Cool News
First Design Work From Zack Snyder's SUCKER PUNCH??
Merrick here...
During Comic-Con, promotional T-shirts were circulated featuring (what I believe is) our first look at a design from SUCKER PUNCH.
This is Zack Snyder's forthcoming film, which features a predominantly female cast. It's about a girl who is sent to a mental institution, where she creates an alternate reality for herself which "helps her escape" (I'm not clear if "escape" is being used literally or figuratively). Snyder once described this project as "ALICE IN WONDERLAND with machine guns."
Deadline Hollywood Daily nabbed one of the shirts and posted an image; CLICK THE THUMBNAIL to see a fuller, more detailed version.
-
+ Expand All
-
it's a bunch of feminist bullshit like the last season of Buffy. I'm not spending money to see a bunch of bimbos shoot up the big bad men who imprison them.
-
"And you guys think I'm gay?"
-
He's trying to prove he's not gay by casting women
-
Until then, I'll pass.
-
not very good coverage of comic con... i was expecting heaps of updates and articles and photos and interviews and shit.
-
Yeah, it was pretty bad. I got all my updates from other sites. Joblo.com did a decent job as did IGN and various others.
-
If you like this, check out his art at eyesuckink.blogspot.com and google the trailer for his animated film CHADAM
-
When is he going to make Watchmen 2 damnit! FINISH THE STORY!
-
He's made 3 good movies since then. Get over it. I'm starting to wonder if most of the hate directed against this guy is due to his name "...Duurrr, no good director could be called Zack, could dey George? And will you show me the wabbits again George..? Huh? Will ya??". It has to be something like that because normally when I see comments from people decrying a certain directors entire body of work, even if I don't agree with such a total negative assessment, I can at least see where people are coming from. With Snyder, really don't see it. DotD 2004 was at least 100 times better than any remake of Romero's had any right to be. 300 was pure popcorn visual lunacy, and brilliant entertainment. Watchmen was as close an adaption of the comics as we could ever have hoped for, realistically, and was a superb achievement, minor foibles aside. I mean really, rbatty - there's genuine dislike and then there's trying to be trendy by having a go at someone. Seems to me most people are slagging him retrospectively simply because he got hold of Watchmen - and I have a feeling half of the hatred directed at him for Watchmen comes from douchebags who've never even read the book trying to sound hip on message boards complaining about deviations from the GN as compared to what they read on Wiki. Snyder isn't perfect, he's certainly not a GREAT director yet. But he's definately a good one with a lot of potential. This new film sounds like he's trying something pretty different to what we've seen from him so far - something the sheep on the talkbacks spouting anti-Snyder rhetoric have been saying is what he needs to do - so it'll be interesting seeing how different it genuinely is. If it's really a departure in material, it'll be fun watching the talkbacks on this movie over the coming months as the twats gloss over that demand now met for the next petty argument for their stance. If it's a shit film, I'll be happy to chime in how disappointed I am, but until then I'll be positive - he's 3 for 3 so far in my book so at the moment he has earned a bit of support.
-
Because we asked for it!
-
. . . knocks this outta the park and shuts up a bunch of hatin' douche bags.
-
Jul 27, 2009 12:14:46 PM CDT
Diablo Cody not involved? How will we get witty female reparte?
by yackbacker
Only Cody writes the word "vag" with any conviction. All other "vages" are pretenders to the throne.
-
you're off your nut with this one."300 was pure popcorn visual lunacy, and brilliant entertainment." That's meaningless. You ought to write blurbs for posters."Watchmen was as close an adaption of the comics as we could ever have hoped for, realistically," is also meaningless because you can't possibly prove it. WATCHMEN by Snyder is the movie we got, but you can't possibly know what movie we could have had or whether or not it would've been better, worse, faithful or not. You can't use something that exists in comparison to something that doesn't.The "hate" on Zack Snyder is in direct proportion with the "hype." He calls himself "visionary," for fuck's sake. He's competent for making the kind of junk he makes, but some would say the same thing about Michael Bay. The world needs less of Zack Snyder, not more.
-
Revolutionary" "change the the way people see movie forever" "epic masterpiece" "like dreaming with your eyes open" "this generations Stars Wars"
-
I thought his Dawn remake was really good. 300 was a pretty piece of shit. I can't stand these movies that are just non-stop action with no story or character development. Watching people get stabbed with a spear in slow motion over and over again gets pretty boring if you are above the age of 13. Haven't seen Watchmen yet, knowing nothing about the source material, I expect to judge it solely as a film. The guy has a definite visual style, but needs to tell a story with a little more substance.
-
Jul 27, 2009 12:55:09 PM CDT
Wake me up when any of YOU make a better film than Snyder.
by knowthyself
Which will probably be never.
-
Check out the movie Inside (not the french one). It stars the girl from Gossip Girl and the dude from Election. It was directed by a Talker backer.
-
Was actually a pretty good film. Its a lot different then a comic book movie. Its hard to compare. Its a horror movie, but a much different sort of horror movie. More in the vien of Hitchcock rather then J-horror remake. Its worth a look if you think we are all idiots...though here you are with all of us.
-
He's good looking. He's got some muscles on him. He didnt start with an original IP. His wife is a good looking producer. He's living his dream. They are not. He caters to both male and female viewers. Maybe if he was a fat guy they'd like him.
-
I said you'd never make a better film than Snyder.
-
my like or dislike of the director. I judge films on the basis of the film. like I said, Snyder's done some good work, some not so good.
-
for the next as the director of a Batman film. I can tell..I have a feeling he'll helm the next re-invention of the morose vigilante. Or if Nolan doesn't return, he's taking over. -
What's not to like? Great action. Decent acting. Great visuals. And Gerard as Leonidas is too fun for words.
-
Thought so anyway.
-
No story. Cardboard characters. repetitive action scenes. Boring. Boring. Boring.
-
Well why don't you just watch the movie? And I actually like Synders works. I was glad the Watchmen was better then its trailer unlike 300. Plus I'm pretty sure I got more muscle then him, I don't know where you got that he's got some muscles on him from? I guess because he isn't a complete fat ass director? You been peeping on him?
-
Its pretty clear that he works out.
-
Its an action movie. I dunno how much story you need. Shoot em Up has no story. Great action flick.
-
"adaptation" of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS sometime before the next decade ends. And it will look exactly like the pages of the comic book. And everyone will wonder why they ever wished it to be filmed in the first place.
-
It's called marketing, dipshit. Do you really think he goes around, "Hello, I'm Zack Snyder, visionary director of 300." Fuck man, use some sense. I've never seen one interview or soundbite that indicates he even has a hint of a bloated ego. Since you seem to know him so well, I'm assuming you can produce the evidence to back up the oft-repeated (by clueless talkbackers and other internet lemmings) claims that Snyder is a raging egomaniac.
-
Of course he does. That's what forty-year-old closeted homosexuals do. They work out, and they hang with younger dudes and say "bro" a lot.
-
Who cares if he's gay or not? Does that really matter? Does it bother you?
-
Unless I actually care about what's going on or have a rooting interst in the characters fates, action movies are pretty dull. I would have liked 300 if I saw it when I was 13. At the age of 38, I find it uninteresting. Just my humble opinion. same with horror movies. I love them but if you don't care what happens to the characters and there is no suspense or tension, they are useless. gore for gore's sake does not make a great horror movie as great action doesn't neccessarily make a great action movie.
-
And he's absolutely embarrassed that they put it on his posters above the title of the movie. Just completely ashamed.
-
You're like a jilted lover when it comes to Zack Snyder. Every article about him and his films, you pop up in the talkbacks to share your "insight" on him. It's a bit strange. I hate Kevin Smith and his horrible shitty "movies," but when I see an article about him, I ignore it. I don't understand the talkbacker compulsion to obsessively comment on directors and projects you hate. Must be a sad life you types lead.
-
The look, style, and tone of his films are very unique and deliberate. After just three films he's already got a signature style. And adapting Watchmen takes a lot of vision. Considering how "unfilmable" they said it was supposed to be.
-
Is fucking god awful. That is not a good movie. Its boring as shit.
-
As long as I see cool shit happening I'm happy. Its just an action movie. *shrug*
-
Much to the man's credits, he had three good films in a row. I can't say that for PWSA, Emmerich,Rodriquez or Bay.Sure they are adaptations from the original source material (I.E. 300, Watchmen.) but the pacing,action and being as faithful to the IPs as much as possible, gives Snyder the "Seal of approval".I'm sure Sucker Punch will be a sucess.
-
Which is not a bad thing per se.
-
You're still bitter over finding out that the Archie flamethrower bit in Watchmen wasn't a "fart joke" aren't you? Christ, you must have felt pretty fucking stupid, being a self-professed "fan" of the book for so long. All those times you read Watchmen, you thought the flamethrower gag represented a fart. That's hilarious.
(Okay, this is when you cover up with some "clever" retort about having an orgasm and farting after sex, before disappearing from the talkback. At least, that's what you've done the last couple times I brought it up.) -
But Shoot'em Up just doesn't do it for me. It was slow and action was weak it wasn't as bad ass as it thought. I love the Transporter movies, even the 3rd one. I think it comes down to the fact that I don't like Clive Owen. I don't buy him as an action star, he doesn't look like he could fight his way out of a box. Same with Damon and the Boring Trilogies.
-
Surely you can't use kevin Smith as any comparison to Snyder as Smith's movies have been nothing but shitfests.Dogma, good concept but piss poor execution.It's no wonder why his Death of Superman script never got off the ground.Even Paul Weasel Shit Anderson laughs at him. I can't understand the Snyder hate either, all I can say is that the boy delivers when it comes to Movies based on Intellectual Properties.DOTD Remake has F'd TW!
-
Only way it could have been better was if Big Lob was in it.
-
Now that is a fun, over-the-top crazy action flick. How can you not love a movie where the main character casually blows a guy's head off while holding a little girl with his other arm?
-
He fucking punches a hole in a guys head with his fist. Punisher is the movie Shoot'em Up thinks it is.
-
Yeah, they're not even close. The fact that Smith has a fan following of any kind boggles my mind, but I have friends who love his movies and think he's hilarious. Still, if people like his shit, more power to them. I'm not going to go into every Kevin Smith talkback that comes up and repeat the same comments over and over again, like the anti-Snyder brigade. I just don't understand that mentality.
-
since Liongate's last one flopped lower than Whale shit. But it was unapologetic,brutal and more canon than both Pun films.(That scene with Mircochip's Mother was pretty fucked up.)And yes, some chick directed the damn thing which is 3 times better than (Thomas)Jane's version or Shoot em up for that matter.
-
..Smith acts a bit too cocky and thinks that his excessive use of F-Bombs makes him funny or relevant. Sorry, but anyone who would say (during an interview with Wizard Magazine) that he doesn't see what's the big deal with Jack Kirby deserves to get trashed on every fanboy site.Oh, and did I mention how shitty and unfunny his Movies were/are?*cough*Clerks 2*cough*
-
I like what I'm hearing, gents. I'll track it down this week.
-
.....respectfully, I'd say it's you that's way off base here. Of course 'his' version of Watchmen is what we got - but really, think objectively for a minute and ask yourself this - how many other directors would have ever taken this on? And of those you think would, how many would have altered the story to make it more marketable? And of those who would have altered it to ease their pressures from the studio, how many would have made WORSE decisions? Face it - Snyder fought hard for the movie - that buzz was coming out of the set from day one. That film, MINOR changes aside, was indeed Watchmen and NOT some bastardised version of the books. Yeah, he put his visual style into it - that's what directors do - and he succeeded in putting on film, very faithfully, a book that for years no-one thought was filmable. Well he did it. That it wasn't the kind of material Joe Public want to watch while slurping down twelve hotdogs and texting their buddies about "OMG! How F4kng c00l wz tht spolsi0n!" was hardly his fault. It was indeed, I firmly believe, as faithful a version as we would have ever got from any other director you care to mention. Beyond that, you make aspersions on my making such a comment which to you is entirely subjective to my taste, yet you blatantly state to others that the guy is an egomaniac - from what evidence? I also, along with others who've already posted on this, have never seen a hint of Bay-esque meglomania from him. Accounts of his dealing with fans have been positive. Haven't heard any iffy stories about the guy. But apparently, according to you due to a marketing tagline on the cover of one of his dvd's he is an egomaniacal closeted homosexual. Well, it's a theory, I'll give you that. Not one rooted in any known fact so far, but hey ho. For whatever reason, you've decided to write him off and fair play to you, it's your choice. It seems however from your comments to be based on some illogical fantasy idea you have about the guy, rather than on the movies themselves or his behaviour in public. I mean, let's be honest - what has the guy done to deserve your ire? He's made a success, and a decent movie to boot, out of what would have otherwise been a bargain bin rip-off of DotD; he made a successful adaptation of a well-loved GN with 300; he made a faithful adaption of an absolutely beloved GN with Watchmen, fighting his corner to keep it as faithful as he could - the MAIN demand of 'fans' through the years prior to it finally getting made. He's never acted like a jerk in public, is never bitchy about other directors or projects, and has evident enthusiasm for what he's doing. I mean, obviously the guy must be a jerk, and a gay one at that!.... It's obvious now you come to think about it.......Sub, give me a break. Did the guy run over your cat or something?
-
I think is the thing all of us want to be. A fat and lazy slob who gets to make movies. I like Smith, I like Snyder as well. Though I think Smith tiptoeing around why he's never made a comic book movie is probably because they are hard to make. Also take time and work....something that he probably does not want to do.
-
I liked DOTD remake and Watchmen, but didnt like 300 at all.
Snyders ok by me so far, though I think he should ease up on the slow motion. -
Transporter. 300. Shoot Em Up. PWZ. I like them all. Shoot Em Up was very over the top.
-
He's a terrible director. Thats why he doesn't want to make movies that require more than just a static camera on long winded comedic dialogue. Love his movies though. They're funny and appeal to the geek in me.
-
I thought Shoot em up was intended to be an homage to Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd cartoons. There was no tether to reality. I am interested in Punisher but I thought her previous directorial effort Green Street Hooligans was really poor considering a great story/idea and some talented actors.
-
I basically agree with Stalkeye and Hint_of_Smegma. Synder doesnt seem like a egomaniac at all. And Ill take 1000 of his movies over the JarJar Abrams, Apatows garbage, Michael Bays,overthehill Smith, Tim Burtons(whos made maybe 3 decent movies his whole career)Ron Howard, M Nights(god this guy SUCKS) and 99% of other filmmakers out there.
-
Just tried to hard. Like banging me over the head about how CRAZY it is, look he grows his own carrots! Look they are having sex and shooting! LOOK LOOK! I just looked I thought it was PG-13 but I guess it was an R? It was just lame.
-
I don't blame him, he's still a great interview and interesting guy but since Chasing Amy it has been a downward spiral (except Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, that shit is pretty funny)
-
Yeah I was expecting a lot more from this movie. Especially since it was Heath Ledgers replacement's first real movie. But it just wasn't as good as I thought it would be, awesome ending though.
-
It was trying to hard to be some sort of Fight Club wannabe.
-
There are alot of directors to hate Ratner and Paul WS Anderson pop to mind as the worst offenders, but to group Abrams, Snyder, QT, Bay, or even McG into the category of unrepentent hacks is a bit much.
-
That movie is funny as fuck, and his only full movie.
-
The scene with the Neon sign (Fuck u)adding that Foo Fighters song; She said and of course...Monicaaaa. Damn, she would have made the perfect Baroness if cast..then again I have a feeling that GI Joe will suck just like Shoot 'em up did.
-
Perfect example of why Shoot'em up was just so lame. Foo Fighters were ok back during the Color and the Shape, now (one of these things is not like the other?) and crap like that they just suck. They are a lame/bland rock band. Just like Shoot'em Up, instead of going all the way they stoped and thought they had done enough to be cool.
-
Subtitles_Off disappears from the talkback when his fantasy-based opinions are challenged by reality. Classic.
Cool to see War Zone getting some love here. Ray Stevenson was perfect, and from the interviews I've seen it sounds like he took the character and the franchise pretty seriously. I hope there will be another Punisher with him in it, even if it's direct to DVD. Very underrated actor; he was great in Rome too. -
I would wholeheartedly welcome a Zack Snyder Dark Knight Returns panel for panel adaptation starring Sylvester Stallone as Batman and Depp as The Joker.
-
he simply looked at it.
-
Watchmen detractors spout this "Snyder didn't get it" line, but never explain what they mean. Or they come up with some ridiculous minutiae, like not including the banter between the lesbian couple at the newsstand, or the absence of the squid. Having seen the director's cut, can you explain exactly why you believe that Snyder "didn't get" Watchmen?
-
is how he chose to put nite owl outside with doc and rorschach instead of him and laurie crying over the pool in veidt's mansion and she says he smells like nostalgia. he has to have nite owl do that stupid "noo" scream to illustrate (redundantly, idiotically) how callous "one more body amongst foundations makes little difference". the fact that nite owl and laurie/silk do not have the strength to handle the complications of this world (which is also a reason for the suit fetish which wasn't explored very well either), is also reflected by doc's saying "i'll leave this galaxy for one less complicated" and veidt wondering "if in the end" he was right...is what i thought one of the more invigorating aspects of the watchmen, which was, that what motivates most "masks" is a sort of base or corrupted/ reductive worldview--and how "time" fits into this, nostalgia etc etc. the film didn't seem to have that edge, that philosophical tug that the book had. i thought the title sequence with bobby d. playing was brilliant and there were flashes of goodness in the film. but it couldn't sustain that brilliance. by trying to look like the comic instead of actually dealing with it and reinventing it, was a misstep. someone with a lot of confidence could have dealt with the material in a less "this is sacred, has to be shot per panel" kind of way. and doing the movie by panel didn't translate or give due to how revolutionary the panel work was and how it worked in conjunction "manhattan's time theory stuff in the first place. it's confusing and subjective. i understand. and since the film wasn't horrible but it missed a lot, and in a few places the score, that shitty electric guitar was cheesy, and malin akkerman or whoever's performance was so terrible. i just thought the movie failed. i really think it could've been great. but it needed to be explored and worked on. not just adpated. and veidt's casting was terrible too. it's like snyder thought that he had to visually represent the world's smartest man and therefore made himlook like a nerd when in fact veidt was a total badass and an Alexandrian figure, both strong and intelligent. synder couldn't do both. veidt had to "look" smart. and that inability to do both was hurt the film in the end.
-
A-FUCKING-MEN. There was a great film bubbling under the surface that got smothered by a need to faithfully recreate every image in the book. And then they go ahead and leave out the greatest image in the entire thing, The carnage shot after the squiddy does its thing. Fucking beautifully horrific and something that needed to be shown. Im sorry dude but just watching buildings crumble is not nearly as impactful as seeing the human toll that results. Also, by not showing that you lessen the blow of Rorshach's sacrifice, which by the way is one of the most noble and hardcore acts any anti-hero has ever commited. Film or literature. All in all its a good film just not the great one it needed to be. This generation is in desperate need of smart, challenging films. They are far to few anymore.
-
is a pretentious hater
-
Considering I'm the one who mentioned the lesbian couple, I assume you're talking about me. But you totally misrepresent my point, as you did my point about the squid. The squid was horrific, and showing the bodies heightened the imapact in a way that mushroom clouds did not. As for the lesbians, they were just one example of characters who meant more to Moore's vision of the story than making sure the angle of Rorschach's ascent to the Comedian's apartment was exact. I'm too tired to argue, but I think calling Snyder a visionary is an insult to real visionary directors.
-
You've just been too pigheaded to actuaally pay attention. The guy is at best a visually talented director who, yes, doesn't get the subtleties of what makes a good story.
-
And that sounds much cooler than a mental institution, I can see this going horribly awry.
-
You might never wake up.
-
Truer words have never been said before.
-
The "make a better movie or shut up" or "you cna only criticise if you can make movies" arguments have been debunked since 1998. Keep up with the times.
-
What of the two Archie's flamethrower scenes are you talking about? The one in the lair, or the one during the sex scene? And neither could be mistake as farts. At least, nobody in the audience i was with took it that way, because, like, it's beyond obvious what the later flamethrower scene implies. Though the fact the movie they made Laurie a non-smoker turned her into quite a bimbo for pressing he flame button. At least in the comic, as she was a smoker, she took that for the lighter, she had motivation for her mistake.
-
Changing the entire ending of the comic is in no way a MINOR change.
Having Doctor Manhatten unwittingly help to frame himself was ridiculously contrived. He should have been smarter than that.
Can anyone really say that that ending was better than the bioengineered alien from the comics?
Additionally, having Veidt sound like a James Bond villian made it pretty obvious that he was the bad guy right from the jump off.
The only parts of that movie that I liked were the opening credits and a couple of the fight scenes.
I didn't care much for 300, but the Dawn of the Dead remake kicked ass. -
Her Her!
-
at IMDB to see just how bad it could have been. and then stop whining
-
@maitlanr: I respect your point of view, but I fail to see how Dan and Laurie slinking off to the jacuzzi to fuck is any better. That (and the squid ending) irked me in the book - I got why Moore did it, but it didn't really make sense and would be pretty stupid on screen. As for the rest of your complaints, it seems you're faulting Snyder for not filming your personal interpretation of Watchmen, which is a pity because he got so many of the core themes and ideas from the book into the film. How could he have possibly done more with the costume fetish than he did with Dan's dream and subsequent nude scene in the Owl Chamber, and the sex scenes? People complain that subtlety is a lost art, but you're complaining that Snyder didn't beat us over the head with the costume fetish. I think he got the concept over pretty well. It's also laughable that you suggest Snyder should have "reinvented" the source material, when anything that he did "reinvent" in the film has been criticized by you and the anti-Snyder brigade. I don't think there was anything he could have done to please some of you.
@Stan Grossman: I thought seeing the Bernies and the psychiatrist and the other bystanders get obliterated was fairly impactful. I would have liked to see everyone blown apart like Manhattan does to the gangsters and the Vietcong, covering the streets in gore, rather than the blue energy ball but it's not a big deal. A reasonable person doesn't need to see piles of bloody corpses to understand the moral ambiguity of the ending, and those themes are more important to Watchmen than dead bodies or fake alien squids. The fact that Snyder fought to keep the main jist of the book's ending and have the audience confronted with these questions should be appreciated. The 2003 screenplay had a more villainous Ozy, who used a "solar death ray" to enact his master plan and was killed in the end by Dan so we could get the typical superhero-movie happy ending. Snyder is the one who had the script re-written because he already knew the material wasn't your typical superhero movie.
@AsimovLives: Subtitles_Off thought that the flamethrower gag after the Owlship sex scene was a "fart joke" and used that as a criticism against the movie in a previous talkback, and I'll never let him forget it. Laurie was no rocket scientist in the book either; she did smoke, after all.
@TheFetus: I will say it - the film's ending is superior to the book's ending. How is Adrian framing Manhattan any more "contrived" than a genetically engineered dead space squid killing half of New York City with psychic shockwaves? You want to talk about "contrived", why would the world suddenly unite because one dead alien squid appeared in NYC? The USSR would never believe it and quickly resume their plans for world domination. Why would they care about NYC? The film's ending plays on the idea of Jon as God, which is much more effective. The world already knows what he's capable of and now he's pissed at them, Old Testament style, so the idea that everybody would lay down their arms for world peace is more realistic. I love Dan's line after Laurie asks if he thinks peace will last: "As long as they think Jon's still watching." That's some smart stuff there, a bit of a commentary on religion, if you want to admit it or not. -
Five years ago... hell, even two years ago... did it ever occur to anyone that we'd see a film adaptation of Watchmen described as "too slavish" and that this faithfulness would be used as a criticism? Kinda funny when you think about it.
-
To me he is all style and no substance. But he obviously hits the right buttons with some people. To each there own.
Except for The Warriors and Vice Squad. You don't like those you deserve to die of painful rectal cancer. -
His movies have so far enthralled me from beginning to end. I will watch anything that comes of his visionary direction. Especially a Warriors remake. Imagine how awesome that would be!
-
too bad it sounds derivative, I almost gave a shit.
-
....were the fight scenes. The complaints above about the movie are ridiculous.A film isnt a comic book. You have to do your best to adapt the material. Ive said this over and over when people do nothing but bitch about comic book films and how this and that arent like the books. No the movie isnt perfect and yes it has some issues, but its a good adaptation. And yes, I understand the material - Ive prob read it 10 times in the past 20 years.Id actually place the Dir Cut pretty high up there as far as comic book films go. Hell Id rather watch Watchmen than Iron Man, which everyone seemed to thing was so fucking great despite Downeys shitty performance.
-
And punching through drywall is pretty easy to do if you get off your ass and exercise every once in awhile.
-
It's a cool shirt. I'm not as impressed by the face as I am by the rest of the drawing. I'd like to have the time to look at that closer and see what's going on in her hair. The artist, Alex Pardee, is the artist who created the block head characters for The Used album artwork. You can look at his website, his stuff is pretty awesome. I don't know him, I have no affiliation with the film, but it seems, that maybe Snyder is having Pardee turn the script into a comic at the same time he makes the movie. Or maybe it'll be like Southland Tales and have prequel comics. We shall see.
-
It's a cool shirt. I'm not as impressed by the face as I am by the rest of the drawing. I'd like to have the time to look at that closer and see what's going on in her hair. The artist, Alex Pardee, is the artist who created the block head characters for The Used album artwork. You can look at his website, his stuff is pretty awesome. I don't know him, I have no affiliation with the film, but it seems, that maybe Snyder is having Pardee turn the script into a comic at the same time he makes the movie. Or maybe it'll be like Southland Tales and have prequel comics. We shall see.
-
Just saying.
-
But apparently that's not what we're talking about. Funny how that works.
-
You can't state an opinion and following it with "just saying," that statement is meaningless there. You're supposed to say that when you state an actual fact. You might as well just add the words "what I'm saying is objectively correct" to everything you say.
-
I thought it was called Inception?
-
enjoyed the g.n. Is the movie even worth it? 90% of ppl told me it sucked.
-
..a reference to ejaculation post sex scene. As Nite owl previously could not "get it up" while trying to fuck Silk Spectre..now fast forward to the Owl ship sex scene with the annoying song "hallelujah" in the background and there you have it.The Movie will be noted as having one of the best opening sequences ever and I love how they added Jimi Hendrix's All along the Watchtower song as the Owl and Rorshach was on their way to stop Ozy. Very underrated adaptation and yes, the explosion beats out the squid in so many ways. Framing Dr. Manhattan to unify the world was better than some giant squid just lying there atop dead bodies.Sorry, but IMO Hayter (who wrote the screenplay) beat out Moore with that little twist.
-
Pathetic.
-
Jul 28, 2009 10:47:53 AM CDT
I love how this site never writes one original article
by glory_fades_immaxfischer
All Merrick does is troll other sites, and repost other stories here. You can't even be considered a fucking blogger. You get paid to just repost other peoples shit. OOOO let me just link to other sites and stories and just paste a link..my work's done for the day.
-
Because it expects him to be a) human enough to care about the fate of the world and yet b) impartial enough not to care that he's taking the blame. It doesn't work.
The alien invasion/psychic wave angle stretched the believability on a science/technology level, but Manhattan going along with being framed stretched the believability of the characters. There's a BIG difference.
As for "why would the Soviets care about NYC," 9/11 made everyone sympathetic with the US, at least until Bush invaded Iraq. -
Its a comic book. Pretty easy to understand. Pretty straight forward little story Moore wrote. Even has pictures to help you along. There's nothing to get. It's all there. If you watch Maximum Movie mode and listen to Snyder explain parts of the film you'll see that he was trying for a lot more than you give him credit for.
-
He doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks of him so of course he's likely to go along with it because he doesn't give a rats ass what humans think about him. The humans don't know he was detached and uncaring. For all they know, he judged them and will now expect them to play nice or else.
-
The number one complaint about a possible Watchmen adaptation was the inevitable unfaithful approach we all expected Hollywood tao take on the project. When by some miracle it IS faithful...they find something else to bitch about. Hilarious.
-
Manhattan taking the blame makes perfect sense - more than the squid ending from the books. The whole point of Veidt framing him uses both Manhattan's increasing distance from humanity, and his last threads of human connection and empathy against him. The government itself is keeping tabs on and monitoring his increasing disconnection from human affairs. His relationship with Silk Spectre II is dying due to it. And Veidt uses the last bit of his empathy for humans to get rid of him, by making him think he's killing his friends inadvertently. When Manhattan finds out, his own intellect and his ability to look at the larger situation is what leads him to take the blame. At the end of the day, he doesn't care what anyone thinks of him anymore, but his remaining small connection to the world through Laurie and Dan enables him to see that though monstrous, Veidt's plan worked and is at that point worth sustaining to continue the belief in humans that he was responsible. Becoming the image of a vengeful 'god' enables humanity to back away from the brink of destruction, and at the end of the day it costs Manhattan nothing. So to me, it's a much, much more believable ending than the one from the book - because with all that evidence of a huge bio-engineered alien corpse sitting in downtown New York, you'd think there would be a lot of chances that the scientists examining the thing would be able to figure out it indeed wasn't from outer space after all. Plus, it's a one sided attack - and the Russians would have been very sceptical to say the least. What is in it for them to back down at that point? Nothing, really. With everyone thinking Doc Manhattan had just vapourised sizable sections of cities all over the planet to make humanity shit the bed, you'd think everyone would be a lot more willing to believe it was exactly what it appeared to be. While I don't think the movie was a masterpiece, it was very very good - and the ending is one thing I think Snyder made a lot better than the book.
-
The movie ending was damn good, but the likely hood of their being peace of Earth is at a minimum. Because the whole world would probably blame America for Dr. Manhattan's action, since he is an American.
Moore's ending was perfect, because the attack came from an outside source. Anybody who thinks Moore's ending doesn't make sense, is a moron. -
I'm there.
-
Sometimes, i feel compelled to explain the whys and whatnot of certian films that I often defend.
Sometimes, it's somewhat frustrating to convince the skeptics otherwise.(regardless of spoonfeeding the answers to them.)But yes, the "Manhattan Incident" far outweighs the Squid smackdown not to mention that it's a more credible scenario as you have further detailed. -
Again, I ask: he's supposed to be so detatched that he doesn't care, and yet care enough about humans that he'll go along with the plan? That was the whole point of the Mars scenes with Laurie, to bring him back into humanity.
-
It's faithful in ways that show a total lack of imagination. And don't get me wrong. I have nothing personal against Snyder, and I wanted badly to like this. But the movie (for me) died onscreen. It had no life or originality of its own.
-
" The whole point of Veidt framing him uses both Manhattan's increasing distance from humanity, and his last threads of human connection and empathy against him. " That's exactly why it DOESN'T work. And you are seriously saying that the Russians wouldn't be scared absolutely shitless by an alien attack? Sure thing. Framing Manhattan was both incredibly risky (essentially asking a god to take the blame) and frankly silly. It didn't work FOR ME, and for a lot of people. Just accept it. Nothing personal against Snyder, I'm sure he's a nice guy, I just did NOT like his movie full stop, and nothing you can do can change that.
-
it was generic.let's blame the Aliens so that the World can unify.Yeah, and as HoS mentioned, what if scientists further analyed the "alien" only to find out that it was Bio engineered? America will be under further scrutiny. Ergo Evalgelion, your theory about Manhattan really holds no water. The result is the same NYC was under attack by the good "Dr." or the Squid which one is eaiser to prove as a cover up?hmmmm? All I know is that the planned buildup of making a pariah out of Dr. M (using talcyons,killing off his loved ones via cancer causing elements and the press coverage) made more sense than Moore's explanation.oh, and another gripe i had with the source material (Graphic Novel) would be Dan and Laurie screwing soon after Rorschach was "sacrificed".Snyder's take was more humane as Ror was a friend of Dan's and in rage of witnessing his friend's death, Dan lashed out at Veidt/Ozy and walked away leaving Ozy with that uncertain feeling, if he had did the right thing and the scacrifices behind his master plan.I'm so sticking with Snyder's interpetation and there's nothing anyone can say that will change THAT.
-
You fail to mention if the "new" ending lessens the blow of Rorshach's demise, which was the real crux of my argument. He is the true hero of the watchmen. Everyone else seems in it only to serve themselves, while Rorshach genuinely seems to care that the world around him has gone to hell in a handbasket. Also, I guess its ok to show Owl and spectre snapping arms in half and stabbing people in the neck with large knives but not ok to show the aftermath of 25 million people getting microwaved. You know, the event that the entire film leads up to. Everyone just seems ok with it, except that is for our boy Ror.
-
I'd like to say that I do indeed love the ending to the book - it was a huge shock the first time I read the comics, and it's a great plot device on re-reads that holds up well - in the comic book medium. I firmly do not believe however, that it would have held up onscreen as it requires a greater level of suspension of disbelief in the more 'realistic' medium of the movie. One of the main gripes I think that come out of comic book adaption movies is that they simply don't translate very well from the book to the page, and in that regard I can see why Snyder chose the route of using Veidt framing Manhattan. In terms of the film, I think it works wonderfully - it's more grounded, it's certainly more believable as a plot device and it adds extra pathos for Manhattan finally leaving the world of man. Veidt uses every part of Manhattan's being against him - and Manhattan has no option, in terms of remembering his humanity thanks to Laurie, to go along with the plan - and doing so is of no harm to him anyway. The idea of a single event happening in New York, the Squid, causing both America and Russia to back down just doesn't hold, realistically. Why would Russia give a shit? Yeah, if they had credible intelligence that said it was an alien creature, they'd be scared - but more than likely with the anti-American mindset, they'd see the attack on New York (and no attack against them) as confirmation that even aliens hated the Americans. There's no genuine reason for Russia to back down and suddenly become allies unless they had also been attacked. With Manhattan framed as the 'vengeful father' you have cities all over the world being attacked, by an immediately believable threat who has even attacked his own homeland. That's a darn site more believable in terms of all the opposing factions backing down like children who've just had a spank. Manhattan himself sees in both versions that to expose Veidt would destroy the sudden peace - and in both versions, he's at the point of not wanting humanity destroyed thanks to Laurie and Dan, but he still doesn't have any cares about the rest of humanity hating - or fearing - him. So as he wanted to be away from Earth anyway, him leaving in either the book or the film without condemning Veidt makes perfect sense. And Stan Grossman, I disagree that the ending lessens Rorschach's death - his death is still the shock of the right being wrong, the wrong being right. Rorschach is a nutjob, no doubt, but he's the only person in the story with a definate sense of right and wrong. (The one thing I don't like in the movie is his hacking the pedophile to death - it lessens his 'moral standpoint' compared to the books, where he punishes the man with a grisly chance to survive) But even though he has this moral code, he is still wrong come the end of the film and Manhattan knows it. Veidt's plan was monstrous, and if they could have prevented it, that would have been one thing - but failing to do so, as it had actually happened they had nothing to achieve by exposing it other than putting Earth right back into danger. He was right in his view of Veidt as a criminal, but completely wrong at that point to go off on a quest to expose it. Manhattan knew that, hence Rorshach's subsequent vaporisation. Moral codes are all well and good, but the destruction of all life on Earth weighed against exposing a heinous crime that actually saved the planet, well, it's not even a choice.
-
It doesn't take getting off your ass and exercising to punch through drywall; even a child could make a hole in a plain sheet of gypsum. Perhaps you should get off your ass and figure out how walls are actually constructed because I'd love to see you try to punch through the corner of a wall as shown in the movie. Here's a hint: drywall doesn't just float in midair, it's attached to something very hard.
-
I completely agree. Strange how some viewers seem to believe that nations would blame America for Dr. Manhattan. Do nations view terrorists as specific nationalities or as individual terror cells? When they target other countries as well as their own, they seem to be hunted as enemies of humanity, not as a citizen of any specific nation.
-
..HE BOMBS CITIES ALL OVER THE WORLD.
-
After 300 and Watchmen, it's become Zach's film-making "signature".
-
Damn You Michael Bay
-
This guy is back?
-
You could have solved the problem by having an alien attack on Russia as well without wrecking the ending. But blaming Manhattan DOES wreck the ending, because it requires him to be, as I said before, a) so detatched from humanity that he wouldn't care about being blamed and yet b) so attatched to humanity that he feels them worth saving. Being blamed and Veidt trying to kill him could have easily sent him over the top the other way.
-
don't extend my argument into areas it didn't veer bc i say that the fetish aspect of the suits /masks wasn't explored well doesn't mean that i think it wasn't explored...nor does that mean that i want it explored in as noisy/ obvious a fashion as possible (like the film did with "hallelujah" playing while nite finally got one off). again. i'm not saying watchmen is an abortion (not like malin akkerman was--she was fucking awful partial birth style). i'm saying it's a failure. it strove and it missed. in my mind, that makes it at the very least worthy of a nod of my head. i agree with whoever when they said it was dead on the screen, and frustrating... it was like the good movie was underneath struggling to get out. but since i'm a hater, my points lack validity. but if you re-read my cursory post once more, i think my initial warbling between "faith" and "faithlessness" were pretty nuanced. i was not asking for one or the other so much as a sort of harmony between the two. i'm not being entirely unreasonable in that demand though i know it smacks of insufferable negativity. to someone else, simply making "nite owl" more humane doesn't necessarily mean he's improving upon the character. nite owl is a pretty damn interesting character per the comic and just having him be a plain old fashioned good boy in the movie is a mistake. nor is said transformation simply accomplished by him screaming a super cliche "noo" as rorschach dies and then silly slapping a terribly cast veidt for further show of emotion. it doesn't really add a whole lot of humanistic value to his character when said humanity comes through via a cliche. form without content; to me, it just sounded like he was exercising his vocal chords. again, just to summarize my point, i would've like to see watchmen opened up. i disagreed with taking some of moore's super questionable dialogue verbatim (the city screams like an abattoir of retarded children comes to mind) and panels and then curiously leaving other aspects out. he couldn't do it both ways--but for a second i thought he could because that opening fight with the comedian was sweet and i didn't care that it wasn't "by the book" per se. but after awhile i became confused and had to ask, why would he strive for so much fidelity when he wasn't going to be entirely faithful in areas that were in my mind crucial to the book? perhaps he didn't find those areas crucial and he can't be wrong, by any means, in that regard, but it does at the very least open up a space wherein i question his understanding of the source material. and since a large number of people feel as i do, these questions we ask can't simply be dismissed. i'm sorry that we haven't been lining up to say the movie was great. my point is, i would have rather had ZS remain faithful to the spirit, to the "look" (coloring, costume, set not the panel shot by shot). perhaps then i would have welcomed a reinterpretation of nite owl, or turning silk spectre into a bumbling fool. but no. that didn't happen. as it stands, this Watchmen didn't know what way to go... and i'll forever sound like i'm snacking on sour grapes. fine. you guys have a watchmen movie. i don't. it's not a big deal, really.
-
....I fully agree that if Snyder had used the squid ending, but with 'attacks' on both New York and Russia it would have made more sense on the SURFACE. But on looking at that idea it still loses credibility - think about this - it's stated in the book that Veidt's idea is to make everyone believe that an attack was impending, and the squid's arrival in New York was an accidental misfire ahead of that attack. How does that hold up when it happens twice? It doesn't hold up as well. As to Manhattan being framed, I think you're missing the point I'm trying to get across, although I may not be explaining myself properly. In the movie, Veidt uses both your points against Manhattan. They KNOW he is losing his humanity - ergo both governments would believe he could have decided to attack them. They KNOW his only connection left is Laurie - ergo, Veidt has a good idea that there is just enough humanity left in him to not want humanity destroyed. You have both elements of his personality being attacked and twisted to Veidt's advantage, and that is the whole point - it leaves Manhattan with no other logical way to deal with the matter. His disconnaction from humaity is attacked by Veidt setting him up to take the blame. His connection to humanity is attacked by the fact Veidt is gambling his remaining humanity, such as it is, wouldn't want Earth destroyed by the revelation that it was all a fake-out. He doesn't care what people think of him, so why would he be bothered about being the patsy, so to speak? As to the plot itself, the idea that Veidt has been using Manhattan to develop the actual mechanisms of the attack makes a damn site more sense than Veidt being able to genetically engineer massive 'alien' lifeforms that would be completely exempt from suspicion as to their real origin under massive scientific scrutiny. I understand that you don't like the change, fair enough, but as presented the attacks as shown in the film are far more believable, and far more believable in how Veidt could think he'd get away with it.
-
Jul 29, 2009 3:12:01 PM CDT
I hate when people say the squid would've "looked stupid"
by zombieheathledger
I guess all these pro big blue explosion lovers have never seen a friggin' giant monster movie before? From KING KONG, to GODZILLA, to THEM, to JURASSIC PARK, to CLOVERFIELD, to fuck even the Watcher in the Water character in FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, all of these were (for their time) awesome giant monsters, even if the movies they were in weren't always so great (most recent GODZILLA). Their prejudgment insults the imagination and intelligence of every geek movie goer PLUS the talent of thousands of brilliant, creative CGI artists today who would give their up their first borns at a shot at expertly rendering to life one of the greatest, most horrifying comic book endings of all time. Not only was it quite doable, given today's level of technology and artistry, it could've also been TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION. Plus, there are giant monster fetishists out there who go and see monster movies multiple times just for repeat viewings at THE MONSTER. Nobody, repeat NOBODY, goes to see repeat viewings of giant, blue explosions. I will grant the explosions were done well, but comparatively speaking, seeing exploding buildings, no matter how well rendered, just does not compare to the awesome, UNIQUENESS of rendering to life Moore's giant monster. Ask the artists themselves what THEY would rather have worked on. No fuckin' contest. James Cameron would've shot the squid. 'Nuff said.
-
And being denigrating to others for no reason because of missing that point, which is somewhat shooting yourself in the foot. I love the squid ending in the book. It's a great and shocking ending to a true masterpiece. But you have to step back and look at the film for what it is - the film, wether you like it or not, was already not exactly a major 'must see' movie for the average cinemagoer. Keeping the squid suddenly sends the film off into left field at the end, to a place where most people simply won't follow - whether you (or I for that matter) like it or not. It's a great ending, and I truly love the books, but even I can plainly see that that ending simply wouldn't hold up as well, nor make as much sense, as the idea of Manhattan being framed. I've given my reasons for that in previous posts, but what I want to get across to you is that from what I've seen in the pro-Snyder ending posts here is NOT 'prejudgement' of 'geek filmgoers' in any way. Most of them seem connected by the idea that the AVERAGE filmgoer would have been lost, not the average Watchman fan. The film already had an uphill struggle for profits due to the general storyline. The squid ending, via word of mouth and reviews, no matter how well it was realised, would have killed the movie. And sorry, but I very much doubt that there would have been too many people running back to the cinema for repeat showings simply for seeing the squid in it's full CGI glory at the end of a 3 hour film. What we got with Watchmen was a seriously faithful ADAPTION of a movie that Snyder had to really fight for to keep as much faithful as he could - and I don't think many other directors would have fought so hard. So maybe another director would have given you the squid - but I'll bet they'd also have given you a drastically different movie beforehand. Watchmen, as a movie is really interesting to me for the reaction it has caused in TB'rs. Before we got it, so many people were stating 'well it had better be faithful OR ELSE!! Except for the squid though, I can see why they'd change that..." yadayadayada. Then we get it, it's very faithful except for the squid which is changed for another plot device that is more realistic and actually enforces Moore's idea of an event causing the superpowers to back down, yet people are still vehemently attacking Snyder for it. Boggles the mind.
-
Answer me this. If they put you in a room, With the knowledge that one day you would cure a plague that was going to wipe out humanity, with twenty chidren, a can of gasoline and a pistol. Then, they give you the option of burning the kids to death or taking your own life which would you choose? Rorshach is not insane. He's just pretty fucking fed up. He is by all accounts a decent person. Remember he instructs dan not to kill the Knothead in front of civillians. He has a strict moral code and stands by it. Which is more than you could say for most people. Also, cleaving that "child killers" head apart is completely understanable. I cant think of a more "sane" reaction to dicovering the remains of six year old being used for tug-of-war by two german sheppards and staring in the face the man responsible. So, in closing, Killing 25 million to save 5 billion im sorry is not ok. If 25 mil volunteer then so be it. Maybe this world needs a little nuclear holocaust to wake us from our collective stupor. A reminder that we must be accountable for our own actions and if we're not, There can be catastrophic consequences by our own hands.
-
I just don't share your (and Snyder's) rather pessimistic view of audience intelligence. To say otherwise is elitest and smacks of geek snobbery. "Oh ONLY we geeks can fully understand the depth of the squid all those other idiots who made CLOVERFIELD the hit that it was simply for having a giant monster (and really not much else) just wouldn't have gotten it." Plus, may I remind you that this was a SUPERHERO movie? Who isn't prepared to see giant monsters and superheroes together? And "inna final analysis" was WATCHMEN even a profit maker? By your own admission, the general public wasn't exactly burning up the ticket lines to see this movie that tells us that the majority of the people who went to see this were geeks who were already all too familiar with the comic book's ending. I only saw WATCHMEN once, had it had the original ending I would've seen it multiple times, as would the rest of geek nation which couldn't have done the film any worse than it did being the marginal (if that) hit that it was (or wasn't) and maybe could've made it a bigger hit. What we get instead is essentially a bastardization of the ending of SUPERMAN IV. What's funny is if Snyder HAD included the fake alien attack, I doubt one single poster would've been saying anything along the lines of, "They should've canned the squid and went with something else, oh I don't know, like Veidt framing that Doctor Manhattan did it." All of the Snyder defenders in here would be PRAISING his risk-taking and saying how awesome it was to see the giant monster and the TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION at the end. The worst part of all is that I really like where Snyder was going with all of the Nite Owl I heroes and if WATCHMEN had been a big hit we maybe could've gotten a prequel out of it, which is definitely NOT going to happen now.
-
And that is the whole fucking point - which you missed evidently. Anyone going into this film expecting a superhero movie is going to be sorely disappointed. While you may state you'd have gone back repeatedly if the squid had been shown, fair enough - but I take it you were an existing Watchmen fan. Can you honestly tell me that thousands of non-Watchmen fan casual viewers would sit through a non-superhero movie simply to see an alien squid? Can't see it, personally.
As to 'what if Snyder had used the squid, people wouldn't be saying blue explosions would be better' well sorry, but that is the dumbest thing I've read so far. Of course people wouldn't, because he would have handed them a fully faithful adaption of the book. He wouldn't have come up with an ending that I, and others, consider more 'filmic' and more believable in terms of the film world. We would have been happy with the squid ending, of course, but it's a moot point. He didn't give us the squid, he gave us something we consider better, and he gave you something to hang your hatred on. Whether you like it or not, a good deal of people prefer that ending and that doesn't make us some sort of 'traitor' to Moore's vision. We got a more faithful and cohesive version than most other directors would have given us, I firmly believe that, simply because we rarely hear such stories about a director fighting with studios to keep a story faithful to the source material as we did with Snyder. Plus, the proof is onscreen. -
Me being put in a room and being told something will happen in the future if I don't do something is NOT REMOTELY the same as it having happened, and having the choice of doing/not doing something that makes the situation worse. Rorshack is placing his morality ahead of the lives of every living thing on the planet. The idea of what Veidt had done is truly monstrous - but the simple fact is that as presented in the film, it prevents the destruction of the world. As I've said before, if they could have stopped the attacks is one thing - but they didn't, the damage was done but despite the evil nature of it, a greater good did indeed occur. Morality at that point doesn't come into it. Punish Veidt by killing him, yes. Torture him endlessly for years and years, whatever. But to expose it at that point is to then put everyone in the world back to square one, sitting under the shadow of imminent nuclear destruction - morality doesn't come into it at that point. And what kind of a wake-up call is total annihalation, Stan? The wake-up call had already been given at that point, hence everyone backing down. Saying it would do humanity the power of good to be wiped out, along with everything else on Earth is kind of, well you'll have to forgive me here, dumb.
As to Ror's killing of the pedo, we'll just have to disagree. I think it damaged the idea of his moral absolutism by simply making him a common murderer, ruled by his own impulses rather than a quest for justice. This is where I think the book was much better than the filmed scene, and at the end of the day that change was made simply to make the scene a bit of gratituous violence. It was a grubby way to get a 'cool' death scene in and it's the one bit of the film I remain disappointed in. -
Bay goes with the cheesy one liners while Snyder goes with actual dialogue, but they essentially do the same thing. One trick ponies. That said, his Dawn of the Dead is great fucking stuff.
-
etsDgGfC tNlZvob
-
RQyIlBqA yHRUQD
-
BTkGAGwg AghJSR
-
JumPyaML ghwEgsTJ
-
HumnIRG
-
brqdfT
-
KXVWAfB
-
gaqrMN
-
LENDttl
-
jBdSrM
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts