talkmagic.co.uk

Or the fact that the battle in the second movie was better than the battle in the third movie.

Or how about the king of men getting shot with arrows so many times it actually became funny, and then stopped being funny.

Or, you know, they could have flown to mount doom and been there in a day.

But of course Frodo and Sam had to go alone because Gandalf, a powerful and wise wizard, believed his will is too weak to carry the ring, but trusts it to a furry footed young man who never been more than five miles from home.

Oh and my favourite bit, 'I am the Witch King no man can kill me
raaagh I'm tough and scary' 'Ah but I am a woman (removes helmet, flips hair and stabs him dead.)
That was some brilliant 'fatal weakness to a great power' right there. As obvious as a polar bear in sunglasses in a penguin only night club. Move aside Shakespeare its time for team Estrogen to take the stage.
The witch king was the only character I actually liked, (apart from Sam for the few funny moments) and they killed him off in three minuets just for that surprise 'beating fate' twist that a five year old could come up with. I actually thought 'since no man can beat him that woman's probably going to' but then I thought 'Nah, that's way to cheap and obvious.'

But it was Kevin Smith who beat me to the perfect analogy of this 12 hour cinematic spiel 'Three movie's of people walking to a * volcano, even the trees walked in that movie'

And I know I'm in the minority saying this, but that doesn't make it wrong, The Narnia chronicles are the superior story to lord of the rings. C.S lewis spent less time creating a language, and maps of his world, and more time writing intriguing and imaginative stories. I didn't need a map of Narnia or the language of the animal people to enjoy the story. I was more interested in exploring cupboards, (something that exists in every child's house and every child knows they go somewhere strange that's why there's always monsters in them). I was imagining what it would be like to become a dragon and I was thinking about the relativity of space and time. I wasn't trying to write poetry in Elvish.

And before anyone starts, yeah I know the Chronicles of Narnia are analogy's of Christian theology, so what? C.S Lewis was a Christian and his religion was important to him. He's allowed to base his story's on whatever he wants. I didn't know It had anything to do with Christianity as a child, I did know that the guy I sang about in assembly was to do with Christianity.

In any case books and movies all come down to personal opinion and there is no real right and wrong. on the other hand, in another, more factual case, I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:I accept the fact that no matter what they did I probably wouldn't be happy with it just like the rest of the comic book freak fraternity, and rightly so. This is the greatest work of the comic book genre and purely for the interest of money the director of 300 pi**ed all over it to bring us his oh so important vision 'Watchmen live and in slow motion.'

I think that's probably the crux of it

Whether it's The Corrs covering Hendrix or whatever, there's always going to be a small, intense fan base somewhere who insist that such-and-such is a "classic" and shouldn't ever be touched in any way. And then there's the people who don't really care about that particular fan base and want to take their wonderful secret pleasure to the world for financial benefit...

There are so many things I feel like that about, but it's interesting to be on the other side of it for once. I would never have read Watchmen, and probably never will - and, though it makes me feel like a total pleb, I'm glad some Hollywood git decided to make the film so I could access it in some way at least. I enjoyed it, and it did stand out as different from your average comic book story... there were several issues that it raised successfully which I expect the comic book did too.

I suppose it boils down to this: should people be forced to either totally immerse themselves in the full experience of something, or should they be allowed to dip their toes in the "lite" version? The first option stops people judging something on a poor imitation but is snotty and exclusive, the second is more egalitarian but means people will potentially miss out on the "true version".

Food, music, film, fashion... the same battle rages on... #

Farlsborough wrote:I suppose it boils down to this: should people be forced to either totally immerse themselves in the full experience of something, or should they be allowed to dip their toes in the "lite" version? The first option stops people judging something on a poor imitation but is snotty and exclusive, the second is more egalitarian but means people will potentially miss out on the "true version".

I've flip flopped on tihs issue a few times but ultimately the answer is yes, If you can't be *rse'd trying a genre because you think its stupid, childish or not worth it, why should you get the views and ideas created by it?

If someone said they can't be bothers reading through all the books but want to know 'how Derren Brown does it.' Is it snobby to give them a verbal kick in the balls?

And further more, I know at least one comic fan who didn't want this movie made, who's opinion on the subject certainly do matter, Alan Moore. Why should he not want his idea dumbed down tarted up and made devoid of all meaning? Does he have the nerve to think just because he created it he has some right to it?

Zack Snyder didn't just show a lack of talent when this was made, he also showed a lack of class. The creator of the story didn't want this movie done and of course the various comic and movie studios will push for it because they're not artists they're in a business to make money, but a director and certain actors have a choice.

Back to comics most of these are comics by Alan Moore but not all of them;

Watchmen*

V for Vendetta*

The killing Joke*

Dark knight Returns

The Ballad of Halo Jones

Transmetropolitan

Whatever happened to the man of Tomorrow

Batman year one*

Superman: Red Son

The league of extraordinary Gentlemen

From Hell**

* are comics that have already been either partially or wholly adapted for Movies.

** I feel I have to give From Hell, a mention because its more heavy reading material than most books. However this is not a good comic to start with (over 500 pages of Druidic magic, Free masons conspiracy's and time space relativity, as well as y'know, a guy killing four prostitutes)

There's actually a collection book called something like 'the short stories of Alan Moore' which includes 'The killing joke' and 'Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow' (also known and accepted as the only real death of superman). Its a surprisingly small book for the number of quality stories in it, but that's the beauty of comics, you can get so much on just one page.

Anyone who has never read a comic you should read at least one of these, give it a try for fucks sake. Saying comics are for little kids is like saying cartoons are for little kids simply because it started with mickey mouse and bugs bunny, there's Simpsons and south park now.

If I ever run out of other books to read, I certainly will! Although I joke about comics I don't disagree how much they've developed and how complex and sophisticated they've become. They're fundamentally different to books though - you get the pictures. Certainly, you'll flesh out the scene and make the transitions from frame to frame in your mind, but some of the visual imagination is unarguably done for you.

Anyway, this isn't a "comics, good or bad?" thread! Back to Watchmen and Alan Moore...

Alan Moore seems to be somewhat the fickle schoolchild when it comes to the films of his work. I don't know how it all works but I would have thought he has always had the power to say "no one ever makes a film of my comics, ever". I can't remember whether it was the film version of V for Vendetta, or From Hell or both that he ended up "disowning", but he's building himself a reputation for doing exactly that. I vaguely remember him going along with one of them until near the end, and then "changing his mind". I understand the frustrations he must have as an artist, but if he thinks that it's realistic to expect people to call off a film people have sunk good (or bad...) money into, simply because he's decided it's straying a bit from what he wanted... just seems a bit foolish. If he's so dead set on keeping his art untainted, couldn't he have refused from the start?

I'd be surprised if he didn't get a fair bit of ongoing income from the films... not to mention the boom in comic sales resulting from publicity. I don't know much about the guy or his involvement, I just find it hard to believe that he hasn't bitten the commercial cookie at least once in all of this, so I have limited sympathy for the role of tortured artist

I may be wrong and if so i agree with you he can't start a project and then expect to be able to pull the plug later. However I understood it that he never wanted any of the movies made but since these comics are property of D.C they can decide what's done with his stories without needing to consult him.

I got my love of comics from my dad, and I remember before he sold a lot of his comics, reading one by Alan Moore called Miracle man. Wanting to read it again I went looking for it at my local comic shop, only to find it was out of print due to multiple people (none of whom actually wrote the story) claiming they owned the right to it.

So here I am now, caught between wanting to read a classic and brilliant story again, and not wanting to pay up to £1000 for it on ebay. I love comics, but even I baulk at £1000 for one.

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:Or the fact that the battle in the second movie was better than the battle in the third movie.

Or how about the king of men getting shot with arrows so many times it actually became funny, and then stopped being funny.

Or, you know, they could have flown to mount doom and been there in a day.

Ah. come on. That's like me picking holes in watchmen based on the film (I've not seen it, nor would I pick holes in it based on an adaptation)

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:But of course Frodo and Sam had to go alone because Gandalf, a powerful and wise wizard, believed his will is too weak to carry the ring, but trusts it to a furry footed young man who never been more than five miles from home.

Not at all; Gandalf was due to accompany them every step of the way, but was self aware enough to know that he could not carry it himself

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:Oh and my favourite bit, 'I am the Witch King no man can kill me
raaagh I'm tough and scary' 'Ah but I am a woman (removes helmet, flips hair and stabs him dead.)

A simple warning not to rely on prophecy when such can be interpreted in a different manner; it was not that no man 'can' kill, him, but that no man would.

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:And I know I'm in the minority saying this, but that doesn't make it wrong, The Narnia chronicles are the superior story to lord of the rings.

Being in a minority certainly doesn't make you wrong; the Narnia stories are fantastic but I personally prefer the deeper allegory of The Lord of The Rings and am a little turned off by a style aimed at children (I haven't read the books since I was about 12, but I remember Prince Caspian and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader being much better than the Lion the With and the Wardrobe). I may be doing you a disservice here, but your post reads as if you have not actually read the book in this case. If this is true I am sure you would have a different take on the story and would be able to see the films for what they are; are superficial consideration of a very deep story treated in a way that was appealing to a wide audience whilst keeping the fans relatively happy. From what you have said about Watchmen, I think that the LOTR films probably did that better.

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:In any case books and movies all come down to personal opinion and there is no real right and wrong. on the other hand, in another, more factual case, I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly, especially with the last sentence; I am right!

You got me dead on there and I can't deny I haven't read the L.O.T.R, but my point has always been that the movie was awful.

I accept the fact that L.O.T.R is a deep and complex story and thoroughly deserves its place at the top of sword and sorcery books for this reason.

However I know I wont like it, I've tried this genre (namely the hobbit, and to a lesser extent Redwall ) when I was a child and I never felt compelled to try it again, (except Narnia of course) this may be because I've since fallen in love with Terry Pratchet's Discworld and so sword and sorcery must now take itself less seriously for my approval (as well as being brilliantly funny).

Furthermore the book seems too ridiculously long and detailed. Despite my dyslexia I am not intimidated by long or heavy writing, I've read 1984 when I was 12, when was 18 I read Cosmic Trigger. I even got halfway through the bible before thinking 'Whats the point' but if I'm going to read something like that, the story has to appeal to me, and 'Small man must destroy powerful magic item in entirely fictional world' does not appeal to me.

Like everyone else, my hate speech stems more from ignorance than fact, but I still stand by my assertion that the movie can suck eggs. I saw the first one three cocking times for different peoples benefit. And have since seen the second and third movies exactly once and only once, I wasn't going through that again.

Well, the Hobbit and Redwall are aimed more at the children's market than Lord of the Rings, but I take your point; it's not a genre everyone can get into.

Discworld, however, is. Anyone who does not agree that discworld is great is wrong.

Reviving an old thread to post this. Very funny.

nickj wrote:Well, the Hobbit and Redwall are aimed more at the children's market than Lord of the Rings, but I take your point; it's not a genre everyone can get into.

Discworld, however, is. Anyone who does not agree that discworld is great is wrong.

Well, there's me banned again, then. I've never been able to see the appeal of Discworld.

Why do you hate beautiful things Robbie? Why must you lay waste to all good things in the world?

i hate discworld with a passion that consumes my very soul...put that and harry potter in a cauldron of my own seething venom and let me destroy them all...

i enjoyed watchmen - but name me any proper book that doesnt get hacked about for the sake of film? look at how good manhunter was, and compare that to the book - red dragon...even that instance of quality film vs even better quality book...that is a rare spectacle...

i enjoyed satchmen as i say, alan moore, loved his 2000ad work - he is though, a true eccentric i reckon...just this right side of being a bit mental (no offense jean eugene ) that mixed in with his natural talent...it somehow elevates both into a mainly workable mindset...

there...

IAIN wrote:i hate discworld with a passion

Not surprising since you have no soul, when I first met you I looked into your bleak colourless eyes and thought 'Yep this man is dead inside.'

IAIN wrote:he is though, a true eccentric i reckon...just this right side of being a bit mental (no offense jean eugene )

True, he actually does worship a serpent deity called Glycol, and founded a magic order 'The Moon and Serpent Grand Egyptian Theatre of Marvels'. I'm trying to join.

dead inside, hollow...apart from the biscuit crumbs and a budgie called Arthur...

Alan Moore is one of my favorite writers. Though it took like 3 days to finish Watchmen. I have yet to check out his other stuff besides his Swamp Thing stuff (which I have).