Prisoners of Gravity: Watchmen (Part 1/3)

[josswhedon692]

Snyder's Watchmen is good in individual segments. Occasionally brilliant. But the book is so episodic because it's a 12-part series, and you can tell a story that dense in a comic book. In a movie form, it feels aimless and all over the place. It never feels like one cohesive movie. And even if all its depth comes from the book, it still has a lot more depth, originality, and richness than most movies.

[ccv707]

However, Kubrick was still generally regarded as a great filmmaker despite the mixed reviews, while Snyder will never even be confused for one.

[Transformers217]

@ccv707 No he wasn't. Snyder isn't considered great, but Kubrick wasn't fully appreciated until many years after his films came out.

[ccv707]

Regardless of his reputation then or today, the chorus was not saying that Kubrick was a "horrible" filmmaker, and few people will even say Snyder is a good one, a decent one at best. Kubrick was still respected, at that time, much more than Snyder is today (and ever will be). If you don't agree, then tell me why he was nominated for 12 academy awards (for writing, producing, directing, and even visual effects work) before Watchmen ever hit book shelves.

[Transformers217]

@ccv707 He was well respected by the Academy, but some of his films had far more controversy, and negative reviews then any of Zack Snyder's work.

It's that Kubrick's films managed to strike a HARD cord with people. The ones who loved his films, LOVED THEM. The ones who hated them, HATED THEM. And that's why he got so many awards, and accolades. He also changed the form of cinema with "2001", and a couple other films. His artistic eye shook up the world of cinema forever.

[croyz93]

woow!!!!amzing story...love it so much!!!!

[DrCruel]

One day Zack Snyder will look up and shout, "YO ALLEN - YOU WANT SOME CHEESE WITH YOUR WHINE?"

And he'll look down from his ivory tower and whisper, "No."

[Transformers217]

If you're opinion is well informed, then mine is as well. The film is a polarizing work of art that divides it's audience, like MANY other great films. And I love that you keep bringing up Stanley Kubrick, while completely ignoring the fact that none of his films were beloved until later on. Even "A Clockwork Orange" was met with mixed reviews, and controversy. Most people started praising Kubrick until after he died. So stop going by what the critics say.

[almanacofsleep]

Watchmen also influenced acid house, i think it was British DJ Bomb the Bass who borrowed the smilly face with the slatter of blood and put it on the cover of his album and suddenly they were every wear.

[neohubris]

man I really miss Prisoners of Gravity

great show

[intrepidlikes]

Watchmen based on the Charlton superheroes. Okay. Capt. Atom is Dr. Manhattan, Nite-Owl is Blue Beetle, The Question is Rorschach, The Peacemaker is The Comedian, but who's Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt? Johnny Thunderbolt? Is Thunderbolt as smart as Veidt? What about Silk Spectre? Who's her equivalent in the Charlton heroes line?

[Teddog3000]

Ozy is Thunderbolt and Silk Spectre is Nightshade, apparently.

[togio100]

Silk Spectre was created by Moore and Gibbons because there was no really interesting or distinct female superheroine in the Charlton lineup

Her relationship w/ Dr. Manhattan was lifted from Nightshade's relationship w/ Mr. Atom. Other than that, I think they drew mostly on pop psychology to create her.

[ADVS14U2NV]

What year was this?.

[Teddog3000]

This episode is from 1991.

[Transformers217]

Zack Snyder really gave these guys alot of justice. Even with the changes, he didn't dumb it down at all.

The only problem with the film adaptation, is that it's too short. And because it's too short, it had some narrative problems. So right now, my rating is an 8.5/10. It ain't the graphic novel, but we haven't seen the final product yet. And maybe my rating will go up with a repeated viewing. :)

[Teddog3000]

I still haven't seen it yet, but that's not for lack of trying. Didn't stop me from spoiling myself.

Yeah, I heard some people aren't passing judgement until the "complete" version comes out. I'm torn over that. While some important scenes aren't there in the current version of the film and might smooth the narrative out, adding things like Tales of the Black Freighter is a bit redundant now outside of fanservice. This is purely "As I Understand It", though, since I haven't seen the movie yet

[Transformers217]

You really need to see the film. It's not the complete product yet, so we can basically call it "Watchmen cliff notes." But it is one great cliff note. I think putting in the "Tales of the Black Freighter" would add in more depths, and create a wholly original experience. I can't wait for that version. But I would like to see that director's cut, just to see if the added scenes create a more coherent narrative. :)

[almanacofsleep]

Well it can't speak well of a director if you can't make a complete product, and yes i know the graphic novel was very complex but so was 2001 Space Odessy and the Godfather and yet the films felt complete.

[Transformers217]

It actually speaks volumes about Snyder's ability to still make a brilliant adaptation out an un-finished product. But just wait for the director's cut and extended cut.

[almanacofsleep]

How does Snyder have the balls to realse to the theaters an unfinished product? He couldn't have got away with it 10 years ago, yes i know lots of films have directors cuts on dvd but they at least finished the theatrical cut. I don't see how Snyder can call himself a Visonary when all he does is use Dave Gibbons and Alan Moores vison, plus he completey didn't not understand the message of Watchmens ending and dumbed it down .

Well thats my rant over

[Transformers217]

It's like he wanted to dumb it down. It's probably the studio that dumb it down a bit, but it was still a very daring ending, and carried the same message as the graphic novel. And Snyder doesn't call himself a visionary, that was just labeled to him in a theatrical trailer of this film. Is he a visionary?? I think he is. If you look up the definition of a visionary, he definitely fits into one of those definitions. And he did a fantastic job with "Watchmen."

[almanacofsleep]

All he can do is use other peoples vision "Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons,Frank Miller etc". He is no visonary, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Ferlini, Bergman, Antonioni and Godard are film visonarys, go look at their work and then look at Snyder, he isn't fit to lick the shit from their shoes.

[Transformers217]

No, it's Snyder's vision. He just takes what Moore and Gibbons did and brings it to vivid like onto the big screen. Snyder focuses more on creating a visual experience then on plot and that's what makes it such a great film. Snyder respects the old school, and uses classical filmmaking to create a visceran, organic, and cerebral work of art. It's definitely his best film, and he adapted it from a masterpiece of literature.

[almanacofsleep]

The only way hes has vision is the literal sense that he can see, once the comic movie bubble bursts hes going back to being a crappy horror director. Don't inslut people with talent by saying he is compareable with Kurosawa or Welles, these people could direct a film and make it complete(unlike watchmen) compelling and complex, they can also write their own stories, not just remake other peoples material.

[Transformers217]

He's only done one horror film, and it wasn't crappy at all. It's actually consider by many, to be one of the better horror remakes in recent years. And how am I insulting somebody else with talent?? Zack Snyder is a very talented filmmaker, and he seems to be getting better as a filmmaker. What he did in "Watchmen" is exactly what Kubrick, Kurosawa, and Welles use to do in their primes. It's pure classical filmmaking, and the attention to detail is staggering.

[Transformers217]

Please explain how he is remaking other peoples material?? If that's what he's doing, then I guess filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese did the same thing. It's called adaptation. And just because "Watchmen" is a very faithful adaptation doesn't mean that it's a remake. There's a difference between a remake and an adaptation. And Snyder created one of the best adaptations in the last 20 years.

[almanacofsleep]

The difference between Watchmen(film) and say 2001: A Space Odessy is that Watchmens got its visuals already layied out for synder were as Kubrick had to use his imagination as 2001 was a book. And Synder justed remade it word to word panel to panel(expect the ending which is were the film falls on its face) into a movie. you don't need talent just a big special effects budget. Kubrick on the other hand had both.

[Transformers217]

Oh, and you can't objectively say what good cinema is, since it is all subjective. What's considered to be good cinema is not based on facts, just a general consensus. And as far as I'm concerned, "Watchmen" is quality cinema because it does exactly what cinema was created for. It was created to tell stories through moving pictures. Cinema uses sound, visuals, and imagery to tell stories and Snyder does this perfectly with "Watchmen."

[almanacofsleep]

Actually you can objectively say whats good cinema is otherwise film critics wouldn't exist. Watchmens story, while compelling is jumbled up mess,the dialog doesn't flow,another failing of Synder as a director not realising that something that reads well on a page doesnt sound as good spoken on the screen, visuals are pretty but are bogged down by over realience on slowmo effects.Lets not forget the score which completely destorys the atmosphere, the adding of a really bad unnecessary sex scene

[Transformers217]

No, you can say what is objectively good. It's all subjective, and critics know that better then anybody. What's considered to be great cinema is based on a general consensus, not a fact. I know what great films are, and many people who do know what quality films are can appreciate the beauty of the "Watchmen" film. But it's not based on any objective facts.

If you can't tell the difference between what is objective and subjective, then you're an idiot.

[Transformers217]

And what you just claimed about "Watchmen" is not based on objective facts, but with you're subjective reasoning. It's all subjective. I felt the the dialogue flowed perfectly, and that it's not a jumbled mess. There is nothing in the film that makes it a mess. Sure, it has pacing problems, but that's due to it being cut short for it's theatrical release. It's not a complete product yet, and the studio can be blamed for that. Not Snyder, who did a fantastic job.

[Transformers217]

Oh, and critics do exist because of their subjective reason. What one likes, is not what the other is going to like. You can never say what is objectively good cinema, because it will always be based on subjective reasoning.

[Transformers217]

Oh, and the slow-motion in the film was used perfectly. It never felt over used, and it captured the visual panels of the comic in a brilliant way. You can actually see everything that is going on, and it makes the film visually impacting. The dialogue was good, and it flowed very well in every scene. The music added alot to the tone and atmosphere, and was quit beautiful in many scenes. And while I think the sex scene could of been more artistic, it was still brilliantly campy.

[almanacofsleep]

Okay look is pretty clear your a big fan and its gonna be hard to persuade you otherwise but 2 points i will like to make 1 Yes it is subjective weather you or not you can enjoy a film but you can objectively disscuss its merits and flaws. 2. of all the reveiws I read even the most glowing reveiw(outside a fanboyish blog) notes it still has huge flaws in nartive and plot.

[Transformers217]

Oh, and if you think "Watchmen" isn't a quality film because it didn't get rave reviews from the critics. Then you should probably say the same thing about "2001" and "Blade Runner." Both of those wonderful works of art got mixed reviews by the critics and many film snobs looked down on "2001" as just another special effects film.

[Transformers217]

And no, you can only SUBJECTIVELY discuss the flaws and merits in any film. Critics do have an objective, but it's all based on their own objective perceptions that are subjective as well. They disagree with each other, people disagree with them, and everybody basically disagrees with one another. It's all subjective, not based on any objective facts. And let's face it, no film is truly perfect since perfection differs from person to person.

[Transformers217]

Oh, and Roger Ebert's review of the film doesn't not the films flaws in narrative and plot. Because he knew what Snyder was aiming for, and he accomplished it brilliantly. He created an organic, and visceral experience that we rarely get from a superhero film. And the films plot and narrative doesn't have any flaws at all. It's the pacing that has some flaws, and that's mostly due to it being cut down to 160 minutes. The director's cut probably won't have this problem.

[almanacofsleep]

Zach Synder is a shallow film director who can on be shollow and flippant, the Watchmen film shows his lack of depth. Its all flashy visuals and slomo violence. If the director can't make a complete film for theatrical realse and you have to wait till the dvd directors cut then the directors failed. Its overly long in the first place and very clunky. Length doesn't equate quality in this case.

[Transformers217]

Snyder wasn't a shallow filmmaker with "Watchmen." He dwelled into the psychological, sexual, and emotional aspects of every character and managed to capture the spirite and depth of the graphic novel. Maybe not all of the depth, but just enough to make the audience think and interpret what their looking at. The film is basically visual literature, where the audience can interpret what their looking at during nearly every scene.

[almanacofsleep]

All the psychologic, sexual and emotional aspexts were down to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons work on the Graphic Novel, nothing to do with Snyder, and he failed to translate that to the film. He doesn't care about that stuff, he cares about how bad-ass Rorschach is. He cares about how awesome gratuitous violence is. He cares about how much we all want to bang Silk Spectre.

[Transformers217]

No, you're talking about the graphic novel. I'm talking about Snyder's attempt at exploring the psychological, sexual, and emotional aspects of the main superheroes. And he translated it brilliantly. He focused on the characters, not on the cool factor, or even as much on the superficial factor. And the violence was not done in a cool fashion, it was done in a way that was disturbing and excessive. You're opinion is wrong here.

[almanacofsleep]

My opinion is well informed and reachered. You seem to be a bit deluded about how good Synder actually is. 3 films all remakes, all stlye vs subsence. He should stick to the dumb comic 300 like movies and leave the deep multi thread plot stuff to someone with really vision.

[Transformers217]

And again, that's what you care about. It's pretty obviouse that Snyder cared more about the story, depth, and layers of the graphic novel. And in my opinion, he adapted it brilliantly. He also realizes that the supporting characters are basically the main characters in the story, and that's why he filmed most of their scenes to add more depth to the film. But those scenes were cut out for the theatrical release.

[Transformers217]

And the studio wanted to cut down the film, not Zack Snyder. Stop trying to ignore the FACTS. The fact is Snyder wanted to keep it at 3 hours, but the studio's didn't a trust it, and decided to cut it down to 160 minutes. Just because the product wasn't finished, doesn't mean the director failed. He just wasn't able to put out his true vision. Ridley Scott went through the same problem, as do many other great filmmakers like Frits Lang.

[almanacofsleep]

He doesn't care about depth,depth is not as fun as breaking fingers in slow-motion, and because slow-motion looks a bit artsy, the emptiness of Snyders vision is masked with the utmost portentousness. The soundtrack sums up this notion, useing Simon & Garfunkel and the Mozart Requiem for no other reason except it sounds cool. Also I didn't say he shouldn't have cut the film down, I'm saying he should, cut all the crap that plods along without any meaning to the film, like the sex scene.

[Transformers217]

No, he does care about depth. Otherwise, he wouldn't of adapted Manhattan's origins so faithfully in such a gorgeous, and layered fashion. And the sex scene does have meaning. It shows that Dan and Laurie couldn't have a healthy sex life without hurting people or saving people. That's great characterization, and the sex scene was very well done. The soundtrack also gives the film alot of meaning and interpretations. The depth is there, you're just choosing to ignore it.

[Transformers217]

No, you claimed that Snyder failed because he didn't put out a finished product. Wrong, the studio's didn't allow him to put out the finished product. They didn't trust a film with unknown superheroes, unknown actors, with a 3+ hour length. So they cut it down to 160 minutes. Not Snyder. And the sex was necessary for the characterizations of Dan and Laurie. If you take it out, you lose a major part of the film.

[Transformers217]

And the theatrical cut was too short in this case. It was excellent, but it needed to be longer, since some of the pacing issues were due to the fact that many scenes were cut out. There will also be an extended cut where "Tales of the Black Freighter" will be added in. Just because a director hasn't put out his true vision yet, doesn't mean that he failed. You should say that about Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner." A film that had worst reviews then "Watchmen" back in 1982.

[almanacofsleep]

The problem is that mabey Zack Snyder was to much of a fanboy, he was to caught up in how awsome the GN was to step back and cast a critical eye too see if it worked as a movie. Stanley Kubrick famously had no regard for Stephen Kings The Shining,but he was able to use them as a starting point for his own cinematic vision.He made The Shining work. Maybe because he didnt have to worry about winging fanboys in 1980. Imagin what Stanley Kubricks Watchmen would look like. He could have done it.

[Transformers217]

That's why the film turned out to be great, because it was done by a real fanboy with an actual vision. He adapted it, made it vivid and gave it verve. He taped into what made the GN so great, and captured it's spirite onto the big screen. While allowing the film to stand on it's own visually. He also became very daring by changing the characters towards the end of the film, which turned out to be the complete opposite of the GN.

[Transformers217]

Well I was right. The director's cut of "Watchmen" is a complete product and a better version overall. It took a film that I really liked, and made me LOVE IT! The pacing issues are officially gone, and it comes ever closer to the graphic novel. Can't wait for that ultimate extended cut. :)

[almanacofsleep]

Zack Syder would be nothing without his comic books.

[Transformers217]

Nor his talent as a visual storyteller.

[almanacofsleep]

I wouldn't call that "talent"

[Transformers217]

But it does take ALOT of talent to faithfully adapt something, and bring it to vivid life.

[almanacofsleep]

But thats nothing that will make him a great filmmaker mentioned in the same breath as Kurosawa or Bergman, they can do more than just copy from a source. Its like in painting, anyone can learn to be a great draftsman, but it takes more than that to be a great artist. This is something you seem to find hard to understand.

[Transformers217]

Why do you keep trying to compare to other past great filmmakers and act like he should be at that level?? He doesn't have to be, to make great films or to be considered a great filmmaker. He can be his own filmmaker, and if "Watchmen" is any indication of his growth as a filmmaker, then he will be considered a great one. Plain and simple.

You fail to understand that Snyder has created the best Alan Moore adaptation and he proved to be a visionary with real talent.

[Transformers217]

And I think it's alot harder to faithfully adapt something visually, and all the amount of details that go into it, then to just use your imagination. Snyder's ambition, vision, and talent is what brought Moore's book to vivid life.

And how do you know Snyder won't be compared to other great filmmakers?? He's a young director, who's only done three films. He could just be on the level of Ridley Scott. Who's not quit Stanley Kubrick, but close enough.

[almanacofsleep]

You cannot help but compare current film makers to the filmakers that came before it, like any artistic mediam. And just because someone can faithly copy from one mediam to another doesn't make him artistic. Being able to acurately paint a landscape while showing a talent for good draftsmanship but it takes more than that for it to be a work of art. Same thing goes for film. Just curious what films do you hold to be example of excellent filmmaking to be?

[Transformers217]

But Snyder does get artistis credibility for creating an artistic and faithful adaptation to one of the best pieces of literature ever made. And stop trying to compare every filmmaker to Stanley Kubrick and Godard. That's ignorant on your part, and you're just short changing yourself. Just because he's not on that level, doesn't mean he didn't do a great job with "Watchmen."

Ridly Scott isn't that great, but "Blade Runner" is a masterpiece.

[almanacofsleep]

So because Synders second rate we shouldn't call him second rate? Have you seen any of the work of people like Godard and Kurosawa and the others we have mentioned in our many paged bitchin? If not I suggest you school your self in what good cinema actually is. And Blade Runner, although not the best film ever made is a much better adaptation than Watchmen.

[Transformers217]

We don't know that he's second rate. He's only done three films, and "Watchmen" turned out to be an excellent achievement, and the best comic book adaptation to date. And unlike you, I know what great cinema is. Which is why I appreciate, admire, respect, and love the "Watchmen" film. It's not the graphic novel, but it stands on it's own as an excellent film.

Other educated scholars on film like Roger Ebert love the film as well. A man who has seen more films then both of us.

[almanacofsleep]

Go watch some good movies like "Ran" or "Orphee" to see what a good movie actually is.

[Transformers217]

I've seen "Orphee", "2001", "Blade Runner", "The New World", "Andrei Rublev", "Stalker", "Apocalypse Now", "The Godfather", "The Dark Knight", "M", "Intolerance", "Citizen Kane", "Solyaris", "Goodfellas", "Raging Bull", and many other fantastic films. And I rarely consider any film to be a masterpiece.

So yeah, I do know what great films are and I'am educated on the medium. Which is why I loved the "Watchmen." Because it appeals to my personal preference, and it is a quality film.

[Transformers217]

If you knew anything about cinema, you would appreciate it's technical perfections.

And "Blade Runner" is a masterpiece.

[almanacofsleep]

Film has to be more than technical skill to be considered any thing more than a pretty distraction. Also in Ebert review he only talks about the story and how impresed he is with it, he never mentioned the directing. So hes actualy praising Alan Moore rather than Synder.

[Transformers217]

Films that succeed on telling things through visuals, aesthetics, and imagery are usually considered to be the best of cinema. Why do you think films like "2001", "Ikiru", "Blade Runner", and "Koyaanisqatsi" are considered to be masterful films. You're only bashing "Watchmen", because it got a mixed reaction.

And Ebert praised the direction, visuals, and performances. He didn't praised the plot, because he realized that wasn't Snyder's mained focus. Have you even read his review??

[almanacofsleep]

If you actually watched any of those films you would know that its just not the visuals that made those titles the best in cinema but the story, the pacing, the message of those films. This makes me belive that you haven't watched all the films you say you have.

[Transformers217]

I never claimed that it's only the visuals that make great films. But the best of films succeed in telling their stories through there visuals, aesthetics, and imagery. Not just through plot and imagery. You obviously don't know much about cinema, since you're not educated on the very foundations of it.

[Transformers217]

And who's to say that "Watchmen" can't be considered a great film?? Because you didn't like it, or because it didn't get rave reviews from the critics?? Some of the best films ever made got mixed reviews. Like "2001", "Blade Runner", and "Raging Bull." Ironically, if rottentomatoes existed back in 1968, "2001" would of had a lower rating then "Watchmen."

[almanacofsleep]

I also do realise that visuals are very important to a film,all the film makers i hold up as being the best have a deep visual understanding of cinema, but their films have more substance to them. Zach Snyder is competent but he lacks the ability to create anything truley meaningful. Hes okay with light weight projects like 300 but giving more complex storys like watchmen and he stumbles. He trys to balence being both flippant and serious but is too shallow to pull both off so hes just flippant.

[Transformers217]

I never said those films didn't have substance. You fail to understand this, but those filmmakers you mentioned created substance through the visuals, not the plot. Which is also exactly what Zack Snyder does with "Watchmen." He tells most of the film through the visuals, imagery, and aesthetics.

Kubrick did this, Ridley Scott use to do that, Ingmar Bergman did it, and so did Andrei Tarkovsky. Snyder isn't on that level at all, but he did a great job with "Watchmen."

[Transformers217]

And the fact that you're judging Snyder's skills as a filmmaker with only three films, is purely asinine. We don't know what this guy is capable of. And trying to compare him to other great filmmakers of the past is idiotic, and you're just selling yourself short. Do you compare every film to "2001?" Do you compare every modern filmmaker in this decade to Kubrick, or Bergman. You should judge them on their own terms and what they bring to the table, instead of comparing to other past greats.

[almanacofsleep]

And no you can't give films substance though flashy visuals alone. You can't make meaningful art  by being just a good draughtsman see, what i'm getting at? And I keep compairing Synder to the great filmakers of the past because when you critically lookin at something artistic you compare it to what came before, its idiotic to try and evalute something in a cultural vacuum. Its getting quite tiresome to have have to keep explaining these simple concepts to you again and again.

[Transformers217]

The fact that you keep trying to compare Snyder other filmmakers of the past is purely idiotic. Judge him on his own merits, and don't judge his abilities with only three films. That is asinine and ignorant.

[almanacofsleep]

You can't judge someone's work in a vacuum, as I said before, ask any critic in any artistic feld, you need to be informed by what came before, its idiotic to do otherwise. And 2001 does have a plot, a very complex plot told in abstract way. Just because a story focas on character interaction instead of a more common sweaping narative or is stuctured in a unique way doen't make it any less of a plot.

[Transformers217]

"2001" technically has a plot, but there isn't too much plot, nor is it a complex plot. It's what Kubrick does with it, that gives it alot of complexities, substance and nuance. To claim that it's great because of it's plot, is asinine. And to say that plot is the number one thing to have, is an insult to great filmmakers like Kubrick, Tarkovsky, and Lynch. Plot should usually be on the back burner. The characters, tone, atmosphere, and visuals should always be the main focus.

[Transformers217]

Kubrick tells the story in an abstract way, but there still isn't much plot. Everything is told through visuals, imagery, and aesthetics. But what makes it great, is it's lack of plot. Same goes for other great films like "Raging Bull", "Taxi Driver", and even "Intolerance."

What these films have are very simple plots and premises. It's everything else that makes them great. Not the plot.

[almanacofsleep]

So your agreeing with me? Okay that good to know.

[Transformers217]

I agree that Kubrick is a master storyteller, who never relied too much on plot to tell a story. He and other filmmakers like him realized that cinema could be used for so much more. :)

[Transformers217]

What's even weirder if that you keep bringing up Stanley Kubrick, who was rarely appreciated during his time. I'm not saying Snyder's "Watchmen" will be considered a masterpiece or an important film 40 years from now. But most of Kubrick's films had even more mixed reviews then Snyder's last two outings.

[Transformers217]

Filmmakers like David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, and Andrei Tarkovsky prove that plot is overrated.

[sickboyfromluton]

The reason Snyder's adaptation of the Watchmen will never be remembered is because he clearly read Moore's book and thought what made it edgy was the blood and the big blue cock.

[Transformers217]

@sickboyfromluton It'll be remembered as one of the better adaptions of a graphic novel. But it won't be regarded a classic, and many people have already forgotten it.

[Transformers217]

Oh, and there are great books that don't rely too much on plot. Like Alan Moore's "WATCHMEN." He puts layers and layers up on it's plot and characters, but the complexities, hidden meanings, and nuances come from it's structure, visuals, and characterization of it's fascinating characters. The central characters aren't even the main characters. It's the side characters that create the heart and back bone of the story. Something that the film sadly missed out on.

[almanacofsleep]

Both Kubrick and Tarkovsky were noted for being able to convey a complex plot in very abstract ways. 2001 Kubrick managed to that while useing remarkably little dialog. To claim it has no plot seems to really you really haven't understood it. Also you like to use wishy washy phrases like "spiritual filmmaking" makes it even more clear you don't know what your saying.

[Transformers217]

No, they were known for telling their stories through visuals, imagery, and aesthetics. The plots weren't complex, it was everything else that they put into it. Same goes for filmmakers like Fellini, Lynch, Godard, and Bunuel. "2001" does technically have a plot, but it's not the plot that makes the film great. Any real cinephile would tell you that. And Tarkovsky's filmmaking is considered to be spiritual. Look it up. It's obviouse that you don't know what your talking about.

[Transformers217]

Oh, and those great films that I mentioned didn't have too much plot. That's why "2001" was a masterpiece, because it didn't have much plot, but alot of great content. It is visual literature.

[almanacofsleep]

"Too much plot"? what are you talking about? Is having too much plot like having too much flour in a cake mixture? Do you mean they don't have strong plots(which they do) or their plots are not complex,Solaris is famous for its complex slow paced plot, as well as 2001's plot told in a very abstrat way. Sounds to me that you either haven't watched the films you mentioned, or flaied to grasp the concept of the films.

[Transformers217]

Films with too much plot don't amount to much at all. They can come off as either shallow or superficial. Like "Pirates of the Caribean 3", and films like "Spiderman 3" or whatever other block buster you can name. Hell, even some independent films a have too much plot, and get bog down with alot of subplots and different characters and rarely reach a clear narrative. The best of cinema never has too much plot. It's everything else that makes them great.

[Transformers217]

"Solaris" never had a plot to begin with. It technically did have a plot, but Tarkovsky relied more on the visuals, atmosphere, tone, and the characterization of central characters. It's complexities didn't come from the plot, it came from the characters and Tarkovsky's spiritual filmmaking. If you knew anything about Tarkovsky, you would know that he never relied on plot, nor was he that interested in plot to begin with.

[Transformers217]

"2001" also didn't have much plot. What made it great was it's technical perfections, abstract nature, and ambiguities. It's plot is simple, and I completely understood the film during my first viewing. Over time, I have found new hidden nuances and meanings behind certain scenes. But that's because of Kubrick masterful direction with his storytelling. It doesn't have a real plot, and that's why it turned out to be a masterpiece.

You obviously haven't watch these films.

[almanacofsleep]

read Ebets aritcle again, nothing about the visuals! All the praise goes to things taken from the graphic novel.

[Transformers217]

He does praise the visuals by calling it a visceral experience. It's pretty obvious you haven't read his review, nor his blog review.

[Transformers217]

Oh, and Snyder is a visionary. If you look up the definitions of that word, then you'll find that he does fit with that word. And as far as I'm concerened, his visual eye and attention to detail in "Watchmen" is very much on par with the likes of Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa, and even Andrei Tarkovsky. If Snyder keeps this up, then he'll easily become one of the greatest american filmmakers in recent times.

[almanacofsleep]

He might have atention to detail but he has no atention to story, all his films are just taking some one elses vison and just puting it up on the big screen, sure hes competent enough to that but he has no defining talent to be anything more than mediocre, run of the mill. Infact compared to 300 Watchmen so less coherent, this is proberly cause 300 is a simple linar plot so he could translate it, watmen is mutlilayed you you can tell he couldn't figure out how to translate it to a finished film

[Transformers217]

How does he not have attention to story?? He focuses on the story, and brings it to vivid life by creating a visceral, and cerebral experience. The aesthetics were brilliant, the attention to detail was amazing, and the visuals were absolutely gorgeous. I'm not saying that Snyder is as great as guys like Kubrick, Welles, or Kurosawa. But what he did with "Watchmen" is completely on that level. Snyder took the vision of Moore, and made it his own.

[almanacofsleep]

Also you can't compare Synder to any other of the directors as not counting Watchmen which was at best a decent movie with flaws his other films are a remake of a cheesy horror flim and another comic book remake 300, a monumentaly stupid, xenaphobic movie that manages to be homaphobic as well as homerotic. Non of his films can compete with Seven Samurai or A Clockwork Orange in artistry.

[Transformers217]

"Watchmen" doesn't have much flaws at all. There are things that I would of done differently. But on a technical level, it's flawless. The writing is damn near perfect, and the performances had a real poignance to them. What Snyder does in the film, is classical filmmaking that is on par with what other great filmmakers have done in the past. Is he on that level?? No. But he could be, if he keeps getting better.

[Transformers217]

And in terms of artistry, Snyder's direction of "Watchmen" is very much on par with Kubrick's best films. At least on a technical level.

[almanacofsleep]

I think your letting your clearly unbridled admiration for the sorce material get in the way of objectively in regards to what makes good cinema.

[Transformers217]

No, I'm simply judging the film on it's own and what Snyder accomplished. Not the comic-book. And what actually makes good cinema?? You don't know, since it's all subjective. And what Snyder does in "Watchmen" is good cinema, and on par with what other great filmmakers have done in the past. He's not as great as those guys, but he might be growing as a filmmaker and storyteller.

[Transformers217]

Oh, and the "Watchmen" comic-book is alot more complex and dense then "The Godfather."

[Mrster]

Thanks for this video

[Ashloomis]

Wow, Dave Gibbons is good looking. He could be a movie star!

[Teddog3000]

Well, maybe about 20 years ago. ;)

[VariedInterest]

Shamelessly selling out really wears on you.

[togio100]

who shamelessly sold out?

[Elric33239]

More Prisoners of Gravity! Cool! And timely since The Watchmen movie is due out next March. Thanks for posting!

[ThisCanadian]

MOST EXCELLENT I as seeking EXACTLY that episode!

thank you

-

Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n

ThisCanadian com

" ... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice... " ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.

"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

"Do no harm"

[KrzyCanuck]

Just in time for the movie!

[jmdeleon]

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU so VERY MUCH for finally posting this episode!!! PoG was an essential component to my development and understanding of comics as a medium, and this was one of the most significant episodes: How often do we get a retrospective like this on a work of this magnitude? They likely couldn't put a better feature about Watchmen together for the DVD.

Thanks again!

[thorstenh]

Thank you!