Watchmen

I understand. I'm sorry if I came off as rude I didn't mean to.

 

I'm not sure what to make of it as well

I'm going to hold off judgment until it comes out on DVD when I can
watch it in the comfort of my own home

Hotwater

 

Don't worry, you didn't sound that way.

 

I saw this movie opening weekend and I was definately impressed. I had read the graphic novel for the first time a couple years ago and I was psyched to find out it was being made into a film. I thought Zack Snyder did a great job with the material, realizing that he was limited by time constraints and couldn't release the fully-realized version. Sure, the film had it's shortcomings but overall I thought it was awesome. The cast was fantastic (and I wasn't as bothered by Mail Akermann's performance as Silk Spectre II as many others were). There have been complaints about how Snyder changed the ending but, considering he kept the same theme behind it, I wasn't disappointed. The film may feel a bit jumbled because there is SO much going on and SO much backstory to include but it never bogged down the movie for me.

 

Altho I do not compare movies to the source material, I am now in the process of reading the graphic novel. Just finished chapter one and it appears they did use the GN as a storyboard because I recall scenes in the movie identical to the paper version.

Also, they seem to have used a lot of the written word in the GN as screenplay. It looks like this movie followed the story verbatim - altho I haven't got near the ending to see what the alt will be.

I don't read much, will prolly be watching it again on DVD by the time I get to the end of this GN. They also have parts of Hollis' book "Under the Hood" that was an interesting read.

 

The first half of the film was almost identical to the comic. Things start getting a little pushy around the middle of the movie, so expect a lot more detail and plot.

The parts at the end of the chapters were (mostly) interesting, and the way the creator messed with the medium is the reason he called Watchmen "unfilmable," because to him, he produced this thing, not just to tell the story, but to do it in such a way that it utilized everything that could be done with a comic book. You get all of this background to paint these characters with excruciating detail, and it's something they just couldn't do with a movie. Prepare to feel closer to these characters than you have ever felt. You will feel like you know them- like you could reach out to them and help them, tell them it's okay, that they're human and can't expect to be any better than they are, and then others you'll want to thrash.
But then, you'll realize you can't.
Because it's just a book.
They're not real.
Shit affected me...:svengo:

 

I feel like I know you - like I could reach out to you and help you, tell you it's okay, that you're human and can't expect to be any better than you are.

But then, I realize I can't.
Because you're not real, just words on my monitor.

But I do want to thank you for putting into words a thoro and sane perspective to this thread and to this movie that I really enjoyed.

 

..............:svengo:

Haha jk. Thanks, man. :cheers2:

 

Contrary fucker that I am, I have to say that I'm a bit of an Alan Moore sympathizer. That is to say I hope the movie tanks, and the entire cast and crew suffer horrible debilitating illness.
The graphic novel was in many ways a commentary on the superhero/detective genre, and the comic book medium in general. It looses so much in translation.
Also, as Alan points out in an interview with Wired, which I'll dig up later if anyones interested, even if the script was %100 true to the book, half the creative team is cut out. Dave Gibbons artwork and storytelling had as much to do with the book's brilliance as Alan's writing.
Also, The Black Freighter. I understand they cut that sub-plot out entirely, opting to make it a film in itself. What fucking relevance could it possible have, deprived of it's context within the larger Watchmen story. And a fucking video game? Let us not forget, these are not superheros, they are a bunch of deeply disturbed, but otherwise ordinary people. The whole thing is a shameless Hollywood cash grab.
Rumor has it Alan Moore put a curse on the film. Here's hoping it hits it's mark.
And if these comments bother you, well, as I pointed out earlier, I may be the most contrary motherfucker on the planet, and if you have an opinion, chances are I'll disagree with it.

 

I don't really care what you think. I liked the movie.

 

Fair 'nuff. But beware. The film is cursed. You've been warned.

 

I liked the movie quite a bit. At least it wasn't totally raped like most of Moore's work-adaptations are. Pardon me, not most. ALL. I also liked the change in the end from the squid "alien" to Adrian framing John for the explosion. The girl who played Laurie was useless - no talent at all. Then of course, the character was always fucking annoying in the novel. Thought the guy who played Dan was too young, but he did a good job, I guess. Also liked that they changed it to Dan seeing "Kovaks" die... the reaction was good. Didn't like the scene they added where Nite Owl beats up on Ozy, though... kinda pointless.

All in all, I liked it. Will be trying to see it again. I'm still in shock over how much they did not fuck this movie up, in comparison to something like, oh say, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (my fave Moore work, and fave graphic novel ever). What I liked most is how much the script came directly from the novel. I read GN again for the millionth time right after I came home from the movie to refresh - so much of the script and even shots are dead on. They did a good job.

 

^^^I liked V For Vendetta much better than Watchmen, but that could have been because I didn't read the graphic novel first. Watchmen had some good performances, and some really terrible ones-- and the terrible ones dragged the whole thing down. I can't pick out a single terrible movie-wrecking performance in V, whereas in Watchmen, there are at least two. And V had focus... the filmmakers knew what they wanted to do with it, whereas with Watchmen, they took the comic and poured $100 million into reproducing it as a film-- a film that brought nothing new to the story.

The 'squid' wasn't at all important to the GN, and changing it made very little difference-- both endings were a bit awkward, but I'd say the film's was moreso. They read the 'energy signature' of the blast? What if they hadn't thought to do that? At least the squid was obviously not the Russians.

I have no doubt that the Watchmen movie people thought they were making a great film... but whether or not they actually did is pretty up in the air, I think. If you ask me, it's a gory, bloody, violent, 100 million dollar mess with no reason to exist. They should have used that money to help flood victims in Haiti.

 

i completely agree with that.

 

I've decided that I like the movie, it was cool, weird, but cool. I'm docking points for the blue guys penis though.

 

Sooooo, your gripe is that it was too faithful to the comic? Even so, I disagree that it brought nothing new, but more on that later...

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. Using something Dr. Manhattan made himself for Ozzy is way less far fetched than using a giant squid with the cloned brain of a psychic that will send psychic shockwaves across the city to kill people.
There's no thinking to check an energy signature. It's the standard procedure. The filmmakers are obviously operating on the assumption that we're going to check where our attack is coming from rather than immediately fire a counterattack on a guess.
You're right. The squid was NOT the Russians. It was made from a composite of animals with EARTH DNA. The way of the squid means eventually scientists will discover it was made on Earth by a MAN. Then what? Then, the jig is up! We go back to fighting each other. The way it was done in the film, everyone comes together, but submissively, so as not to anger their new "god" (Manhattan). This is what the film adaptation brought to the story. The possibilities are endless.
For instance, now Veidt has more control. He could act as a modern-day Moses, setting laws like commandments (orchestrating it so that it seems like Jon sent them) for the people to follow in his new Utopia.

Gory, bloody, violent... not unlike the GN, eh? So you're saying that should have never been written either?
I'm not going to say I enjoyed the graphic nature of the book or the movie, but the object was reality. And in reality, people do nasty shit to each other. That was a major point of the film. It was not supposed to be the feel-good movie of the year.

 

LAWLZ!1!
If I had a nickel.:smilielol5:

 

^^^Re: the new ending-- Veidt caused a massive explosion in several major American cities AFTER the President had issued the order to go to Defcon 1. This has never happened before in the history of America-- basically, they were at a state of tension and urgency GREATER than the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were at the level where they were absolutely with a doubt expecting an attack by the Russians, at a level where nuclear war was an absolute certainty.

Don't tell me that under these circumstances, when they were basically sitting with their finger on the button, that as soon as all major American cities cities began exploding, they would take the time to make sure that it was the Russians, and not some unexpected third party launching a completely random attack.

Also, they weren't united UNDER Dr. Manhattan, they were united AGAINST him. He wasn't their god at all, he was their enemy. That was the whole point of Ozy's scheme. But in the novel, he had the good sense to make it very obviously not the Russians.

I'm not saying that Watchmen shouldn't exist because of the violence, just that the film was infinitely more gratuitous than the novel... lingering on splatters of gore, dripping from the ceiling, bodies coming apart, shit like that.

And what's the point of having a Watchmen movie if the point is to be exactly the same as the book? Why not just tell people about the book and save $125 million?? What does this film bring to the story? I mean, besides gratuitous sex and violence, obvious musical choices, and some really shitty acting?

I just can't understand why people are so amazed that someone spent heaps of money to reproduce a comic book with real people and CGI. It's about as impressive as someone spending 6 million dollars to find a woman, dress her up like the Mona Lisa, apply lots of make-up, reproduce the background, and then take a picture.

I'm not saying that Hollywood doesn't usually spend heaps of money on crap-- they do. But the problem is that some people don't seem to realize just how crappy this movie is. It's not brilliant. It's not visionary. It's a rip-off wrapped in a gorefest wrapped in spotty acting wrapped in misery wrapped in a big commercial dollar sign.

If anything, this movie detracts from the original comic book, which is a disgrace.

 

Jesus H, I should hope so!

I meant in a God-fearing kind of way. They fear him, so they will do as he says to prevent another attack. There's really no fighting him...

I disagree. Just because there aren't six panels in a row of a single lingering shot does not mean it is less violent. Cartoon blood is still blood, and the GN is dripping with it. It's just more in-your-face when it's being acted out onscreen.
If you are referring to Rorschach's murder of the child-killer, yes it was more violent, but I thought it was better. Certain situations don't call for subtlety, and I thought it was much more fitting that Rorschach's psyche go with an audible SNAP rather than the cool and collected way he dealt with the murderer in the GN.

I guess people who aren't inclined to read a comic book aren't entitled to the story or the points it has to make? Sorry if that seems frivolous to you...

I'm truly sorry that you feel that way. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but there are many, myself included, who will disagree, feeling instead that it was a worthwhile endeavor to bring this story to the big screen.

 

If you're too lazy to pick up a comic book, and look at pictures while reading at a grade six level, then I have zero sympathy for you. But that wasn't my point--the point is that this movie could have been an opportunity to do something really worthwhile, but it ended up falling short. If someone was really interested in the ideas, I really don't think they would let something like a medium bother them. Besides, this story is best experienced as a comic book-- that's why the director tried to replicate the comic book onscreen, and failed.

Ultimately, this movie is mediocre. Not good, not terrible. But if you separate everything that was added from everything that is the direct result of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' original idea, the former becomes a huge steaming pile of dog shit, and the latter remains a brilliant work of art.

Therefore, this movie is like throwing dog shit onto a brilliant work of art.