What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[Quintus 6,494]

Yes. Or I might prefer Sin City, though I'd have to see it again to decide.

You like green screen movies?

Only when they don't look green. Sin City is absolutely stunning in B&W.

[Brónach 1,330]

Miller's "The Dark Knight Rises" is an awesome graphic novel and would make a terrific Zak Snyder film

Returns.

[A24 5,155]

Rises ... Returns ... the comic book genre is so complicated.

[Romão 2,473]

They're making a two part The Dark Knight Returns animated movie, to be released in September, I think. it's the best Batman story I've ever read

[Brónach 1,330]

Rises ... Returns ... the comic book genre is so complicated.

Oh so it's a genre now?

[crocodile 9,724]

Miller's "The Dark Knight Rises" is an awesome graphic novel and would make a terrific Zak Snyder film

If there is a perfect material for Snyder to tackle, it would be this one. I agree.

Having said all that, I'm really curious of his Superman film.

They're making a two part The Dark Knight Returns animated movie, to be released in September, I think. it's the best Batman story I've ever read

What do you think about The Dark Knight Strikes Again? It's a very different beast.

Karol

[Jay 46,241]

They're making a two part The Dark Knight Returns animated movie, to be released in September, I think. it's the best Batman story I've ever read

I agree, easily the best by a wide margin.

I didn't realize an animated movie was being made. Who is the talent behind it?

What do you think about The Dark Knight Strikes Again? It's a very different beast.

Karol

I didnn't like it nearly as much as Returns. He should have left that world alone

[Red 75]

They're making a two part The Dark Knight Returns animated movie, to be released in September, I think. it's the best Batman story I've ever read

I've very happy that they're going in that direction with the story. I've long thought that the best way to do that comic was in an animated format and definitely not in the hands of Zach Snyder. I do hope it isn't edited for content though, because as it is it would be an R-film or close to it. And I agree that it's the greatest Batman story ever told.

Strikes Again just isn't good. Frank Miller kind of lost his mind some time in the late 90's, not unlike George Lucas actually.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Its the best Superhero movie ever.

and by best you mean worst. I agree.

[Admiral Holdo 16]

They're making a two part The Dark Knight Returns animated movie, to be released in September, I think. it's the best Batman story I've ever read

I've very happy that they're going in that direction with the story. I've long thought that the best way to do that comic was in an animated format and definitely not in the hands of Zach Snyder. I do hope it isn't edited for content though, because as it is it would be an R-film or close to it. And I agree that it's the greatest Batman story ever told.

The only way they could make it better would be getting Michael Keaton to voice Batman. Probably not happening, but... oh well.

[Wojo 2,458]

Kevin Conroy is Batman.

[Taikomochi 1,460]

Its the best Superhero movie ever.

and by best you mean worst. I agree.

It's certainly not a bad film, but best superhero movie ever? That's a GROSS overstatement. The film is far too flawed to meet that criteria. You might be able to argue that for the graphic novel, but the film... Definitely not the best superhero movie ever.

[King Mark 3,975]

I think Watchmen is a lot better than Avengers

[crocodile 9,724]

That really surprises me KM.

Karol

[Brónach 1,330]

When I see The Avengers I believe in what I'm seeing and I'm invested in what's going on. That doesn't happen to me with Watchmen (film). In fact I've come to think that's my main beef with it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,384]

I'm hearing opinions, but nothing to explain or back them up!

[King Mark 3,975]

Contrary, I was totally uninvolved in Avengers, that was the problem with it. Especially coming off Hunger Games where I was totally absorbed every second of the film

[JoeinAR 1,957]

I'm hearing opinions, but nothing to explain or back them up!

the same could be asked of you.

[Delorean90 47]

I need to go ahead and read TDKR. I've heard a lot about it that makes me wonder why it's getting so much "best Batman story written" praise, mainly because it seems like such a different incarnation of the character to me. I did enjoy Year One a lot, which seemed closer to my image of Bruce/Batman(side note: when I finally saw Taxi Driver about a month ago, I was amazed to look back and realize how much Year One took from that. Pretty cool.). I also liked The Long Halloween and Dark Victory. But I'm still a TAS guy, ultimately, and I think Mask of the Phantasm definitely deserves to rank with the top Batman stories.

[Romão 2,473]

I love long Halloween, it's a great summation of the very different sides of Batman and one of the stories that better mingled the grittiness and darkness of Gotham with the more fantastic and surreal villains.

The Dark Knight Returns is simply so well written. The Dark Knight Strikes Again was almost an exercise on Miller's part to see how much a departure a sequel could be. But it's set in a totally different universe, almost. It would have been better received were it not advertised as a sequel to TDKR.

As for the animated movie, I think the team is mostly the same that did the wonderful Batman Animated Series. Last I heard, Michael Ironside is voicing Batman

[Delorean90 47]

That would be good--he did the voicing for the TDKR segment of "Legends of the Dark Knight."

[A24 5,155]

Rises ... Returns ... the comic book genre is so complicated.

Oh so it's a genre now?

Sure, why not?

Contrary, I was totally uninvolved in Avengers, that was the problem with it. Especially coming off Hunger Games where I was totally absorbed every second of the film

I agree. Not that I was totally uninvolved in The Avengers but I was somehow more captivated by The Hunger Games.

Also, in The Avengers, a lot of the action and ideas were really too comic booky and silly to believe. Thanks or due to CGI, film really is now able to show all the impossible things we see in the magazines or read in books. Stanley Kubrick is more right than ever: "If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed."

Alex

[Wojo 2,458]

Hey, Iron Man 2 lost me when Tony Stark built an atom smasher in his basement using light beams to create "a new element" so his arc reactor would stop killing him. Anything more hokey in The Avengers -- portals, aliens, transformers, mind control, Scarlett Johannson being an action heroine with That Rack® -- is just icing.

[Quintus 6,494]

I think Watchmen is a lot better than Avengers

I agree.

Thanks or due to CGI, film really is now able to show all the impossible things we see in the magazines or read in books. Stanley Kubrick is more right than ever: "If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed."

Alex

I very much doubt he had cgi in mind when he said that, Alex. I still think Kubrick is right (in as far as his own ability is involved), but I'm certain he was referring to a more tangible and physically creative 'mounting' of ideas and imagination. There's not a chance in hell he meant fighting cg robots.

[crocodile 9,724]

Also, in The Avengers, a lot of the action and ideas were really too comic booky and silly to believe.

That's kind of the point of it all.

I can't believe you are seriously comparing it with Watchmen. It's not even the same category. Even though, it seems like it is.

Karol

[Quintus 6,494]

Why aren't they comparable?

[A24 5,155]

I very much doubt he had cgi in mind when he said that, Alex. I still think Kubrick is right (in as far as his own ability is involved), but I'm certain he was referring to a more tangible and physically creative 'mounting' of ideas and imagination. There's not a chance in hell he meant fighting cg robots.

Of course he didn't mean CGI, it's an old quote ... but when I see a gigantic flying aircraft carrier lifting itself out of the ocean, or the Hulk that like throws around and smacks down Loki in a way you only see in Nickelodeon animation, I realize that these things were simply not possible 10 years ago. Back then, certain 'impossible' things were avoided or at least kept on a smaller scale. That's why I think Kubrick's words are more applicable than ever. Now film writers truly can let their 'imagination' run free but at the expense of things getting more and more absurd.

Alex

[Quintus 6,494]

But that's the thing, I think it's at a far greater expense than just silly absurdity - preposterous imagery on screen is the tip of the modern blockbuster iceberg. More than ever there's a culture among producers and film makers to fill their ip with as much ridiculous one-upmanship as possible, but the apparatus now exists which can make it possible for anyone with a budget to realise any vision they care to conjure - which means that cgi has become the go-to tool for those aforementioned visual creations of wild wonder (read: abandon); the imagination pit is indeed bottomless for these young directors to fill their boots and at very little monetary cost compared to ten years ago. But the real cost is of course discernment and craftsmanship, brought on by years of no-holds-barred indulgence and the rush to sell cheaply manufactured blu-rays. Artistically, it's very much a false economy. Which is why I think Kubrick's comments have been completely misinterpreted by yourself, since they are in no way applicable here.

[A24 5,155]

How is "If it can be written, or thought of, it can be filmed" not applicable to The Avengers? Because it's CGI? I mean, that it (CGI) leads to more and more absurdities is my conclusion and not Kubrick's. I very well aware of that.

[Quintus 6,494]

But your conclusion is an obvious one. It may be your own, but you cross-referenced it with Kubrick, which implies something else entirely to what he originally meant.

[A24 5,155]

Sorry, but for the first time I thought his comment is actually true. Before CGI, I don't think it was. See? That's why I think it was only normal for me to be reminded of that quote for now it really is possible to film the impossible. The thing I'm adding, obvious or not, is questioning whether that's a good thing. The technology that finally supports his claim is also responsible for Hollywood going further and further with making the impossible possible to lure the audience to the theater with CGI spectacles like Emmerich's 2012 which are entirely based on showing what couldn't be done 10 years ago.

Of course, when Kubrick made this comment, he never thought of absurdities like flying mega aircraft carriers, a green giant destroying half a city or an ocean swallowing the Himalayas. The reason why I added it was because someone here said The Avengers is much more believable than Watchmen, while I personally was warped out of the movie on several occasions because the film shows that the craziest comic book absurdities and situations can now be seen on the silver screen as well.

Alex

[Quintus 6,494]

Yes, but never in a way which Kubrick intended, I'm arguing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,384]

Kubrick died years ago guys!

You boys wanna theorize what Eisenstein would have thought about CGI?

[Quintus 6,494]

It was just a simple difference in standpoint, Steef.

[A24 5,155]

The issue is, why does it destract me? People see 2012 or The Avengers and say: " Wow, I was really into the story", while I am constantly more impressed with the effects or with the possibility of showing the impossible than with the movies themselves. A lot in Watchmen simply did not look real and yet it captivated me enormously. I didn't care whether Mars and that moving constraption looked real or not.

[Quintus 6,494]

Watchmen feels a million times more 'real' than The Avengers, and I'd be very surprised if Whedon himself ever argued otherwise. His movie is a rollicking action adventure movie with its tongue transplanted to its cheek, as it ought to be. Those who believe it to be more realistic than Watchmen are completely missing the point.

But you know what really bores me in this whole conversation and thread? That every motherfucking superhero/comic adaptation is compared to bloody Watchmen. It's a superb film, but it aint the bleedin' authority on the subject, and neither are its fanboys.

[Wojo 2,458]

Watchmen only feels real until you realize the plot doesn't function without a seven foot tall immortal with unlimited cosmic powers and who glows blue. Then it's no less a comic-book cartoon fantasy than any other.

[Brónach 1,330]

Watchmen feels a million times more 'real' than The Avengers, and I'd be very surprised if Whedon himself ever argued otherwise. His movie is a rollicking action adventure movie with its tongue transplanted to its cheek, as it ought to be. Those who believe it to be more realistic than Watchmen are completely missing the point.

But you know what really bores me in this whole conversation and thread? That every motherfucking superhero/comic adaptation is compared to bloody Watchmen. It's a superb film, but it aint the bleedin' authority on the subject, and neither are its fanboys.

Hell, yes and yes!

Watchmen is more "realistic", I'm not denying that. My point is completely subjective and different. It's like the difference bewteen seeing a realistic jungle adventure film and being all too aware of it own "artificial" stylisms and the fact that it's not real, and later seeing, I don't know, The Temple of Doom and being way more sucked in. (Just like Alex sees Watchmen and doesn't care that stuff doesn't look real, I see The Avengers and don't care stuff can't be real. Because that's the POINT on both cases.)

But remember! As Wojo says, Watchmen is also fantasy (and I don't mind either.) The blue god, the tachyons, the flying aircraft, the moving mask, and even more stuff in the book. In a way, both are commentaries on these superheroic fantasies: one has fun desconstructing it, the other has fun playing it reasonably straight with a pair of comments. Both can be perfectly fun, and it's ok to just prefer one over the other without taking into account the level of seriousness of their themes. In the end both work as serious exercises of mere fiction.

And the great thing about narrative fiction is that it can be so different from time to time.

Rises ... Returns ... the comic book genre is so complicated.

Oh so it's a genre now?

Sure, why not?

Well if you mean the superhero genre then ok. Just like western and other, it's got a lot of its own tropes and recurring ideas.

[A24 5,155]

The CGI in Watchmen is not more realistic, the situations are. Perhaps that's one of the differences, Watchmen can exist without CGI while The Avengers can't. Watchmen is not build around a series of spectacular CGI scenes. It's about other, more interesting things, IMO. Of course, then there's the overall style which I find more special and intriguing than the usual Marvel flics, which all look the same since Ang Lee's film made the suits seize more artistic control.

[Brónach 1,330]

The CGI in Watchmen is not more realistic, the situations are.

Yes.

Perhaps that's one of the differences, Watchmen can exist without CGI while The Avengers can't.

Untrue.

Watchmen is not build around a series of spectacular CGI scenes. It's about other, more interesting things, IMO.

It's about the style.

find more special and intriguing than the usual Marvel flics, which all look the same since Ang Lee's film made the suits seize more artistic control.

I find differences in their looks. And Watchmen needs CGI to have that visual style that you like.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,384]

Watchmen uses CGI as means to an end. It uses them without making them the main focus.

[Wojo 2,458]

Perhaps that's one of the differences, Watchmen can exist without CGI while The Avengers can't.

Untrue.

I disagree. Take CGI away from The Avengers, and Tony Stark gets into his Iron Man costume off camera, or rather like we put on a suit of armor in the real world. The Hulk transforms off camera and is then never seen onscreen with real people unless it is with rear-projection, stop-motion, or muppets. Mundane super heroes like Hawkeye, Black Widow, Nick Fury, and Captain America can probably work ok. Does Thor fly in the movies? Superman flew without CGI so I guess it works. The Avengers are so far-fetched that they require CGI to keep up the pace.

I don't think Watchmen needs CGI as much, other than to inject the look of the comic book into the screen. Dr. Manhattan's omnipotence could be shown with smoke and mirrors. Mars is easily simulated on a soundstage or in a desert with a red lens filter, or reduced in scope, or simply moved off camera. Where did you go? Mars. You weren't gonna take me? No; I wouldn't be able to show you shit.

Night Owl's vehicle could be held by cables. Rorschach's mask would be tough to show without CGI, but it's not as integral to the plot of the movie as it is to simply being a characteristic of a man who takes his persona from a psych test.

Heck, screw CGI. Watchmen works in a world where the Whatever-the-hell-number-it-is Amendment was repealed (or never enacted in the first place) to let a US President serve more than two terms, and that man is Richard Tricky Dick Milhous Nixon.

[Brónach 1,330]

It wouldn't be as cool without CGI.

The scenes with Rorschach walking around with his mask moving need his mask moving. You can make it without the mask, but would it be the same? No. It's his face. Mars is integral to the plot (but could be done). Dr Manhattan could be a bit hard but done. What about following the smiley and The Comedian falling in slow motion? Jon's Maryian aircraftt would need some cool maquette work to make it move, as well as some shots with the buildings (that would be cool to see, actually). There are these little things like the two planes flying over Dr Manhattan in Vietnam, etc Or the stuff in the atomic dream. I wonder how Jon's death would look. On the other hand he film would benefit for not having CGi blood in slow motion for no reason, and not having Bubastis...

That The Avengers needs more CGI to exist isn't doesn't affect the quality of the film, of course. As long as you can do the effects you need correctly... for me they were competently done, and helped to make such a crazy thing believable on screen. It couldn't have been donde that well in the past.

Also I love that it made me go through it without questioning much the crazyness of it. It made me a complice. The profesionalism of the editing, special effects and cast certainly helped.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,384]

Chaac, you speak as if Rorschachs mask could not have been done in any other way then CGI.

If Watchmen was made 25 years ago, they would have used traditional animation, models etc....

There is not a lot in Watchmen that could have only been done in CGI.

[Brónach 1,330]

I love CGi but I would love to see such a Watchmen instead of the one we got.

[Quintus 6,494]

C'mon, all of the effects work in Watchmen is top-notch and excellently 'spotted'. It's like a del Toro movie in that regard. You're being nit-picky for the sake of it. You're making reasons up for your not liking of the movie and it shows,

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,384]

Indeed.

[Quintus 6,494]

Well, apart from the cartoon cat straight out of He-Man

[Brónach 1,330]

C'mon, all of the effects work in Watchmen is top-notch and excellently 'spotted'. It's like a del Toro movie in that regard. You're being nit-picky for the sake of it. You're making reasons up for your not liking of the movie and it shows,

I don't dislike the film.

I actually hadn't thought about this before, but the more I think of it I'm more convinced that the effects work in that film could have been fascinating without CGI. So many different things, here and there.

The way the effects are are fine though. Any problem there is, it's not because of the effects. I wan't trying to show what I don't like about the film on this occasion, I was just trying to imagine a different looking adaptation. I do this all the time.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Alien, we wanted to be prepared for Prometheus as best we can.

attack of the clones is on SPIKE TV. It's dreadful and the effects on tv look really cartoonish.