ThunderPeel2001

They laughed at the rap scene?! Oh wait, rape scene. Man, that's not cool.

Fair enough (I've just discovered them both and, to my utter amazement, I have fallen head over heels -- what @#£%ing brilliant TV).

Just came back from watching it a second time and I do believe that Dan might have hit the nail on the head: If you've read (and enjoyed) the comic book, watching the film is like having those intimate moments brought to life... and you're probably filling in some of the film's lapses yourself. I have to say: Time might prove me wrong on this one, but I LOVED seeing the comic book come to life the second time... and I prefer the tweaks to Dan and Laurie's personality and I much prefer the ending, too. But I doubt I would have these feelings if I hadn't liked the original comic book first. Such an odd cinema experience... Snyder gave the fanboys exactly what we wanted, but now we've got it, we're not so sure... As Alan Moore once said: "It's not the job of an artist to give an audience what they want, it's their job to give them what they need."

I managed to die repeatedly until I figured it out. I seriously thought the game was bugged... Release the Right Trigger and switch to "helicopter camera", press the Right Trigger and fire continuously with infinite ammo from normal camera mode. No other buttons do anything... Very odd.

Did anybody else find the "shooter on rails" mission confusing until they realised they had to keep the right-trigger held down the entire time?

Definitely. The reviews which I think best summed my opinion said that it laboured under the weight of the comic book. As Moore has always said: Watchmen is inherently unfilmable because it was designed to play to the strengths of a comic book. Saying that, I DID enjoy it, I just don't know exactly how much, but it's definitely an experience worth having at the cinema. Overall, I guess it just was a really odd experience - not necessarily great or terrible. For example, copying the comic book so closely makes for a very unusual film. (We saw at least six people walk out.) The structure (Watchmen's strongest point) is retained and it's very odd to actually watch. Secondly, this was Alan Moore's voice on the big screen... for the first time ever. That was an odd experience to view with a bunch of strangers. No happy endings, no over-sentimentality (certainly no more than was featured in the comic, anyway), very un-Hollywood and a very unforgiving style. Thirdly, the direction occasionally veered into MTV music video stylee whenever Moore's work wasn't around to set the rules. I'm talking about the fights, in particular. The outrageous violence was interesting (and in places added a bit of counter-balance -- like Dr. Manhattan's emotional coldness when gorily blasting people) but it was the wire-work which seemed a little OTT. These people aren't supposed to be "super"-heroes afterall, but they can do some insanely over-the-top stuff... Punch through walls, hit people so hard that they spin 360 degrees in the air, etc. Fourthly, the overall message and storyline was massively left intact -- and some of its weaker elements were actually from the comic book (Dr. Manhattan's conversation with Laurie on Mars was almost verbatim, but I wasn't convinced by it). Lastly, the film actually improved on several bits of the comic. For example, the Dan and Laurie love story was MUCH more satisfying in the film (and very un-Hollywood, too). I really felt that these were two "normal" people struggling with life. Their love scene felt "real" (and actually involved love - gasp!), instead of it just being used as titillation for the audience (or at least less so than the average Hollywood love scene). The threat of nuclear war actually feels a lot more tangible in the film (in the comic it seems that only the "lunatic fringe" are talking about it seriously) which is REALLY important for the story to work. Also, the change in the "big reveal" actually made a LOT more sense than in the original comic, and even small added moments like Rorshach's final ink blot were pretty cool, too. The film did fail in places, too: Whatever happened to Niteowl I? The magazine being introduced in the last scene was a bit of a shock, too. There were some moments that could have been added from the comic (Manhattan giving himself a symbol/the Hooded Justice showing no mercy to Jupiter), but these might well be in the "director's cut" -- it was already really long. Also, I don't think the "big reveal" was AS shocking/satisfying as in the comic when it was unveiled (I could be wrong), probably because so many moments along the way fell a bit flat. I feel oddly ambivalent about the whole thing, but I also enjoyed it

I hope you didn't read it all in one go and are subsequently "ankle deep".

It only got a "playability" and "addictiveness" rating of 73% and 24%. I guess they weren't advanced enough to have thought of replayability back then.

It's all making sense!!!

I didn't think of that, but that's actually a very good point. Nice one! Well I believe it received very poor reviews: Getting only 65% and 38% for graphics and sound, respectively.

Such is the true face of "cyber".

Lol, great threat title

Just fuck off now. Seriously. While I'd agree that there's times when Whedon can sometimes see things in actors that the rest of us miss (I can't see Nathan Fillion as a bad-ass, I just can't -- and I love Firefly, too) all those actresses did fantastic jobs in their respective roles in Buffy and Angel. Outside of those roles... I actually have no idea (never seen them in anything else). Anyway, forgetting Whedon for a moment (and my own recent discovery, and subsequent delight, of Buffy/Angel), I can tell you something: Some directors and writers cannot handle actors/write rounded characters for shit (eg. George Lucas), whereas some can get a perfectly brilliant performance from anyone (eg. David Lynch). Basically, just because you've got an asshole boss who doesn't know how to get the best out of you, doesn't mean you're shit at your job.

Ooh! And the latest issue of Mustard features a gigantic interview with Alan Moore, too. http://www.mustardweb.org/04/index.htm

Saturday Morning Watchmen!!! This is rather good.

Definitely. Geeky looking, but at least human.

LMAO

Definitely. How many games are there out there that look like paintings, anyway?

I can't believe they replaced that poor guy with a weird looking android from the 80s... Seriously, that cannot be the same person. Edit: Sure this is the missing link?

Since Braid I love the idea of playing in a moving painting. There should be more of it. (Ironically this character looks a lot better than Tim in Braid, but Braid's backgrounds piss all over this one -- at least from this single screenshot )

True, but it's only an overview. You'd do a hell of a lot more research before trying to find funding/spending a shitload of money on developing something.

Well you obviously seem to be doing ok so far... That does indeed look like a PCI-E power connector. You can get an adaptor to turn two of your standard molex's into a single PCI-E, I believe. Edit: Here you go (although you should check that your PSU can handle it, I guess).

It shows a huge amount if you're trying to figure out who to aim your game at. I never would have thought, for example, that family games had become such a huge market. I really had no idea. It's pretty cool!

Yipe. You should be careful with that, if it needs a lot of power and attempts to draw it through your mobo instead of directly from your PSU, it might blow your mobo :/

Oooh, "controversial" Bloody stupid to infer that we got a poorer game "because of the Jews", Mr V