Watchmen

There's no use quibbling over a matter of "beauty in the eye of the beholder."

I saw the movie without any reference background from the GN and liked it as it was, a dark R-rated twisted "superhero" fiction. I got the graphic novel after the movie and continue reading it and it still is frame for frame the same as the movie (including confusing flashback frames that jump around just like the movie).

Graphic violence in both are at least equal. Just as much blood (or more) on Rorchach in the GN prison scene as in the movie, tho it came from a different source.

As for being "too lazy to pick up a comic book" it may be a matter of expense. Unless you were around in the late '80s and bought the serialized DC comics, you would pretty much have to buy the graphic novel in a bookstore now. Mine cost me three times what it cost to see the movie, so you will have ppl seeing this movie who will never see the GN.

 

I grabbed the GN after seeing it as well Shale. I'm loving it and really thought the movie was incredibly entertaining, compared to a lot of shit that they give wide release to. I especially loved the opening credits with Dylan's 'Times' and the montage of what happened to the Minutemen and old Watchmen

 

I don't think the GN is a peace parade, but it's definitely not got the gore that the film does. Do you see exposed bone during the fight with Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and the muggers? Does Dr. Manhattan turn Vietnamese soldiers into blobs of red goo?

But I would have been able to accept the gore if I thought that the rest of it worked. I suppose my biggest issue might have had something to do with having read the novel beforehand and being really impressed, and then sitting through a film where people were either walking out or trying very hard to enjoy themselves.. and failing. Mostly, the film left me feeling kind of confused... because I knew that parts of it were done well, parts of it were okay, and parts of it were done horribly.

The actress playing Silk Spectre was awful-- I read a review where someone compared her to Jar Jar Binks, and I agree. She actually seemed to be playing the part of herself in real life. The Comedian was way too low-key. Dr. Manhattan had no soul. Rorschach wasn't a tough little kid. Nixon had an unnaturally huge nose. Ozy was too young. About the only guy who got it right was Nite Owl... but the fact that he had so many scenes with the awful Silk Spectre made him seem crappy too. All of those moments which should have been huge felt totally hollow.

I remember reading the scene where Nite Owl and Silk Spectre took Archie out, and it was rousing... like all this hope flooded back into the story. In the movie, it just felt like something that happened.

In that same review I mentioned earlier, the reviewer compared this film to 'The Phantom Menace'-- it's something that you want to be really great, but isn't. It's big and flashy and slick enough to fool you into thinking it's good... the special effects were huge, Darth Maul looked awesome, the podrace was pretty cool, the lightsaber battles rocked, and yes, the start titles were faithful to the original series... but for everything that was awesome, there was something really off-putting. This is what Watchmen is as well.

It feels like more effort has been put into capturing the superficial aspects than the heart and soul of the story. It was somehow more important to show the bloodstained smiley face falling off of the balcony in slow motion than getting the actor to reproduce the Comedian's intensity, or hiring someone who could actually do Silk Spectre justice, or giving Nixon a less distracting nose, or finding a way to let Dr. Manhattan emote through his whited-out eyes, or choosing music that hasn't been used again and again and again.

So yes, while everything looks as it should, most of the actors have proven talent, and the source material is brilliant... somehow, it doesn't come together... which is really, really frustrating.

 

heywood, while you seem to have very, very strong feelings against the film, you should also view it all from a different perspective. Sure, a film condensing a 12-chapter series into a mere 2 hr 43 min isn't going to catch all the nuances of the source material and it will struggle to portray all of it's messages in the time it has. Of course, being that the material is being transferred to another medium, it isn't going to be a 100% faithful adaptation of the novel. It's Zack Snyder's interpretation of Alan Moore/Dave Gibbon's work and I like to think he did a damn fine job of staying as faithful as possible with the limitations he has.

Most importantly, while you act as if Snyder's Watchmen is the coming of the Anti-Christ, you neglect one of the most important results of Snyder's film. Sure, his film isn't exactly as Moore had intended but how many people will now be exposed to Moore's novel that hadn't been before. This thread is a perfect example: before the film was released, people like Shale and March of the Meanies had had no exposure but the film inspired them to seek out and read the original material. Countless people around the world are seeking out and reading Moore's outstanding novel as a result of this film. If the film had never been made, there's a chance the book would've become nothing more than a fanboy relic, known only by those who were in the loop. Hell, the only reason I even read the book a couple years ago was because I came across it randomly in a bookstore and had heard some heresay about it in the past. Most people I know had never even heard of the book before the movie came along. So while you sit and post epic entry after epic entry about the horrors you see in Snyder's adaptation, realize what a boost it will be for Moore's series, bring back to the forefront of public awareness.

 

Actually, I am a movie fan more than a reader, and I saw an ad from Warner about "Watchmen: The Complete Motion Comic" and ordered it.

It just arrived today and I will start watching it this week. It has 12 episodes and is over 5 hours long. I don't know how they will do it, probably just show panels from the GN while inserting narrative and sound.

So, I should get the Watchmen story as intended because co-creator and illustrator Dave Gibbons oversaw this digital version of the GN.

This should hold me until the DVD comes out. Oh, this video also came with a coupon worth $7.50 for the movie so I may be going again before it runs out at the end of the month. That, BTW is what movies cost me (They give a discount for white beards )

 

It was awesome. I can't wait till it comes out on dvd

 

So, I buckled and saw the movie. True to form, it was a pirated version, so I think I'm curse free.
Haywood, I completely agree with you, except to say that I wasn't all that impressed with Night Owl's performance, and that Manhattan's didn't bother me much because he was fairly soulless and not very likable in the GN anyway.

I won't say it was a terrible film, because given the source material, it would have been near impossible to fuck up completely. It just was not the most effective way to tell the story. It was certainly not a frame by frame recreation of the book. Alot of the more rewarding character development was completely left out. Night Owl and Spectre's romance felt very glossed over, when it the GN it seemed kinda sweet. The ending with Rorschach's journal being delivered to the New Frontiersman is kinda pointless, given that in the movie we don't even know what the hell the papers all about. One of my biggest problems is how they left out the whole subplot involving the newspaper vendor: The paper headlines, his conversations with customers, and the Black Freighter comic were very effective devices for building tension right up to the brink of nuclear war. I just wasn't feeling that in the movie. Now, as an after thought, they decide to make a few extra million with a Black Freighter movie.
I have a theory that the film could have been better if it had focused a little more on the detective story aspect. With Rorschach being the "hard boiled detective" archetype, I feel like he survived the transition to film better than most characters. Maybe if it were more detective story than superhero story it would have worked better. But I'm not sure.
And the way I see it, there's every reason to quibble about it. I always thought the whole point of comic book films is so us geeks can go see them and than bitch about everything they fucked up.

 

Oh yeah, and the gore was quite excessive. Probably so they'd have something good to recreate in the video game.

 

You guys must not be horror-movie fans...

 

The gore doesn't necessarily bother me, it just seemed excessive. It's Watchmen, not Hostel.

 

Really? Wow. It has significance, which I can't believe people didn't pick up on (idiots, perhaps?). It signifies that he is distancing from humanity... loosing his focus with the human race. Oi.

Also, V for Vendetta was a CROCK! I love Hugo Weaving, but not enough to even give that movie the time of day... terrible! No wonder Moore doesn't watch the movies made from his stuff... I could have cried over it myself. Fuck V.

 

LOL, on the imdb message board, there was a thread called "Is there anything made for nerds that nerds actually like?" I laughed when I saw it, but only because it was so true...

 

That's not true, he was loosing his connection with humans, but he was intelligent enough to know that you cover yourself up in polite society, which is what he did, otherwise he would've appeared naked everywhere, instead of wearing that suit when he was at important functions or wearing the cod piece in vietnam.

 

Cheers, Shale. And don't get me wrong, I AM glad you enjoyed the film, and decided to pick up the book. I just have my pet peeves is all, and this film stroked a raw nerve.

As for V, how they can make a movie about an anarchist superhero where the protagonist doesn't even mention he's an anarchist is beyond me.

 

Brand084:

Who cares if more people are reading it? What good does that do anyone? It doesn't change the quality of the film or the novel. It would still be good if only two people in the world had ever read it. Your point isn't really a good one... unless you think the artist's ability to profit from his creation is integral to good art. Personally, I'd rather have a small, appreciative, perceptive audience than a large, oblivious, inarticulate one.

And I suppose if you hadn't been so put off by my 'epic posts', you would have seen that I never said that this wasn't a 'faithful' adaptation. It was just faithful in all the wrong ways... and where it wasn't faithful, it was mostly dreadful. Yes, it's Zack Snyder's Watchmen, and I didn't like it.

And my 'epic posts' were my personal review and some responses to other epic posts. But anyway, the good thing about the Internet is: if you don't care to read it, then don't read it-- but don't try to make people feel guilty for speaking their mind, especially when it's irrelevant to what you're trying to say. Maybe your life revolves around something extremely important at all times... but if I decide to spend an hour or so a day over the course of a week arguing about some stupid movie, where's the harm in that?? It beats jerking off to porn.

And to tell the truth, I'd rather read an epic post from someone who actually took the time to put thought and effort into their opinions than some one off stating 'I liked it'. If you have an opinion without any clear (or original) reasons for having it, I don't have much respect for your opinion.

Ultimately, I'm not even against the film so much as I'm against people taking good ideas (especially other people's good ideas), adding nothing to them, slipping in some lowbrow elements, focusing on the superficial aspects, getting it all wrong, and profiting from it financially and professionally.

Also- V wasn't brilliant, but it was a well-made film. And I think the 'anarchist' thing was implied by his actions... he was a little verbose, but going around stating 'I'm an anarchist' would have made him seem super pretentious. And while that film had its shortcomings as well, it was still well-acted, well-designed and evenly paced. And it was better than Watchmen.

 

Uh, IDK.

I like jerking off to porn. Find it more productive than a lot of my cyber endeavors.

 

heywood- yeh, I'd have to say I enjoyed it more than watchmen. But while I'm not one to argue with ANYONE wishing to blow up parliament, there's nothing inherently anarchist about blowing shit up. There was plenty of talk of freedom, liberty, etc., but that can really mean anything nowadays, and it was elaborated upon much more in the book. And lets face it, V was a little on the pretentious side. It wasn't something that detracted from the story, it's just part of who he is. I do the same fucking thing sometimes, so who am I to judge? As an anarchist I found some of those monologues quite rousing, and I missed them in the movie.

Shale- Ain't that the fuckin truth....

 

I think it's more for the benefit of those that are discovering it... It's cool that more people are finding out about it. That's all. Larger fanbase means more discussion, more awareness of what the creator was trying to say. I think it raises some good points to ponder. Of course we'll have to wade through the shit till the excitement dies down, but all in all, I can see some good reflection coming out of it.

I saw a post from someone yesterday on imdb (yes, I frequent their boards daily) who was upset because Watchmen had become "mainstream" by making a movie about it and he wanted to keep it to himself and his friends, all for the sake of his indie street cred. Personally, I think that's pathetic. I would rather more people could share it than a few people hog it to themselves because they're the only ones who could ever "get it, maaan."

Agree on all counts. I posted this thread for discussion, not just fanboying ( although fanboying is welcome, as well as fangirling ).

I understand and respect this. I guess we just have different priorities when it comes to enjoying movies. You thought it was rubbish that should have never been made and I think it's a reasonable tribute taking into account the medium and the resources. We could go back and forth all day about what matters and what doesn't. I don't think any of us are going to change their minds. It's all a matter of personal taste.

 

Hmmmm... comic books can be considered 'cool' and give people 'indie street cred'?

Anyway, this was hardly some unknown story buried forever in the mists of obscurity-- it was Alan Moore-- responsible not only for the comics that inspired other movie adaptations, but also for Killing Joke, which inspired so many elements of the Jokers from both the Tim Burton and the Christopher Nolan Batman films. Watchmen was also on Time's Best Novels of the 20th Century list, and heavily promoted in the comics universe at the time of its release (I was a bit too young to think much of it, though... I'm not a longtime fan or anything). I'd known about it for a long time but never really got into it until recently (admittedly, mostly because of the movie-- it LOOKED awesome and I couldn't wait to see it, so I read the GN instead), so I suppose in a way, I might never have read it if it weren't for this godawful film.

But I'm so glad I read the novel first... because it wasn't so much the story/plot or even the characters that got me, it was the fact that they were doing so much with the story, with the characters, with the comic book medium... they did an entire issue in which the panels were perfectly symmetrical from start to finish, they integrated non-essential characters to represent the 'man on the street', they played with flashbacks and panel sequencing (admittedly this was one way in which the shot-for-panel approach worked in the film-- the Dr. Manhattan backstory). They also included a very differently-drawn comic story which provided like a kind of metafictional commentary, a subconscious examination of the character 'themes'. But the best part was how it veered off in different directions, and always did it so gracefully...

And then, we get a movie that does absolutely nothing with the comic, except follow it word-for-word, shot-for-panel, etc... all while not only doing nothing new with the medium of film, but actually restricting themselves in how they did it. It's like they missed the whole point, and latched onto all the nastiness, sex and violence instead. Film as a medium is full of different techniques-- it's very possible to play with time and visual patterns in a way that can make them interesting. Renoir described 'Rules of The Game' as a progression of rhythms... and the comic is very much like that as well-- it starts as a straightforward story, then reaches epic potential through its examination of everyone effected by the universe it created. A brilliant director would have recognized the possibilities of the concept and crafted a cinematic compliment to that.

Instead, we get sex (for laughs), violence (occasionally for laughs, often for entertainment), brutality (for kicks), rape (for shock), and despair (for no reason whatsoever). What could have been more predictable than that?

I suppose in a way, I was really hoping that with all the talk of 'vision' and a movie that had guts, we would finally get an intelligent film with great special effects based on the so-called greatest comic series of all time. But this is a work of manual labour, where the director, the actors, everyone is part of a mundane process to transfer the work from one medium to the other without harming it... until they made the most lowbrow, most obvious, and most uncreative adaptation of all time (except Gus Van Zant's remake of 'Psycho').

I probably shouldn't have said 'what good does that do anyone?', because I suppose in a way, it does do people good. Apparently, people are reading the book. On the other hand, do we really need a $125 million advertisement for the book?

An original movie that's mediocre is just mediocre. This movie is crap because it's mediocre when it should have been brilliant.

Also, the whole 'it's subjective' argument goes nowhere, and should be excluded from all discussion. Unless, of course, it's time to move on.

So fair enough.