Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
Which was the best inappropriately adult children's film of 2009? I'm going to say WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, because it's deeper and more mature.
Not sure where in the hell Protozoid got the idea that Watchmen was anything but adult, but I agree with his assessment on the winner of this match-up completely.
It was meant as a joke. I grew up thinking superhero stories were a genre for adolescents, and the recent trend towards R-rated comic-book adaptations strikes me as misguided.
So I am assuming you are of the camp that belittles graphic novels by referring to them as comics. Watchmen is mature source material and, therefore, a similarly mature adaptation resulted.
I don't mean to be condescending when I call a spade a spade. I'm just pointing out that a story told in book form entirely with pictures and starring superheroes has more in common with The Amazing Spider Man than Charles Dickens. Watchmen is intended for mature audiences but I would hardly call it mature. That's just an opinion.
I absoulutley hate it when someone dismisses graphic novels as a lesser form of literature, and act like every single comic book writer has had a lobotomy. Was "Watchmen" really nothing more than a picture book about people who wear capes and masks? How about "Maus"? Was that nothing more than a picture book about cats and mice re-enacting the Holocaust?
BTW Protozoid, a lot of Dickens' literature was published in periodicals, so his work isn't as far from comic books as you might think.
That's a good point, maharper, but the fact that both graphic novels and original Dickens were serialized is the extent of the similarities. Mickey: I don't think graphic novelists have been lobotomized. I just think that their aesthetic sensibilities didn't mature quite as far as, say, Homer's. I know Watchmen was intended to be cartoonish satire, and I think that the filmmakers are responsible for how weak Watchmen is, not necessarily Alan Moore. Then again, Alan Moore IS a guy who collects pewter statuettes and wears plastic jewelry bought from Spencers -- but, hey, Charles Dickens was the same way.
This is tough. I didnt care much for either. Watchmen was awkward and didnt seem to know what genre it wanted to be. Where the Wild Things Are was simply dull. Probably the most dull movie I saw in 2009. I think I will gow ith Watchmen. At least it had style and a great soundtrack.
where the wild things are not only had a better soundtrack but it was also original. and with watchmen its a case where the book is much more deep and just all around better. but with where the wild things are spike jonze takes a book with no life/heart and gives it both. by far the best movie of 2009. and by far better then watchmen.
I just didn't have the background with "The Watchmen" as others. It was solid, but I enjoyed "Where the WIld Things Are" a bit more. Both are just slightly above average movies to me...