Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

    HOLY CRAP.

    First, before we get into the article. Let me tell you a story. on the HD version of 300's trailer there was a single frame inserted by the filmmakers. It is the first still released of perhaps the most daring comic book adaptation to date.

    The only Graphic Novel to win a Hugo award. The only graphic novel Time Magazine listed among the "100 best novels since 1923".

    WATCHMEN

    So what was the image? You can see it here in all it's hi-res glory:

    http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/rorshach_badge.jpg

    I have been against adapting this book to film for over 20 years. I mean completely against it. But after seeing and loving 300 (I like nipples ) I think this might have a shot at being decent.

    Now on to the Hollywood Reporter:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/..._id=1003557253

    'Watchmen' feeding off '300' spoils

    by Borys Kit

    March 13, 2007

    "Who watches the Watchmen?" was the tagline of the seminal 1986 Alan Moore miniseries about a group of heroes investigating the murder of one of their own. In 2007, in the warm glow of "300's" blockbuster opening, the answer could be "everybody."

    Zack Snyder, the director of Warner Bros. Pictures' "300," has been developing "Watchmen" at Warners since June, and during the recent press tour for the Spartan epic, he has openly said he is aiming for a summer shoot for "Watchmen."

    Snyder's enthusiasm for the project spilled out online late last week when a Snyder-created image of one of the "Watchmen" characters was discovered embedded in a DVD trailer distributed by marketing street teams and was posted all over the Web.

    Street Wise Marketing was charged with running a campaign using tactics from a community Web site to handing out Spartan condoms ("Prepare for glory," read the packaging) and a DVD of the "300" trailer that was a sensation at last year's Comic-Con International in San Diego. Inserted at the 1:52 mark is an image of Rorschach, the hero with an inkblot mask, a trench coat and hat, with a gray city behind him. According to sources, the shot is a test image of what that character might look like. At this point, the movie is not greenlighted, nor is it cast.

    Street Wise knew of the insert but was asked not to disclose it. The trailer was in the hands of viewers for about a week before someone noticed it and posted it on YouTube.

    Adapting "Watchmen" has stymied such filmmakers as Darren Aronofsky and Paul Greengrass and such studios as Universal and Paramount. The scope and density of the source material -- the only graphic novel Time Magazine listed among the 100 best novels since 1923 -- is vast and budgetary concerns were among the reasons the project was put into turnaround by Paramount in early 2005.

    "To do it right, you need a huge budget," an insider said.

    Sources said Snyder's vision for the movie would have the project in the $150 million range. The studio, on the other hand, wants to keep it less than $100 million. Snyder's "300," based on another award-winning comic book, cost about $65 million to make and grossed $70 million during the weekend, breaking records and surprising many at the studio.
    Last edited by Los Angeles; 07-21-2008, 05:49 PM.
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

  • #2
    Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

    Watch Snyder dish in detail about how he wants to make the film: (video)

    http://www.reelzchannel.com/moviedet...3&clipid=18326
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

      Visually, I'm not worried about the movie. Moore is a lot harder to adapt than Miller. I haven't seen Moore's sensiblities remain intact on an adaptation. I just don't see how Watchmen can be condensed and made Hollywood palpible inregards to plotting and marketing.
      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

        Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
        Visually, I'm not worried about the movie. Moore is a lot harder to adapt than Miller. I haven't seen Moore's sensiblities remain intact on an adaptation. I just don't see how Watchmen can be condensed and made Hollywood palpible inregards to plotting and marketing.
        The one thing that gives me hope: In the interview, Snyder mentions the length of the film: 150 pages (screen time is generally thought of as 1 page=1 minute) without the black freighter.

        Meaning there's a much longer version with the Black Freighter story.

        Please please please leave the Black Freighter in.
        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

          Has nobody else read this?

          *crickets*
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

            Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
            Has nobody else read this?

            *crickets*
            Uh, I've heard of it.

            Sorry, the last comic I read was an Incredible Hulk of my brother's, which I then ripped up. In my defense, I was 3.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

              I've read it. It's excellent.

              I've known about Snyder directing this for a while. I know Watchmen's been in development hell for a long time. I believe Terry Gilliam was going to direct it in the '80s, but it never got off the ground. I'm glad to hear that this one may actually have some good things going for it.

              I read a lot of interviews with Snyder and he's saying a lot of good things. I'm glad that he's keeping it in the 1980s (and not updating it, like V for Vendetta) and keeping Nixon as president, etc.

              As for keeping the Black Freighter stuff in or not, I hope they film it, cut it out of the theatrical release, but put it back in the movie for the DVD.

              Even though I like what I'm hearing, I'm still slightly worried about it. Either way, I think I'll still come out disappointed. Although I guess a lot people say that about movies that are adapted from books.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

                Call me a heathen, but I really didn't like the black freighter storyline. I'd just assume they leave it alone and focus on the book proper. That being said, I just don't see how it would be possible to mak a good film out of this. I can see the studio execs sticky noting the heart of the film out of existance.

                As much as I loved Watchmen (And Miracleman, which just popped into my head), I really don't want them to make a movie out of it.

                Also, check out this poll on casting for the movie. (I really like the Powers Booth idea for the comedian and Jude Law as Ozmandius.
                Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

                  Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                  Uh, I've heard of it.

                  Sorry, the last comic I read was an Incredible Hulk of my brother's, which I then ripped up. In my defense, I was 3.
                  This isn't a comic book. It's a epic novel with all of the richness in detail and depth one would expect from a great novel.

                  While it technically is a superhero story, the heroes are mostly just regular people in masks with emotional problems, and in the story they are just called vigilantes, a practice that has been outlawed.

                  Friend of mine HATES superhero stories. He doesn't ever see superhero movies, he automatically hates any movie with "man" at the end of the title. He is a book collector and avid reader.

                  I lent him two books to read: 1) Jimmy Corrigan, Smartest Kid on Earth; and 2) Watchmen

                  Direct quote: "I read maybe 60 books last year - out of all of them, those were the two best."

                  Don't let the pictures and talk bubbles fool you, these are not "comic books".
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

                    I personally think that this movie would be freaking awesome.

                    I really hope they go through with it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

                      UPDATE:
                      Watchmen has a cast.

                      http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...010ddce2a351f1

                      Six conspire in casting of 'Watchmen'
                      By Borys Kit

                      July 26, 2007
                      "Watchmen," the long-gestating big-screen adaptation of the seminal DC Comics limited series, has finally found its superheroes.

                      Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Matthew Goode, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Malin Akerman have been cast in the Warner Bros. movie, which Zack Snyder is directing. Larry Gordon, Lloyd Levin and Deborah Snyder are producing.

                      Set in an alternate America, "Watchmen" follows costumed hero Rorschach, who is living a vigilante lifestyle because most masked heroes have retired or been outlawed. While investigating a murder, Rorschach learns that a former masked-hero colleague has been killed, prompting him to begin investigating a possible conspiracy.

                      Haley will play Walter Kovacs, aka Rorschach, who ignores the ban on costumed vigilantes.

                      Crudup will play Dr. Manhattan, a superpowered being with godlike powers and temperament.

                      Akerman will play Laurie Juspeczyk/the Silk Spectre, who is involved with Dr. Manhattan -- but that relationship begins to fall apart as he becomes more disconnected from humanity.

                      Goode will play Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, a costume adventurer who retired voluntarily, disclosed his identity and built a large fortune. He hatches a plot to avert a global catastrophe he believes will be caused by Dr. Manhattan.

                      Wilson will play the Nite-Owl, a crime-figher who uses technical wizardry and has an owl-shaped flying vehicle.

                      Morgan will play the Comedian, a cigar-chomping, gun-toting vigilante-turned-paramilitary agent.

                      "Watchmen," created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, is one of the most critically acclaimed series in the genre. The comic is credited for redefining the superhero genre and often is referred to as the "War and Peace" of comic books. It is a crime-conspiracy story that provided the first realistic look at the behind-the-heroics lives of superhero archetypes. "Watchmen" appeared as the only graphic novel on Time magazine's list of the 100 best novels since 1923.

                      A feature adaptation was in preproduction at Paramount with director Paul Greengrass at the helm. Casting was under way when the studio pulled the plug in June 2005 and let go of the project.

                      Tom Cruise, Keanu Reeves and Jude Law were interested in the Snyder incarnation, though they balked when it became clear that the studio was holding the line on the budget.

                      Shooting is set to start in the fall in Vancouver, with Snyder employing many of the filming techniques he used for his boxoffice success "300."

                      Legendary is co-financing the picture.

                      The cast is rumored to make an appearance at Warners' Comic-Con presentation Friday.

                      Haley, repped by Gersh and Leslie Allan-Rice Management, was nominated for a best supporting Oscar for his performance in "Little Children."

                      Morgan is best known for his run on "Grey's Anatomy" as Katherine Heigl's love interest. He is repped by WMA.

                      Crudup's credits include "Almost Famous," "Big Fish" and "The Good Shepherd." He is repped by CAA.

                      Goode, repped by CAA, gained notice for his appearances in "Match Point" and "The Lookout."

                      CAA-repped Wilson also appeared in "Little Children" and is shooting Neil LaBute's "Lakeview Terrace" opposite Samuel L. Jackson and Kerry Washington. He next appears in Rodrigo Garcia's "Passengers" opposite Anne Hathaway.

                      Akerman, repped by Endeavor, appeared in "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle" and appears in "27 Dresses" with Katherine Heigl.

                      For photos of the cast, click here:
                      http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33449
                      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

                        Bad news. I can't tell you how much I'd rather see a Paul Greengrass version than a Zack Snyder version. Synder has technical proficiency, but no special intelligence. To do Moore justice, you need a director who understands subtext. Snyder doesn't. Under the surface, 300 was a mess--easily one of my least favorite movies of last year.

                        I love Watchmen more than almost any other book. I'm not sure any film version could do it justice, but Snyder's going to screw this up big time. I guess in the end I'd rather see the book just left alone.

                        Though back in the early 90's there was a rumor they'd do a version with Schwarzengger as Dr. Manhattan, so this version isn't the absolute worst thing that could happen.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

                          Usually, I want to give a new director the benefit of the doubt, but I gotta agree with you. Greengrass strikes me as the thinking man's director. Snyder..ah......well, I'm trying not to be TOO judgemental.

                          I don't want the film made at all, but if they have to make it, Greengrass would have been PERFECT!! You hear me? Perfect!!

                          For those of you not familiar with these two, go read their resumes and tell me which guy seems to have a better chance at making the film something worthwhile.

                          I gotta say though, some pretty spot on casting. I'm actualkly, very, very impressed.

                          Jackie haley!? That is some inspired casting. I was reading an article on him last year about him turning his life around and taking acting more seriously, etc. This could be pretty good. Of course a lot of the film may hinge on him.

                          Crudup as Manhatten? Nice. I think Crudup is one of the more underated actors in Hollywood. If he rbings the spaciness he showed in Jesus' Son coupled with his unsual intensity he can bring when needed...well, I could live with that casting choice, for sure.

                          I'm only familiar with Morgan from Supernatural. He LOOKS the part. I think he could bring the proper pathos of showing the glint of humanity under the badass.

                          I literally just watched Wilson in Hard Candy last weekend. Judging by the movie, solid actor, although I pictured someone different. Hopefully, he'll put on some weight and really play up the pudgy, average guy angle. I'm afraid he may be too good looking to portray the everyman he's supposed to be.

                          I really don't want them to make this movie and now seeing who's directing it, that little glimmer of hope that they make get it right is the tiniest of sparks now.

                          Thing is, how in the world can they possibly do the surprise ending? It's been given away already.
                          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

                            Normally, I would argue that I agree with both Gilliam and Greengrass as better choices for directors. I think the real shame here (other than Goode playing Oz) is that David Fincher isn't directing. Now HE would have been perfect.

                            Another good approach would have been an HBO 12 episode series. Look at the money that went into Deadwood and Rome. The right team could have pulled this off the right way.


                            But here's the rub: NONE of those guys got it done. NONE of them had enough clout to get the movie green lit in the right way. The studios thought they were making a summer comic book movie, and every time they were wrong. Can you imagine this movie without blood? Without a certain attempted rape? I mean, come on.

                            So what is the right way? Here are the greatest hits:

                            - Rated R. NOT NEGOTIABLE.

                            - Set in 1985.

                            - Saying f-u to "softening up" Rorschach.

                            - Placing a premium on actors with range.

                            - NO STARS.

                            - Directed by a complete fanboy who takes the task 100% seriously and someone who has a proven knack for successfully adapting works without gutting them.


                            I have to ask myself honestly: did I enjoy Snyder's other work? Well, I can honestly say that I could watch both Dawn of the Dead and 300 multiple times without getting bored.

                            Is he a subtle director? No. But here's where I disagree with most others: I don't think Watchmen is a subtle text. Not at all. It's in-your-face story telling, it's blunt in its subject matter, it's sequences are cinematic and dynamic. Just because it's psychological, intelligent and literary doesn't mean that it's SUBTLE. Frankly a director who is subtle could put me to sleep with this movie. This book is in technicolor, its violence is genuine, its characters are stark.

                            In the end, I think that Syder could be up to the task of making a decent movie based on Watchmen.

                            Am I holding my breath? I'm not crazy or stupid. It has a major chance of sucking. But Snyder so far has managed every hurdle with grace. i'll give him credit for that.
                            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Who Watches the Watchmen? 300 Director's next project: Alan Moore's Watchmen.

                              My question is can Moore be adapted to the big screen rather than who is directing it. It's just a hard story to adapt without having the pressures that come with the studios/mainstream audience.

                              As far as subtlety goes those films that Snyder did shouldn't have been subtle. Zombies and Frank Miller are pretty much right there. And I wouldn't call the quality that makes Moore hard to adapt subtlety. It's more like thoughtfulness/detailedness and a complete disregard for Hollywood storytelling structures and conventions.

                              Edit: I hope it doesn't suck. I'd love for it to be entertaining.
                              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X