[jla1987]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

I'll disagree with some of the above in a small way:

I think many people, myself included, like thought-provoking films.

I think many people don't necessarily like ponderous films. A point is reached when even the most intellectual viewers want a film to stop contemplating its own thematic navel, get up on its dramatic feet and take some action.

While WATCHMEN had moments of such dramatic action, I found it too ponderous too often for its own good. I think such an approached worked better in the graphic novel because of its format, and action keeps moving between panels and chapters. In the film, it came across as a lot of time spent on people deciding what they should do, and eventually getting around to doing it -- except for Rorschach who took action from the start, and that's why he was the best thing in the film.

Point well made! I certainly agree that the story is truly best in the original comic format, as the film seemed so long due to your aforementioned examples.

[FanWriter45]

It definitely seems to be a film that people either love, or hate... (I guess that's the nature of "art": everyone sees it differently.) Just like 2001, or any number of films that play with expectations or established genre...

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by jtrek79

well said,people dont want thought provoking films anymore,take for example the latest indiana jones,it was the crapiest movie of the century,yet it made 750 million dollars,if this is art then iam a god d***** chinaman

It's not just that they don't want thought provoking films. They want a film that "does what it's supposed to" (or what they think it's supposed to). If they go to a movie like "Being John Malkovich" they expect thought provoking, if they go to a movie that's advertised as an action packed superhero movie they expect to get it. It's sad reality that when a movie proves to give them more than they bargained for and they decide to refuse what's given to them. Indiana Jones 4 was like asking for prize steak and getting a fast food hamburger. Watchmen was like asking for fast food hamburger and getting the prize steak.

It's possible that both those movies simply are what they are and that the audience should accept it.

[MigueldaRican]

One thing is for sure, 2008 and going into this year was a year of either underappreciated movies or obviously disappointing, respectively depending on your opinion of the movies.

[jla1987]

Agreed. The most disappointing films of '08 IMO were Indy IV and The Day the Earth Stood Still (even though I didn't really have high hopes to begin with). For this year, Watchmen was what I thought it would be: a quite faithful adaption of the comics.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by jtrek79

thats it , the critics in my country , bashed it badly , they ll brobably do the same with star trek,critics-i hate them (after a fashion)

Don't hate them, just ignore them and form your own opinion!!

Originally Posted by jtrek79

well said,people dont want thought provoking films anymore,take for example the latest indiana jones,it was the crapiest movie of the century,yet it made 750 million dollars,if this is art then iam a god d***** chinaman

Were 1 - 3 thought provoking?

Originally Posted by jla1987

Yeah, the last Indy was good example of the lack of thought-provoking films these days. Of course, the series overall didn't have much logic to it...Indy IV just threw all realism out the window.

Originally Posted by jtrek79

isnt it strange how a movie like this managed to gather 750 million$
everything was utterly nonsense,a blind fat old woman with one leg could have written a better script.

never mind the lame indiana jones

i saw watchmen , and my god it was awesome, i dont know the comic,but i am sure i must had been terrific,i was so hasty and very wrong to judge it

And speaking of opinions - I must weigh in on the defence of Indy IV. It was no worse than Temple of Doom, but no Raiders or Crusade. I've seen plenty of more awful films this year aka the third Mummy flick. Now THAT was a piece of you-know-what!

[jla1987]

I agree. As soon as Indy IV was over, I told my father that it was the third best Indy movie.

[martok2112]

Personally, I don't go to see any movie for "thought provocation." If I want that, I'll read a book.

I go to a movie to escape. If it happens to provoke thought, then I'll think. But usually, I go in with the ol' bean set to "neutral".

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Personally, I don't go to see any movie for "thought provocation." If I want that, I'll read a book.

I go to a movie to escape. If it happens to provoke thought, then I'll think. But usually, I go in with the ol' bean set to "neutral".

That pretty much how I am too. I'm only in the mood for thinking if the picture is gonna be one that requires it. Perhaps the argument should have been less about lack of thought-provoking movies and more about how a lot of throwaway movies are made these days?

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

I'll disagree with some of the above in a small way:

I think many people, myself included, like thought-provoking films.

I think many people don't necessarily like ponderous films. A point is reached when even the most intellectual viewers want a film to stop contemplating its own thematic navel, get up on its dramatic feet and take some action.

While WATCHMEN had moments of such dramatic action, I found it too ponderous too often for its own good. I think such an approached worked better in the graphic novel because of its format, and action keeps moving between panels and chapters. In the film, it came across as a lot of time spent on people deciding what they should do, and eventually getting around to doing it -- except for Rorschach who took action from the start, and that's why he was the best thing in the film.

I concur.
Reminds me of Heros. But Heros does a bit more.