300 was a fun action flick. The source material was nothing special and it was pretty damn accurate. I'm not sure how someone can shoot holes into Snyder's directing abilities with that adaptation. That film would've been straight-to-home-video in another director's hands.
300 was a fun action flick. The source material was nothing special and it was pretty damn accurate. I'm not sure how someone can shoot holes into Snyder's directing abilities with that adaptation. That film would've been straight-to-home-video in another director's hands.
If this movie does turn out awesome, which I am mostly sure it will, and if Zack Snyder keeps on making comic movies, then I can only hope his next project is a DKR movie with Michael Ironside as Bruce/Batman.
300 was stupid and boring and bad. It's just like the source material, so that's Frank Miller's fault.
But you gotta wonder about anyone who read the graphic novel and found it so inspiring that they had to make a painstakingly faithful film adaptation.
miller didn't do year two, and i liked year one, but yeah dark knight strikes again is almost parody bad, especially the "my first photoshop" gradient coloring
miller didn't do year two, and i liked year one, but yeah dark knight strikes again is almost parody bad, especially the "my first photoshop" gradient coloring
All these years I have been hating Miller for Year Two, and no way I will stop now even if proven wrong.
I'm reading Watchmen now. I don't know how I managed to avoid it for so long, but it's so so so incredibly good. It's exactly the kind of comics I found myself wishing for when I read Essential X-Men vol. 2 and realized that I'd grown out of that kind of junk a decade before.
Can i expect some crazy action sequences from this movie or is it so serious that it forgets about action?
But first a couple of general things about comics. What do you think of the term "graphic novel" that has come into use?
It's a marketing term. I mean, it was one that I never had any sympathy with. The term "comic" does just as well for me. The term "graphic novel" was something that was thought up in the '80s by marketing people and there was a guy called Bill Spicer who used to do a brilliant fanzine back in the sixties called Graphic Story Magazine. He came up with the term "graphic story". That's got something to recommend it, you know, I can see "graphic story" if you need it to call it something but the thing that happened in the mid-'80s was that there were a couple of things out there that you could just about call a novel. You could just about call Maus a novel, you could probably just about call Watchmen a novel, in terms of density, structure, size, scale, seriousness of theme, stuff like that. The problem is that "graphic novel" just came to mean "expensive comic book" and so what you'd get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics - because "graphic novels" were ge tting some attention, they'd stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel, you know? It was that that I think tended to destroy any progress that comics might have made in the mid-'80s. The companies, the marketing people, who are not terribly bright individuals, they're not terribly creative, they don't really have the hang of - well, I mean, they really haven't got the hang of the 1970s yet, so the 21st century is a long way behind them and they think in very short term measures and consequently they were more or less to blame for destroying whatever kind of momentum the comic book picked up in the '80s by immediately using it predictably to sell a load of Batman, Spiderman shit. But no, the term "graphic novel" is not one that I'm over-fond of. It's nothing that I might carry a big crusade against, it doesn't really matter much what they're called but it's not a term that I'm very comfortable with.
The word "novel" is kind of empty anyway, because I mean Ulysses is a novel and so is Jilly Cooper's Riders.
Oh, exactly. You know, these literary terms, they've probably got more to do with... Well, genres. I'm sure the whole idea of genres in fiction was probably invented by some bored stocking clerk at W.H.Smith, fifty years ago or something like that. That everything has to be pigeonholed and packaged. I suppose, you know, "sequential art", you could call it that but then that's a bit of a mouthful, really, I mean "comics" is as good as anything.
Yeah, I think that's the most generic term and also it covers both episodic stuff and the single stories.
Absolutely.
Who seriously gives a fuck?
miller didn't do year two, and i liked year one, but yeah dark knight strikes again is almost parody bad, especially the "my first photoshop" gradient coloring
All these years I have been hating Miller for Year Two, and no way I will stop now even if proven wrong.
Year One is good >:(
<-I love Year 100.
Can i expect some crazy action sequences from this movie or is it so serious that it forgets about action?
There isn't as much action as most comics, but there is a good amount to keep you interested if you have crazy ADD or something. It also looks like they are adding a lot more action in the movie.
I don't suffer from ADD but cmon give me a break, if i'm watching some dudes in costumes i want some action to come with it.
I don't suffer from ADD but cmon give me a break, if i'm watching some dudes in costumes i want some action to come with it.
Just don't go expecting Spider-Man level or action, or even The Dark Knight, or even Iron Man.
And I don't hate Year One, but I don't like it too much. I am fine with saying it sucked, but it didn't offend me like The Dark Knight Strikes Again did.
Who seriously gives a fuck?
that could apply to any thread posted on any message board anywhere
you or mandark don't need to be acting as if you're above discussing trivial shit at length, considering where you're at
People tend to forget (or they're Miller fans) that 300 was aggressive dickswinging trash (and hey, look at the source) in the first place whose only saving grace was its stylishness. The exact same can be said of the movie. It is almost too good an adaptation given the source material.On the same note, 300 is so stupid, and so overblown, that it practically writes itself into a summer blockbuster, so just because the man turned 300 into a decent movie doesn't mean he has the chops to tackle something like Watchmen.
On the same note, 300 is so stupid, and so overblown, that it...