Messages

But criticising someone for placing trust in others is a pretty depressing way of going about things.

DC are pretty much relying on Alan Moore keeping to his word that he won't have anything to do with the property in order to be able to publish these books at all, as one determined ambulance chaser and these titles wouldn't have got past the promo material.

Still, I imagine this makes Moore an even bigger hypocrite somehow.  It usually does.

No idea what you mean by this!?  DC have co-opted Moore's power of attorney in order to allow them to publish BW. If you're implying that Moore should sue DC, then you're the one being naive now. Warner Bros are part of a massive conglomerate and could drag this out for years, essentially bankrupting any single individual. And in so doing, it would mean that Moore could not talk about it while the case was ongoing. He's already said in interviews that he's considered it but would prefer to, you know, have enough money to live and time to go about his current writing duties. And seemingly everyone at DC acknowledges that he'd at the very least have a case but WB have assured them to go ahead. It's called bullying and corporations are quite adept at it.

As an aside, Moore agreed over a decade ago to do a short new story for DC for the Watchmen anniversary but due to their inability to stick to the agreement, he pulled out. It's fair to say this was primarily a Warner Bros decision and it is they who want to exploit the Watchmen IP because DC comics general sales are so unbelievably dire and their current business model isn't going to stop that downward spiral.

Part two of 'Blow the bloody doors off' in FP today... and TWD 16.

I rang my local FP to check when this was out and they said not for a few weeks . . .grr. Looks like an unexpected visit might be needed with my day off tomorrow now.

Is it out!? I didn't see it 

I look forward to Cooke's next Parker book however. You know, that series of books he's doing where he prioritised getting the permission of the original author before going ahead with the project. That one.

Can we get one thing straight? Alan Moore gave his permission for 'Before Watchmen' back in 1985 when he signed the contract. He now regrets that - fine. He objects to 'Before Watchmen' now - also fine. He didn't foresee the full implications of it - fine. But he still did it, and I would respect him a hell of a lot more if he could man up and admit some responsibility for his own mistakes.

Yes let's get this straight, shall we? Alan Moore was up for doing prequels and other ancillary material on the understandnig (understood and agreed to by DC Comics at the time) that he and Gibbons would be involved and that they had as much control over it as editorial.

DC Comics at the time boasted about what a bright new future they were giving creators and Watchmen was representative of that. They then pulled the rug out from under that in search of a quick buck. Even Jim Lee admits Moore is getting screwed by DC and what they're doing isn't necessarily 100% to the letter of the original contract.

Should Moore have been more careful and less naive? Yes. Had he understood the difference between the US legal system for contracts ('to the letter of the law) and British (giving credence to the 'spirit of the contract' to an extent), things may have been different.

But criticising someone for placing trust in others is a pretty depressing way of going about things.

Anyway we can go round and round in circles on this. I won't drag this off-topic anymore (or past-topic!). Feel free to use this thread to discuss the series. I'm somewhat curious to see what the response is, though I have no real interest in reading them myself.

Yeah, its a genuine shame that the controversy around this will stop a lot of people who would otherwise love this book from checking it out

You think that's the genuine shame?

I didn't buy this, nor will I. I look forward to Cooke's next Parker book however. You know, that series of books he's doing where he prioritised getting the permission of the original author before going ahead with the project. That one.

Isn't Drive said to be too highly polished? Can he and his ideas, give way to grit?

Drive is very polished but the material calls for it.

If you want grit, it doesn't get much grittier than Winding-Refn's brilliant Pusher trilogy.

Also mentioned by John Wagner on FB:

"If it does turn out to be Refn then there's a good chance Ryan Gosling will play Harry."

I reckon the only reason 3D isn't impressing a lot of people is because, as said before, it's not being used properly.

No, it's because it generally looks like a blurry, dingy, ghosting, strobing mess whenever the camera moves at anything quicker than a gentle pan. The cons far outweigh the pros.

Exactly. It's patronising to assume that my or anyone elses reasons for not liking 3D is because the cinema isn't set up properly as well. I've seen a few films in 3D (and I go to a couple every month as well) and - other than Cave of Forgotten Dreams and Pina (maybe Avatar because it was so new) - there has never been a narrative reason for the use of 3D.

This is NOT like the introduction of colour or sound. Both those things came about as advances in technology and because they added to the narrative. 3D has been around since the 50s (admittedly in a much less refined way) but it has never really contributed anything to the narrative of a film other than spectacle. And spectacle is fine for something like Avatar but for the most part, it's a gimmick.

If improved, I can see 3D being used for big blockbuster films but the norm is always going to be 2D. I actually don't think cinemas will survive if they try to transition everything to 3D. Do you really think films like The King's Speech or There Will Be Blood need to be in 3D? Come on.

And from latest reports, people aren't just avoiding 3D, they're bloody well resenting it because of the price increase. I'm sure there will be some filmmakers who will made decent 3D films that could only be done in 3D but, from what I can see, they'll be novelties rather than the norm. 3D is maybe more comparable to the likes of IMAX than anything else.

As for the framerate debate, I do find the 48fps makes everything look like it's been speeded up. It'll be interesting to see how The Hobbit looks in the cinema. It probably will take your eyes a little while to get used to it which may be a hindrance to actually enjoying the film!

[if any comic-book adaptation deserves the 3-D treatment, it's Dredd]

if any comic-book adaptation deserves the 3-D treatment, it's Dredd, the density and detail of the Big Meg always struck me in hindsight as perfect for that format...

Surely that'd be Transmetropolitan. He's even got the glasses! 

3D can work for action films if well choreographed scenes are used that utilise moving camerawork more and don't rely on fast editing for impact.

Maybe with the higher frame rates than Cameron and Jackson are pushing. It all looks a bit blurry to me, for the most part. Personally I'll be seeing Dredd in 2D only and have absolutely zero interest in seeing it in that other format.

Also: 3D is incredibly annoying for anyone who has to wear glasses already.

Don't hold your breaths. It's here to stay this time. I don't mean to be negative but thinking it will go away is wishful thinking. Like it or not, it's more likely that 2D will go the way of monochrome and silent movies. To future generations it will be little more than a quaint, archaic curiosity.

This made me laugh. 3D is, and has always been, a poorly-realised gimmick.

The only time I've thought it actually worked in a meaningful way was Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams or that Pina dancing film. 3D doesn't work for action films - and definitely not action films with the kind of today's preference for hyper-editing - or drama.

Film studios will responsd to the market. And the market is pretty much turning its back on 3D now that the novelty has worn off.

The other Button Men will be Tom Hardy, Fassbender, Timothy Olyphant and Jon Hamm and there will be a 10 minute scene of all of them plus Gosling standing around with their dicks out just staring at each other with their dicks hanging out.

Replace Olyphant with Mads Mikkelsen and you're most likely on the money.

And, uh, maybe leaving out that last part oo 

It's is worth noting that Refn was a Director-for-Hire on Drive.

Yeah but Gosling was the guy who brought him onto the project and backed him every step of the way (as he had more pulling power with the execs!) Least that's what I've gathered from interviews with Refn about the film.

I wouldn't be surprised if Refn kept it in England, he's not exactly an 'American' director. Always thought Daniel Craig (pre-Bond) would have made a good Harry Exton too.

Another interesting choice for director would be Ben Wheatley, who made the excellent Kill List and the forthcoming Sightseers. (As an aside, Wheatley would also be a good choice for Cradlegrave )

I'm looking forward to Prometheus anyway, have to wait another week till it's out here though 

I've avoided most spoilers for it. I assume at least some of the poorer reviews may be the result of people expecting the film to be something that it isn't (a straight prequel, essentially). But then I am avoiding most of the press and reviews, just seeing star ratings and quick, concise summaries of peoples feelings on twitter.

Scott's films rarely do well with the critics. At least initially anyway. I'll make up my own mind next week 

That's right. Nicholad!

Great news if true. A perfect match in my opinion.

Thoughs on Gosling as Harry Exton?

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/nicolas-winding-refn-in-dreamworks-talks-for-button-man-the-killing-game/

Came across this on David Bishop's Twitter feed by the by - http://twitter.com/#!/davidbishop