I agree and I think if Snyder didn't drop some of the sub plots the movie would be waaaay to long. I mean It's already about three hours long as is and I don't think many people would sit through a movie for four hours.comadorcrack said:I respectfully disagree, while he did follow the main plot mostly word for word, he did drop alot of minor characters and alot of the under arching sub-plots. He did adapt quit a bit of it also, most of it was dumbing down the diolouge granted, but it was done as to make it accessable to the general public.L.B. Jeffries said:Disliked the film, enjoyed the book. Snyder missed the point of making an adaptation when he had a scene for scene recreation of the comic book. You have to tweak and adjust things for a movie, not just slap it on screen as if Moore was writing storyboard. Otherwise, what's the point?
All in all I really loved the movie, asides from Dark Knight its easilly the best comic addaptation on screen. If you've not seen it yet then please do go, have your perceptions on right and wrong. Read the book first though, because you'll get a much better feel for the plot.
FUCKING DO IT!!!!!!!!!HotShooter said:The movie was great but I never read the novel, and am not interested enough to ever do it.
Hmm.. Then I may end up agreeing with your coment, that is a bit much. I like a bit of artistic License to be taken up. IE Dark Knight and Spiderman.L.B. Jeffries said:For the record though, Snyder has said that on the Director's Cut DVD all of that stuff he dropped from the book is going back in so that it will be almost a scene for scene recreation.
True true. And lol, epicly agree. X-men 2 = Epic X-Men origins: Wolverine = WHY!!!! ='(Ken_J said:And the squid would confuse people even more, I saw it with my entire family and my mom and sister could wrap the head around it and my dad was just awe struk, so I think it was a good adaptation concidering the other adaptations of books and comics, *Beowulf* and *Wolverine*
i think the extended cut has a lot of what's been taken out put back in and/or has been adapted, such as under the hoodcomadorcrack said:I respectfully disagree, while he did follow the main plot mostly word for word, he did drop alot of minor characters and alot of the under arching sub-plots. He did adapt quit a bit of it also, most of it was dumbing down the diolouge granted, but it was done as to make it accessable to the general public.L.B. Jeffries said:Disliked the film, enjoyed the book. Snyder missed the point of making an adaptation when he had a scene for scene recreation of the comic book. You have to tweak and adjust things for a movie, not just slap it on screen as if Moore was writing storyboard. Otherwise, what's the point?
i don't think the Dark Knight was that great of an adaptation, it was good but not better than Watchmen, they REALLY missed the point of the JokerAll in all I really loved the movie, asides from Dark Knight its easilly the best comic addaptation on screen. If you've not seen it yet then please do go, have your perceptions on right and wrong. Read the book first though, because you'll get a much better feel for the plot.
Im not sure if my english was right there, When i was ralking about perceptions I was refering to Watchmen.cleverlymadeup said:i don't think the Dark Knight was that great of an adaptation, it was good but not better than Watchmen, they REALLY missed the point of the Jokercomadorcrack said:All in all I really loved the movie, asides from Dark Knight its easilly the best comic addaptation on screen. If you've not seen it yet then please do go, have your perceptions on right and wrong. Read the book first though, because you'll get a much better feel for the plot.
as for the topic on hand, i really liked Watchmen and didn't really mind the changes they've made from the original story