whatever they want with it, I mean it doesn't happen at all if the writers don't sell the rights(if they even have them). But saying something is true to the original work isn't the same as actually being such. Themes and ideas can be interchangeable, but when you take someone else's story, and claim you're being faithful, but change so much in it, it's just not the same story.

MY opinion is that is not an adaptation, it's a reimaginging of the entire story, INSPIRED by the original one. Which I'm ok with(most of the time). What irks me is the pretense that it's somehow the same work, when it isn't. Not at all.

Wow. Someone needs to inform Katsuhiro Otomo that his anime film called "Akira" is not, in fact, "Akira" since the characters and plot are changed from the manga.

I think he already knows.

Again, dude, if any retelling feels enough like the original (which I would argue that the anime film does) then I don't see a problem with using the same title. It kind of makes sense to do so, in fact.

Okay? That's you man. I myself feel like that anime should never have been made.

I think the simple name itself is a hallmark of the film.

Perhaps, but that doesn't justify its use on a film that's bound to be completely different.

No one said they're a niggling detail -- but settings aren't always as vital as you're making them out to be. I love "Seven Samurai" and "The Magnificent Seven" as much as anyone, but the setting in either really doesn't influence anything beyond the weapons of the heroes and the title they carry.

In the original story, hell yes they are. When you take a writing class, and they try and school you in the process, they stress the importance of setting and location. It's a VITAL part of a story.

In the event that you've seen it, I'd still appreciate a response to the point, as I think it's a great example. And if you haven't seen it, you're missing a great movie.

I dunno, I thought it was kinda mediocre in a lot of ways. It also felt really awkward. Like there was some kind of disconnect between what we were seeing on screen and what the dialogue. Then there was the woefully overdone acting by some folks. It didn't feel like Romeo and Juliet proper(the gangster bullshit didn't help), and felt more like a story inspired by it.

Someone once argued that Shakespeare's writing was abstract, and was more of a commentary on society and his times, but I dunno if I would buy into that, not simply because of the can of worms that opens, but because I don't know if that's really what the man meant.

These giant posts are tiring me out. How about we try address each other's points without massive amounts of quotation? I'm old now and I get tired.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Well, the main thing I want to reply to at this point is our contention about the setting. I agree that it's important, but that's why I was stressing that if you change the location it's important to relocate it to a comparable atmosphere.

If you do that, this relocation itself can be a commentary. Or, of course, it could just be someone thinking they're doing something cool when they're really not.

In any event, when the settings are comparable, I think that's as far as the significance of the settings go across the divide of the original and the adaptation.

 

[ForceStealer]

In the Catch-22 department, if this movie took Akira's plot, changed the setting, and changed the name in accordance with everyone-but-Tres' wishes, and were by some miracle good - people would slam it for being a ripoff.

 

[Max Payne]

In the Catch-22 department, if this movie took Akira's plot, changed the setting, and changed the name in accordance with everyone-but-Tres' wishes, and were by some miracle good - people would slam it for being a ripoff.

People slammed the Magnificent Seven for the same reason, those people are still morons.

 

[looneymoon]

In the Catch-22 department, if this movie took Akira's plot, changed the setting, and changed the name in accordance with everyone-but-Tres' wishes, and were by some miracle good - people would slam it for being a ripoff.

I know a bunch og people who certainly liked Scarface (maybe a little too much, even). But it's true, there is a certain line you cannot cross.

As for the fanfic discussion - highly disagree simply for the fact that I think John Gardner's Grendel is one of the best novels I have ever read.

As for Akira - repeating myself, but the setting is key to the spirit of the original. It's not like the rumoured Death Note adaptation, where imo the setting doesn't really make a difference to the overall feel. I used the example of Les Miserables. The story is at it's core, very French. Setting it anywhere other than France would just not be true to the story.

 

[Max Payne]

As for the fanfic discussion - highly disagree simply for the fact that I think John Gardner's Grendel is one of the best novels I have ever read.

No one ever said retellings couldn't be good.

 

[looneymoon]

I'll clarify: I disagree because I felt the way John Gardner retelling be more creative and ingenious than most original stories. The novel simply would not be as effective had it not been a retelling, considering some of the themes it explores.

One could even argue that working within confines of someone else's universe is actually be a test of the author's creative prowess.

 

[Max Payne]

I'll clarify: I disagree because I felt the way John Gardner retelling be more creative and ingenious than most original stories. The novel simply would not be as effective had it not been a retelling, considering some of the themes it explores.

To be absolutely honest, I didn't really see that story as much more than an massive character study of grendel, versus an actual story about the poem, it works within those confines, but elaborates on them in a unique and compelling way.

Grendel in the original poem is a beast, a monster with no real apparent motives or reasoning behind the havoc he wreaks.

His character was nowhere near so fleshed out and contemplative in the poem.

Even so, I still think it would have been much more creative to write an original story with such themes and plotting, but I see this book as much more the exception to the rule. I don't mean to say there isn't some creativity in there, I just find that there is much more value in your own creations. I mean, Grendel is indeed a compelling work of fiction, but I can't help but feel that it would have been much more powerful had it been a completely original work.

I really wouldn't put classic literature and case studies of such on the same level as amateur fanfiction about mostly straightforward stories with simple themes and plots. None of which(as far as I've seen) attempt to make any such study of people, ideals, or society. It's just mostly I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS PERSON DO THAT.

One could even argue that working within confines of someone else's universe is actually be a test of the author's creative prowess.

Perhaps, but with Grendel the author wasn't limited by much in regard to writing Grendel's character, since he was never more than an aggressor in the Poem that inspired the book. Grendel really wasn't a character, he was more of a device.

Hell, in a lot of ways, I didn't even see that book so much as it was about the poem, or any of it's characters. They were tools to relay many a message and commentary.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Meant to reply to this earlier:

The removal of the scene the scenes with the town folk and Rors' shrink is a pretty big change to a very important bit of plot.

You and I were specifically talking about additions rather than removals.

Also, framing Manhattan and him becoming world enemy no 1 is a pretty big change imo.

I still don't think so. Again, different plot device, same effect -- a worldwide populace united by fear of The Other.

Also, this worked better in the context of film (one of the few instances where Zack seemed to remember he was supposed to be making one), where there was no time for a subplot about a giant, psychic, alien squid that's secretly not really an alien at all.



By the way, because I was just reminded of it and because I like bitching about that clusterfuck of a movie, another example of the poor transition to screen with the "Watchmen" movie is when Rorschach visits the Comedian's grave. A random, unnecessary flashback to the Comedian's death is a waste of visual space/movie time and another snooze fest in film form.

Seriously, it was like when -- in the original Advent Children -- you get repeated footage of Meteor, JENOVA, etc. from the beginning of the movie when Kadaj is talking to Rufus on top of the building.

It was awful.

Some things that work in comic panels have no business being on the silver screen.

 

[Max Payne]

I don't agree at all bro, that's all I can say.

 

[Glaurung]

Oh good. Another failadaptation to bash all over the Internet

 

[Ⓐaron]

Even so, I still think it would have been much more creative to write an original story with such themes and plotting, but I see this book as much more the exception to the rule. I don't mean to say there isn't some creativity in there, I just find that there is much more value in your own creations. I mean, Grendel is indeed a compelling work of fiction, but I can't help but feel that it would have been much more powerful had it been a completely original work.

I agree with most of what you've been saying in this thread, but I think it fits the author's point much better to take a well-known work of fiction and retell it from a different perspective. People have been conditioned to think of Grendel as an inhuman monster. By being forced to read from his perspective they have to rethink their view of the character, which may in turn cause them to rethink their view of the world. That couldn't have been done with a work of original fiction not based on an existing well-known work of literature - this is part of the same reason Wicked, The Wind Done Gone and The Penelopiad had a bit more power than they probably would've if they hadn't already been based on existing works of literature.

 

[Max Payne]

That couldn't have been done with a work of original fiction not based on an existing well-known work of literature

Maybe. I still think a more powerful story could have been written that achieved the same. I mean, in the first part of the story it could have been told from a different perspective, where the monster in question was displayed as nothing more than an inhuman beast, then in the second more relevant part of the plot explore the monster's character, beliefs and personality.

It's all just my opinion.

 

[looneymoon]

Also, if wasn't a retelling I doubt the themes concerning ancestry and generation would have been as poignant. The retelling itself was commentary, and the story simply would not have been as strong had it not been. In fact, there are a lot of stories which wouldn't have the same effect if they weren't retellings, but cba to think of too many at the moment. Narnia comes to mind.

 

[Max Payne]

Well, I still don't see that as comparable to fanfiction. The situations and development of the stories just aren't the same :/

I'd elaborate, but you guys have tired me out.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Maybe. I still think a more powerful story could have been written that achieved the same. I mean, in the first part of the story it could have been told from a different perspective, where the monster in question was displayed as nothing more than an inhuman beast, then in the second more relevant part of the plot explore the monster's character, beliefs and personality.

That certainly could be one way to do it, yeah. But I think using a story that is already commonly known makes the commentary all the more powerful, because if it's just the author's story that gets reconsidered rather than some well known piece of culture, the implication could be just that the author is crafty, while using a well-known piece of fiction implies that people should question everything.

 

[Max Payne]

I have a reply, but right now it's coming up in my head as pretty jumbled.

Could be my sinuses messing with my head.

I can see what you're saying, but a barebones adventure tale like Beowulf which is pretty low on characterization beyond archetypes lends itself well for adaptation, but the thing is, the story isn't about the poem. Hell, it's not even really about Beowulf or Grendel. The similarities with the poem are superficial and irrelevant imo.

Damnit, I don't know what I'm trying to say, I'll have to get back to you on this.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

"H" (a novel about Heathcliff from "Wuthering Heights") is another story in the vein of those being discussed. While many of the developments in the story could have probably been done without him in a similar story, the fact that it painted Heathcliff into these events made it very intriguing to me.

As well, it all takes place during a period that went unelaborated in the original story, so it doesn't feel at all like it's treading where it's not invited.

 

[Ⓐaron]

I forgot Wide Sargasso Sea as well, which is a retelling of Jane Eyre from Bertha’s perspective.

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Sense Sensibility and seamonsters
Abraham Lincoln vampire hunter
Mr Darcy Vampyre
Jane SLAYER!

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

So, I finally watched the Ultimate Cut of the "Watchmen" movie. My thoughts?

A good movie, actually. Possibly great.

While some issues the original had remain (boring Manhattan flashback sequence, unnecessary Blake death flashback when Rorschach visits his grave, "Hallelujah" scene being too long and unnecessary), many others are greatly improved. Laurie is now a well-rounded, believable character -- and no longer annoying. The newsstand supporting characters have been elaborated enough to piss you off when they die. And the pacing? Well, that is the greatest improvement.

I'm discovering that one of my biggest problems with the theatrical release was the shit pacing. Now, with lots of missing pieces of dialogue restored to the conversations they were plucked from, the breathless progression of scenes and lines undone, and an opportunity established to feel the atmosphere of both conversations and setting, I find myself believing in the world the movie was supposed to be presenting to us.

I also find myself much less resentful of the high quality production values. Though I still would personally prefer something that looks more like "Black Dynamite" than "Speed Racer," I think this is a legitimate take on the whole thing.

Oh, and yes, with this cut of the movie, I also find myself feeling that Zack changed enough things to qualify it as more than "comic panels on a screen." My sentiments about the theatrical disaster remain the same, but this version of the movie bears quite a few changes here and there that make the movie his own.

Just thought I'd share.

 

[Charles Xavier]

So, I finally watched the Ultimate Cut of the "Watchmen" movie. My thoughts?

A good movie, actually. Possibly great.

While some issues the original had remain (boring Manhattan flashback sequence, unnecessary Blake death flashback when Rorschach visits his grave, "Hallelujah" scene being too long and unnecessary), many others are greatly improved. Laurie is now a well-rounded, believable character -- and no longer annoying. The newsstand supporting characters have been elaborated enough to piss you off when they die. And the pacing? Well, that is the greatest improvement.

I'm discovering that one of my biggest problems with the theatrical release was the shit pacing. Now, with lots of missing pieces of dialogue restored to the conversations they were plucked from, the breathless progression of scenes and lines undone, and an opportunity established to feel the atmosphere of both conversations and setting, I find myself believing in the world the movie was supposed to be presenting to us.

I also find myself much less resentful of the high quality production values. Though I still would personally prefer something that looks more like "Black Dynamite" than "Speed Racer," I think this is a legitimate take on the whole thing.

Oh, and yes, with this cut of the movie, I also find myself feeling that Zack changed enough things to qualify it as more than "comic panels on a screen." My sentiments about the theatrical disaster remain the same, but this version of the movie bears quite a few changes here and there that make the movie his own.

Just thought I'd share.

I actually lent my Ultimate Cut DVD to one of my tutors in college and he really enjoyed it (he knew nothing about Watchmen beforehand). Said it was the most unique superhero movie he'd ever seen. Although, he felt that the animated scenes (Tales of the Black Freighter) seemed out of place and didn't really belong in the movie.

Just his opinion.

 

[Tetsujin]

We never got the Ultimate Edition. Seems they still don't plan on releasing it. I'm pissed.