That's not what I said in my post. Nor did I say it should have been dumbed-down. Nor did I say I was expecting an actionfest. What I was expecting was some entertainment value. I didn't get it. And neither, as far as I could tell, did the audience I saw it with. There was a boo and quite a bit of grumbling afterwards. And, like I said, if you're going to spend this kind of budget on a film and market the hell out of it, you'd better have something to give the audience.
The storyline in the comic book is trite. I could sum it up in a couple of sentences: A bunch of retired costumed heroes feel threatened when one of their number is killed so a couple of them investigate and find out that one of their old colleagues is trying to neutralize them in order to further a plot to create a catastrophe so terrible that it diverts the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. from going to war and thus brings about world peace. Okay, that's one sentence. That's all there is to the story. Pretty silly, isn’t it?
Now, you can get away with a trite story in a comic book by covering it up with interesting character interactions, background detail, social issue stuff, political context, backstories, various motifs and through-lines such as the newsstand owner and the kid and the story being told in the pirate comic (which promises to be a much more exciting story), etc. And Moore and Gibbons did a good job of making an interesting comic out of it.
But when you translate it to the big screen, the triteness of the story sticks out like a sore thumb. So you have to do something to make it a little more compelling and interesting. You have to try to do more to make this alternate universe version of recent American history believable. You have to make the audience care about these characters. Or at least cast some good actors who can bring something to their interpretations. Failing that, you have to at least provide some large-scale action setpieces to distract the viewers, the way Nolan and his writers did in THE DARK KNIGHT (another trite story). The filmmakers of WATCHMEN didn't do any of that.
Sure, fans who have a lot invested in the original story seem to have a lot invested in this film. But what about the rest of us? Why should we care?
Wow, hey cool, thanks for blowing the fucking plot for me.
Was really worried going into this but damn I have to say I loved it... Perfect? No, but I have to say I never once was hoping they would end it or thought it was too long. My biggest issue was Ozymandais' costume reminding me of something out of Batman and Robin, but either than that, really enjoyed it. Can't wait for the BD, and hopefully they will have a "super" edition with all the extra shit thats been coming out so I can just get it in on one fail swoop.
joefrog91
03-07-09, 07:53 PM
Well, if you're gonna make a "drama with a little action," make it a low-budget arthouse movie or a TV series. Don't make it a $150 million special effects extravaganza and then market it as if it's an action-packed superhero adventure. I think the non-fan, non-geek audience got cheated on this one. And if you're gonna make it ONLY for the Watchmen fans, as I believe to be the case with this one, then scale it down for that crowd and don't try to sell it so aggressively to the rest of us.
I agree it's been marketed wrong or misleading to the general masses. However, if you read the book how could you not know what kind of movie it was going to be?
whotony
03-07-09, 07:58 PM
After the showing I went to the pollsters were outside, one guy decided to yell out to the waiting crowd "It wasn't bad, for a PORNO".
so?
Blu Man
03-07-09, 08:45 PM
Wow, hey cool, thanks for blowing the fucking plot for me.
Your an idiot. The whole fucking plot has been blown since '85. It's the movie to a graphic novel, you know that right? So don't bitch and whine when some one says a spoiler to a 25 year plus book. Some people........
Lt Ripley
03-07-09, 08:55 PM
Your an idiot. The whole fucking plot has been blown since '85. It's the movie to a graphic novel, you know that right? So don't bitch and whine when some one says a spoiler to a 25 year plus book. Some people........
Wish we could send this prat back to blu ray dot com.
Blu Man
03-07-09, 09:06 PM
Wish we could send this prat back to blu ray dot com.
You think it's ok for someone to complain about another member giving out spoilers to a movie that's already out that is based on a 25 year old book?
Lt Ripley
03-07-09, 09:10 PM
You think it's ok for someone to complain about another member giving out spoilers to a movie that's already out that is based on a 25 year old book?
Yes. I know it is an astoundingly difficult concept to grasp, but outside of comic book circles, who knew what Watchmen was about?
RichC2
03-07-09, 09:18 PM
Man they're coming out from the woodwork for this one.
I never read more than a couple pages of the comic, didn't know the story, and felt the movie was both properly advertised and very entertaining.
Didn't feel it was misadvertised at all, especially considering most comic book movies are generally advertised as straight out action flicks and actually offer very little in terms of action.
Blu Man
03-07-09, 09:19 PM
Yes. I know it is an astoundingly difficult concept to grasp, but outside of comic book circles, who knew what Watchmen was about?
I'm not in any comic book circles! In fact Watchmen is the only Graphic Novel i've ever read. And if you just go onto any movie site you can see what the movies about. And then of course their is the trailer. And if he didn't want to know what the movie was about then why the hell did he click on this thread? Did he really think that by clicking on a thread dedicated to reveiws of Watchmen that there wouldn't be any clues to the plot? I know this is hard for you to understand but use that brain of yours and think about it.
RichC2
03-07-09, 09:25 PM
I'm not in any comic book circles! In fact Watchmen is the only Graphic Novel i've ever read. And if you just go onto any movie site you can see what the movies about. And then of course their is the trailer. And if he didn't want to know what the movie was about then why the hell did he click on this thread? Did he really think that by clicking on a thread dedicated to reveiws of Watchmen that there wouldn't be any clues to the plot? I know this is hard for you to understand but use that brain of yours and think about it.
There's a difference between discussing a few plot points and flat out spoiling the movie. Hell, you can fully discuss a movie without mentioning the plot. Those other sites generally have the brains to say "Hey, Spoilers ahead!" in their reviews, and it isn't so hard to use the [ spoiler] tags. It was a bit of a dick move. (And to that point, it's also very easy to sum up just about any plot in a couple sentences.)
And yes, if you really wanted to spoil the story for yourself, you could just go to the wikipedia entry and get a good rundown. That wasn't the point, it's reading something expecting one thing and getting bruce willis is a ghost.
And gee, who would click on a Reviews thread wondering "Hmm, I wonder if this movie is any good."
Elpresidentepez
03-07-09, 09:26 PM
People have been spoilerizing major plot points in this thread. The fact that it's based on a 25 year old graphic novel should make no difference.
The Cow
03-07-09, 09:29 PM
Wish we could send this prat back to blu ray dot com.
I'm guessing the countdown clock has started.
The Valeyard
03-07-09, 09:31 PM
Loved it.
Lt Ripley
03-07-09, 09:33 PM
What Rich said.
Lt Ripley
03-07-09, 09:33 PM
I'm guessing the countdown clock has started.
Is it 2 minutes to midnight yet?
Blu Man
03-07-09, 09:38 PM
. The fact that it's based on a 25 year old graphic novel should make no difference.
Yes it does. The fact that the whole story and concept and ending and everything have been accessible to everyone for 25 years makes a huge difference. But the fact is, that this isn't like The Dark Knight. If someone gave me spoilers to that movie before I saw it I’d be a little ticked, but that information was on accessible to the public as of July 18th 2008. The Watchmen story has be accessible to everyone for 25 years. It's nothing new. So when some one is upset for getting spoilers to a 25 year old story, it's a little pathetic.
RKillgore
03-07-09, 09:42 PM
Well we never see a hard-on in the comics..so no need for a hard-on in the film. I think it would polarize the audience for sure...
Well, there was a hard-on in the film, shown explicitly, however briefly. No, I'm not talking about Nite Owl.
When Laurie was flipping through the Silk Spectre Tijuana bible, there was a full pornographic panel showing erection and penetration (not in the original comic book). It was pretty brief: just long enough to register in your mind, but not so long as to dwell on it.
Now, you know Snyder must have insisted that a full eight page Tijuana bible be made. I wonder if it will ever surface?
RichC2
03-07-09, 09:44 PM
Yes it does. The fact that the whole story and concept and ending and everything have been accessible to everyone for 25 years makes a huge difference. But the fact is, that this isn't like The Dark Knight. If someone gave me spoilers to that movie before I saw it I’d be a little ticked, but that information was on accessible to the public as of July 18th 2008. The Watchmen story has be accessible to everyone for 25 years. It's nothing new. So when some one is upset for getting spoilers to a 25 year old story, it's a little pathetic.
So if somebody comes on here and tells you the ending to Inglorious Basterds or something along those lines, you would have no problem with it? (The screenplay has been available for some time now) Good to know.
Your reasoning really made no sense there, if somebody has no interest in reading the graphic novel but has an interest in seeing the movie they have the same right to a spoiler-free experience as people who read the story 25 years ago.
dsa_shea
03-07-09, 09:44 PM
Yes it does. The fact that the whole story and concept and ending and everything have been accessible to everyone for 25 years makes a huge difference. But the fact is, that this isn't like The Dark Knight. If someone gave me spoilers to that movie before I saw it I’d be a little ticked, but that information was on accessible to the public as of July 18th 2008. The Watchmen story has be accessible to everyone for 25 years. It's nothing new. So when some one is upset for getting spoilers to a 25 year old story, it's a little pathetic.
Debbie Does Dallas has been around for years but I haven't seen it yet so don't say a damn thing about it alright.
Lt Ripley
03-07-09, 09:45 PM
Debbie Does Dallas has been around for years but I haven't seen it yet so don't say a damn thing about it alright.
I truly did lol.
RagingBull80
03-07-09, 10:14 PM
After letting it sit with me for a few days I have to say that I think that I really liked the movie and can't wait to see it again. I also can't wait for the DVD release. I want to see the huge bloated director's cut badly.
paradicelost
03-07-09, 10:16 PM
Your an idiot. The whole fucking plot has been blown since '85. It's the movie to a graphic novel, you know that right? So don't bitch and whine when some one says a spoiler to a 25 year plus book. Some people........
I'm glad you weren't around when Fight Club first came out, that was a book for 7 years but i wouldn't have anyone to tell me the ending.
Elpresidentepez
03-07-09, 10:18 PM
Yes it does. The fact that the whole story and concept and ending and everything have been accessible to everyone for 25 years makes a huge difference. But the fact is, that this isn't like The Dark Knight. If someone gave me spoilers to that movie before I saw it I’d be a little ticked, but that information was on accessible to the public as of July 18th 2008. The Watchmen story has be accessible to everyone for 25 years. It's nothing new. So when some one is upset for getting spoilers to a 25 year old story, it's a little pathetic.
So is it safe to spoil the ending of ten year old movie like the Sixth Sense? or a 3 or 4 year old book like Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince? So in a few months we can spoil that movie for everyone? What's the specific time line for when it's ok to spoil?
...Back to the movie, I saw it again last night. I think I might have enjoyed it more the second time around. The hype had washed away and my expectations were a bit more fair. the thing I noticed was the sheer amount of detail to be found in every shot. The Nite Owl I scene struck me in how much back story we get from the opening shot...his police academy photo, newspaper clippings. I hope that gets fleshed out more in the directors cut, but Snyder tried his hardest to get as much as possible in every frame.
Hokeyboy
03-07-09, 10:34 PM
Your an idiot.
:lol: rotfl :lol:
The whole fucking plot has been blown since '85. It's the movie to a graphic novel, you know that right? So don't bitch and whine when some one says a spoiler to a 25 year plus book. Some people........
First of all, personal insults are going to get you tossed from the forum real fast. Grow the hell up.
Second, when you read a REVIEW, you don't expected the reviewer to SPOIL A MAJOR PLOT REVELATION. This is the REVIEW thread. If you can't seem to understand that, I'm sure there's an AICN talkback that's more to your liking.
Tarantino
03-07-09, 10:49 PM
People have been here long enough to know that <i>if you haven't seen the movie, stay out of the fucking review threads</i>. Newsflash - people often post spoilers in them.
My rule is, a month away from release on a movie I want to see...stay out of these threads until I've seen it.
= J
chris_sc77
03-07-09, 10:55 PM
I liked it a lot. I really did. Having read the Graphic novel for the first time in the past week I kinda fell in love with it. An amazing, rewarding read.
The film (which I gave 4 stars or a grade of B+/A-) was very good but had many,many flaws that kept it from being great. Most of the music choices hurt the film. Espescially the terrible, offensive version of My Chemical Romance's cover of Desolation ROw that plays as soon as the end credits start. The song that fits the spirit and tone of the film the best is Leonard Cohens "And then we take Manhatten" which isnt played until the end of the end credits nor is it on the official soundtrack.
The film really kicked into gear for me when Dr. Manhatten was screaming "Leave me ALone" and cutting to the mars scene with the great instrumental music playing (phillip glass?). I was completely digging the film from this point until the scene in which Dr. Manhattan takes Silk Spectre to Mars with him. From then on the film kinda failed on most levels.
The action scenes were great though. Very cool. I Liked most of the cast (except Matthew Goode who I feel is the wrong choice for this role) but some scenes and dialogue were pretty painfully embarrassing to watch: "I shoulda had an abortion" ; Some of Carla Gugino's lines were really bad. Also the film has gotta be extremely predictable to audiences not familiar with the story by the way the actor portrays the "villain" .
Also Bubastis was sadly not in the film much and pretty badly animated. Bubastis kicks ass and deserved better. Why couldn't they make a goddamn mechanized Bubastis instead of a bastard cousin of the wolf from 300?
The film really reminded me alot of Southland Tales. Except Southland tales had better music and even more awkward dialogue and acting.
Still, overall its a fine adaptation of Watchmen. Not perfect. But noting that makes a mockery of the source material.
kevinlord190
03-07-09, 10:59 PM
saw it today after practice and it was absolutely incredible!
even tho i never read the book i completely understood everything about the story
better than tdk imho
toddly6666
03-07-09, 11:09 PM
That's not what I said in my post. Nor did I say it should have been dumbed-down. Nor did I say I was expecting an actionfest. What I was expecting was some entertainment value. I didn't get it. And neither, as far as I could tell, did the audience I saw it with. There was a boo and quite a bit of grumbling afterwards. And, like I said, if you're going to spend this kind of budget on a film and market the hell out of it, you'd better have something to give the audience.
The storyline in the comic book is trite. I could sum it up in a couple of sentences: A bunch of retired costumed heroes feel threatened when one of their number is killed so a couple of them investigate and find out that one of their old colleagues is trying to neutralize them in order to further a plot to create a catastrophe so terrible that it diverts the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. from going to war and thus brings about world peace. Okay, that's one sentence. That's all there is to the story. Pretty silly, isn’t it?
Now, you can get away with a trite story in a comic book by covering it up with interesting character interactions, background detail, social issue stuff, political context, backstories, various motifs and through-lines such as the newsstand owner and the kid and the story being told in the pirate comic (which promises to be a much more exciting story), etc. And Moore and Gibbons did a good job of making an interesting comic out of it.
But when you translate it to the big screen, the triteness of the story sticks out like a sore thumb. So you have to do something to make it a little more compelling and interesting. You have to try to do more to make this alternate universe version of recent American history believable. You have to make the audience care about these characters. Or at least cast some good actors who can bring something to their interpretations. Failing that, you have to at least provide some large-scale action setpieces to distract the viewers, the way Nolan and his writers did in THE DARK KNIGHT (another trite story). The filmmakers of WATCHMEN didn't do any of that.
Sure, fans who have a lot invested in the original story seem to have a lot invested in this film. But what about the rest of us? Why should we care?
The Dark Knight may be the best superhero movie, but it's not adapted from any story, neither was Batman Begins which is sort of influenced from Year One, but it wasn't an adaptation of Year One. Watchmen is just another great adaptation more or less, along with 300 and Sin City. If anything was added to Watchmen (more character development, more story, more emotions), it wouldn't be for the fans of the book. The Lord of the Rings were good adaptations and great movies as well, because they have so much info and the movies were 13 hours long. The Lord of the Rings story isn't that great as well - run, run, run, throw ring in volcano, 4 endings, the end. Since air transportation was available, why didn't they just get a ride on the eagles in the first place and drop the ring into the volcano? It's a stupid story as well when summed up just as you summed up Watchmen. Well, anything can be interpreted as a stupid story...
Brack
03-07-09, 11:31 PM
using the word "trite" four times in one post is, well, trite.
NoirFan
03-07-09, 11:36 PM
IThe song that fits the spirit and tone of the film the best is Leonard Cohens "And then we take Manhatten" which isnt played until the end of the end credits nor is it on the official soundtrack.
"First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin."
harpo787
03-07-09, 11:41 PM
Therefore, I do like to see guy's dicks."
There's a sig line in this somewhere....laff. Careful what you say, sir!
harpo787
03-07-09, 11:49 PM
I should add that I've read the comic and found it interesting but not that compelling.
Sounds like you knew what you were getting into, then. As the post immediately following yours said, people who have not read the story will go in expecting another action-fest, which this movie (and the comic) are not.
Being that you read the comic, what exactly were you expecting to see on the screen?
harpo787
03-07-09, 11:53 PM
shouldn't you have known going in that this wasn't going to be an action fest?
Whoops! Looks like someone beat me to the punch! Oh well...
Agreed with another unrelated post; I was stunned to find out that it was Kelly Leak in that role! Outstanding job on his part...
Moopher
03-07-09, 11:54 PM
Your an idiot. The whole fucking plot has been blown since '85. It's the movie to a graphic novel, you know that right? So don't bitch and whine when some one says a spoiler to a 25 year plus book. Some people........
First of all, get hit by a semi.
I don't give a fuck what you think, 25 years old or coming out next month, I shouldn't have to know information that was just thrown in the middle of some BS. SPOILER TAGS exist for a reason on THIS forum, so you don't fuck up other film lovers experiences. Guess what? I've never seen Casablanca, and I don't know what happens, don't ruin that shit for me? Just because you have all the time in the world to piss away on comic books, cartoons, and movies, doesn't mean I do, and it doesn't mean I have to know the same information you do.
Moopher
03-07-09, 11:55 PM
People have been here long enough to know that <i>if you haven't seen the movie, stay out of the fucking review threads</i>. Newsflash - people often post spoilers in them.
My rule is, a month away from release on a movie I want to see...stay out of these threads until I've seen it.
= J
I read through MANY review threads all the way through, I keep up with them. I've never run into a blatant plot revelation before, THAT WAS THE ENTIRE STORY. A spoiler is one thing, but I know the entire book now because of what he had said.
SomethingMore
03-07-09, 11:57 PM
Debbie Does Dallas has been around for years but I haven't seen it yet so don't say a damn thing about it alright.
she does Dallas.
That was hard.*
*see what I did there?
harpo787
03-07-09, 11:58 PM
using the word "trite" four times in one post is, well, trite.
You know, it's awfully trite to call someone trite.
...and now I've gone and done it.
Damn you!
SomethingMore
03-08-09, 12:00 AM
I don't give a fuck what you think, 25 years old or coming out next month, I shouldn't have to know information that was just thrown in the middle of some BS. SPOILER TAGS exist for a reason on THIS forum, so you don't fuck up other film lovers experiences.
quoted for truth.
harpo787
03-08-09, 12:02 AM
People have been here long enough to know that <i>if you haven't seen the movie, stay out of the fucking review threads</i>. Newsflash - people often post spoilers in them.
My rule is, a month away from release on a movie I want to see...stay out of these threads until I've seen it.
= J
Totally understand what you're saying, and I tend to follow that rule myself. However: NEWSFLASH! There's a sticky thread telling people how to post spoilers in discussions without ruining it for others.
But, yeah, ultimately it's your own fault. Want to avoid spoilers, etc.? Stay away from threads about movies etc. you don't want ruined for you. Hell, I avoid some websites entirely because of jackasses who post spoilers as thread titles.
toddly6666
03-08-09, 12:22 AM
1. I love seeing guy's dicks in movies (I haven't seen enough dicks in real life to make a conclusion if I like seeing them or not in real life).
2. Alan Moore stole the Watchmen story from James Bonds' MOONRAKER.
3. Casablanca is nothing more than a bunch of different scenes of Humphrey Bogart acting like a douche bag.
RobLutter
03-08-09, 12:37 AM
Threadless has this great shirt for you guys who hate spoilers...
2. Alan Moore stole the Watchmen story from James Bonds' MOONRAKER.
It's actually pre-dated by the Outer Limits episode "The Architects of Fear."
calhoun07
03-08-09, 01:40 AM
Yes. I know it is an astoundingly difficult concept to grasp, but outside of comic book circles, who knew what Watchmen was about?
I suppose not much. But why would somebody who doesn't want spoilers be looking at this thread?
The good thing for me is there really is nothing to spoil for me on this...I've read the graphic novel several times over. Bring the spoilers on!
calhoun07
03-08-09, 01:42 AM
And gee, who would click on a Reviews thread wondering "Hmm, I wonder if this movie is any good."
That's why there's a poll...so you can get an idea without having to read spoilers.
calhoun07
03-08-09, 01:54 AM
People have been here long enough to know that <i>if you haven't seen the movie, stay out of the fucking review threads</i>. Newsflash - people often post spoilers in them.
My rule is, a month away from release on a movie I want to see...stay out of these threads until I've seen it.
= J
I'm with you on this. I don't even read professional critic's reviews on movies let alone a thread on a message board like this if I haven't seen it. I mean, I might read the first couple of paragraphs of a review by somebody like Roger Ebert and then the last couple of paragraphs to get a sense of what he thought, but when he goes into explaining what happens in the movie, even if it doesn't contain MAJOR spoilers, it can contain spoilers. I mean, he even talked about something that happened at the end of Spider Man in his review of that movie. So even professional critics aren't above throwing spoilers in their full reviews.
This thread is a discussion for people who have seen the movie. Rottentomatoes.com offers spoiler free review blurbs on their site and a rating percentage if somebody wants a general feel of how the movie is being received, and IMDB offers a similar review scale by average movie goers.
I am not saying I defend all Blue Man has posted...the personal attacks aren't cool...but he has a point. Ill communicated, but a good point, I think.
Lt Ripley
03-08-09, 03:18 AM
I suppose not much. But why would somebody who doesn't want spoilers be looking at this thread?
The good thing for me is there really is nothing to spoil for me on this...I've read the graphic novel several times over. Bring the spoilers on!
I can see how you could misunderstand my response to Blubell, but he asked me if I thought it was ok for someone to complain about a movie spoiler that is based on a 25 year old book. He didn't say anything about this review thread, just the age of the material itself. My answer still stands to his question. Yes. It comes down to etiquette.
Saw the film on Thursday, enjoyed it. Nothing was spoiled for me.
asianxcore
03-08-09, 03:37 AM
Caught the film tonight with a couple of my friends.
Really enjoyed it, visually stunning. The only issue I have with the film is that it stuck too close to the source material most of the time (which many have spoke about). Didn't give an opportunity for the film to breathe outside of the lines it was traced into. It made for a very dizzying experience on screen in the first quarter of the film. It's a lot to cram into one movie without really putting individuals who have never read the novel into exile.
I'm glad Jackie Earl Haley was able to bring Rorschach to life. He was my favorite character in the novel and it was amazing to see it brought to life on screen. Easily stole the entire movie for me and I'd easily see it again to watch his performance.
Going to attempt to see this in IMAX this coming week with friends.
fumanstan
03-08-09, 03:55 AM
I caught an afternoon showing and I thought it was decent. I liked it about as much as I do the graphic novel, which I don't hold in that high regard but think of as somewhat enjoyable.
First, I don't see why anyone would read 6 pages into a review thread and then complain about spoilers. It's one thing to read the start and get some ideas of what the movie is like, but 200+ posts of reviews there's bound to be a spoiler, especially from people comparing scenes with the novel thats been out for 20 years.
Anyway, I liked pretty much all the characters except for Ozy. He definitely seemed like more of a prissy twerp then any real threat, and that wasn't the way I pictured him from the comics. Everyone else was pretty fantastic, especially Rorschach and the Comedian. And I also thought the changed ending was for the better and made a lot more sense. I do wish we got a little more time with Rorschach's origin, but I can see why a lot was cut even though the movie never felt long to me, which was a surprise.
I don't think I thought much at all about the big blue penis and ass throughout the movie. It is what it is. No big deal to me. Some parts of the film came off as bloodier then I remember from the comics too, but I may just have forgotten those particular panels. And as the music goes, some of it felt perfect, and others actually seemed like a bit of a distraction to me.
Jam Master Jay
03-08-09, 06:12 AM
I thought this was a pretty bad movie. I have never read the graphic novel and I just thought the movie was really overly-long and just not interesting enough. It just seemed like that there was soo much to explain (the whole alternate history and at the same time the back story's of the major characters) that it felt like the movie could have been extended about a good half hour but at the same time it already felt over long as it was. The action scenes were really well done but were just too few and far between it felt like it was hours between the next action sequence.
Anyway I rated the movie 2 1/2 stars, I think that Zack Synder is a extremely talented director and is bordering on genius when it comes to soundtrack selection (anyone remember the opening to Dawn of the Dead?) but it none the less comes up extremely short for me for a film that was being hyped up as the next Dark Knight.
grrr
03-08-09, 07:18 AM
I walked in expecting a minor disaster, but it turned out pretty well. The acting was uniformly great considering how easily the actors could've slipped into parody, and the story was clear in spite of all of the digressions that the story forces. Manhattan and Rorschach steal the show, and the Comedian is great in his limited time. Patrick Wilson is going to be overlooked, but he's got a great take on the insecure hero who doesn't know what to do in retirement or how to deal with all of the sociopathic good guys he encounters through the years.
Problems: though the writing was solid (the addition of Rorschach reclaiming his "face" was a great scene), there is too much adaptation and not enough writing. Big Figure didn't work at all, and some of Rorschach's diary entries should have been gone in the first draft of the script. Snyder still has no idea of how to shoot a fight, as every one of them turned into a gory/goofy music video replete with slow-mo, swishing hair, and dramatic poses. The occasional graphic violence was also out of place and poorly rendered, almost Troma-level in both execution and quality. And Rorschach and Haley are closer to 50 than 35.
Complaints aside, it's worth seeing--not anywhere near a perfect movie, but one with flashes of greatness and plenty of goodness.
Ash Ketchum
03-08-09, 07:49 AM
Wow, hey cool, thanks for blowing the fucking plot for me.
Sorry about that. I went back and added a spoiler warning. But I don't know how to do that thing where people here hide the spoiler content with a spoiler tag.
wendersfan
03-08-09, 07:52 AM
Your an idiot. <i>Mod note: Just stop it NOW.</i>
toddly6666
03-08-09, 09:48 AM
Snyder still has no idea of how to shoot a fight, as every one of them turned into a gory/goofy music video replete with slow-mo, swishing hair, and dramatic poses. The occasional graphic violence was also out of place and poorly rendered, almost Troma-level in both execution and quality.
What movie do you think has fight scenes which are ideally shot - Bourne movies?
Troma is pretty harsh - that's at the level of someone taking a video camera and shooting their own movie. I don't think I've seen any mainstream at the level of Troma, even the movies I hate...
I suppose not much. But why would somebody who doesn't want spoilers be looking at this thread?
Because its a REVIEW thread, not a discussion thread. I get what you're saying, but if you read a review for a movie you want to see and the reviewer SPOILS THE ENTIRE MOVIE INCLUDING MAJOR PLOT TWISTS, that's called a serious douchebag move.
I don't understand why that's so difficult to grasp.
The good thing for me is there really is nothing to spoil for me on this...I've read the graphic novel several times over. Bring the spoilers on!
As long as they're tagged, I'm with you.
I saw a few people at the midnight screenings at my theater come in painted up like Dr. Manhattan, and the first thing I thought of was, "I just blue myself."
Also yesterday my boss cracked a joke about how he thought it was weird to see naked men painted blue walking around the theater, and how much of a pain in the ass it was to clean all the blue paint out of the seats. :lol:
Trevor
03-08-09, 10:49 AM
Interesting to see the disparity in our thoughts on the soundtrack.
I never notice music in movies, but did several times in Watchmen. Found it very distracting, and easily the worst part of the film for me. Figured that Zach must be universally panned for picking the worst soundtracks possible. Then come here to see that some think he is the best.
kms_md
03-08-09, 11:05 AM
Threadless has this great shirt for you guys who hate spoilers...
Some of the music did feel a touch out of place/overpowering but that may of been in part to the IMAX sound system in our theater - loud is fine but holy hell it was almost painful this time around.
My favorite music cue was the instrumental/elevator music version (at least I'm pretty sure it was an instrumental version) of Everybody Wants To Rule The World during the assassination attempt. It fit the situation and character perfectly.
grrr
03-08-09, 11:42 AM
What movie do you think has fight scenes which are ideally shot - Bourne movies?
Troma is pretty harsh - that's at the level of someone taking a video camera and shooting their own movie. I don't think I've seen any mainstream at the level of Troma, even the movies I hate...
Ideal fight scene? Stop trying to impress me with your camera work--I'm more interested in figuring out what's actually happening. Don't fuddle with speed effects every three seconds. And please rid yourself of thumping scores that lead me to believe you're Ewe Boll's half-brother.
I'll stand behind my criticism of the gore. The compound fracture and circular saw scenes looked like something out of a bad student film.
On the plus side, I loved the cue for Dan & Laurie's final scene. Beautiful stuff. Oh, and I want a print from the Warhol Nite Owl ASAP.
onebyone
03-08-09, 12:08 PM
Interesting to see the disparity in our thoughts on the soundtrack.
I never notice music in movies, but did several times in Watchmen. Found it very distracting, and easily the worst part of the film for me. Figured that Zach must be universally panned for picking the worst soundtracks possible. Then come here to see that some think he is the best.
Two riders were approaching... and the wind.. began to howl...
In my whole life of watching movies, never has the song placement bothered me as much as it did in this one. Easily the worst part for me too, even over Malin Akerman's complete and utter lack of acting skills.
Slumbering Fist
03-08-09, 12:23 PM
Ideal fight scene? Stop trying to impress me with your camera work--I'm more interested in figuring out what's actually happening. Don't fuddle with speed effects every three seconds. And please rid yourself of thumping scores...
Agreed. While it is a comic book film, so you play by some of the pulp universe's cues (superpowered beings, technological advances, etc), Watchmen's whole point is about a more realistic take. I felt Synder did too many things that spin away from realism, like the physically improbable and overblown action (for the humans), blatant cheesy music cues, the gratuitous flashy slow motion, and the bad makeup fx. Those things, for me, made it lean towards hokey and unreal instead of natural.
I didnt want Gilliam to do Watchmen either because he would have leaned towards the fantasy side too much just like Synder. Greengrass probably would have been a bad fit because his loose method wouldn't work with such dense material. Aranofsky's take would have been interesting as his style, on the surface, seems to be a decent fit. But we'll never know.
calhoun07
03-08-09, 12:31 PM
Because its a REVIEW thread, not a discussion thread. I get what you're saying, but if you read a review for a movie you want to see and the reviewer SPOILS THE ENTIRE MOVIE INCLUDING MAJOR PLOT TWISTS, that's called a serious douchebag move.
I don't understand why that's so difficult to grasp.
To each their own. However your point is NOT difficult to understand. It seems there are always two camps on this board, and I guess I fall into the camp that thinks people should be allowed to discuss some spoiler material 7 pages into a thread. If you are just checking this thread out as a casual reader trying to determine if the people who post here like it, there is the poll at the beginning, and you can view the results without. Some of on here accept the responsibility and potential consequences of reading FULL threads on the discussion of a movie (and, yes, this is the discussion of the movie. It may say REVIEWS in the title, but this is the discussion thread. There aren't two threads here on the Watchmen and I bet you dollars to donuts that if I started a new discussion thread it would be merged with this thread in the matter of minutes).
I've been posting here for quite some time and know that any discussion threads on TV shows and movies may contain and probably will contain stuff I do not want to read before I see that TV show or movie. If you want relatively spoiler free reviews (at least of major plot points) then read the reviews the critics of DVDtalk post. Two critics reviewed this movie. This is a detailed discussion of the reviews and the responses AFTER seeing the movie. I think reading 7 pages in and then complaining you saw something you didn't want to see (in a LONG post no less...you know that wasn't just going to be a quick "I thought it sucked" blurb post) is a douchebag move. I mean, you get to a line on the thread that reads: "The storyline in the comic book is trite. I could sum it up in a couple of sentences" and your brain thinks "I haven't seen the movie or ever read the comic so I SHOULD KEEP READING THIS?" Spoiler tag or no spoiler tag, it's not like it just came with NO warning.
There are other resources online for spoiler free discussion/reviews. I mentioned two of them already, if people are just wanting to see a general consensus of how the movie is being received.
mdc3000
03-08-09, 01:14 PM
I read through MANY review threads all the way through, I keep up with them. I've never run into a blatant plot revelation before, THAT WAS THE ENTIRE STORY. A spoiler is one thing, but I know the entire book now because of what he had said.
I have to tell you that the plot twists are not what make Watchmen great, and all the themes, subtext and subtleties left out of that plot description that blu man wrote just goes to show he doesn't get it... if you think you can sum up
Watchmen with that one sentence, you missed the point of Watchmen as a whole/experience...because it is so much more than just that "plot".
PopcornTreeCt
03-08-09, 02:39 PM
:4star:
I think reading most of the graphic novel helped me get the movie. I read just enough without reading the ending to get comfortable with the universe but still be surprised by the ending.
I liked everything about it. I liked the music, who can argue with Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and Simon & Garfunkel? I didn't like how All Along the Watchtower was used but the opening credits were amazing and probably my favorite credits scrawl I've ever seen. I liked the sped up and then slow motion action that Snyder used. I liked how everything tied together at the end.
I did think the movie was long, it felt long. I almost would've preferred to see it as a miniseries. It has been criticized for a nearly literal translation and I don't see anything wrong with that. It's a unique movie. I really liked the world that Snyder created within Watchmen.
Overall, 4 stars.
Trevor
03-08-09, 02:42 PM
I have to tell you that the plot twists are not what make Watchmen great, and all the themes, subtext and subtleties left out of that plot description that blu man wrote just goes to show he doesn't get it... if you think you can sum up
Watchmen with that one sentence, you missed the point of Watchmen as a whole/experience...because it is so much more than just that "plot".
Likewise, most of what makes Watchmen great was left out of the movie. If any of you liked the movie, and have a patient mind, you will LOVE the novel.
It's not an easy read. I've heard of people breezing thru Watchmen and skipping over most of the text pieces and/or the pirate story. That's like reading every other page of a novel.
I really enjoyed the movie, but I wish that everyone who sees the movie without reading the book understands that the movie is a pale shadow of its source material.
Matty-O
03-08-09, 02:56 PM
Just saw it and loved it. The two friends I saw it with that never read the graphic novel loved it as well. Like everyone else I thought Haley was perfect as Rorschach. Don't get the hate for Goode...thought he was fine. Hopefully when I'm in Orlando next week I'll get a chance to see it in Imax(no Imax screens in Maine...though I did make the four hour drive to see Dark Knight in New Hampshire).
troystiffler
03-08-09, 04:01 PM
Just saw it and enjoyed it. First time I was at the theater ... since last summer or fall (I really don't remember the last time I went).
The fight choreography and fight cinematography felt a bit off. But it didn't matter. The actual fighting was the least interesting part of the movie. Everything was so damn good and interesting that the action was almost unnecessary. I wouldn't have minded seeing (or not seeing) the fights handled off-screen ... just give me the aftermath and get back to the story. But I guess that doesn't sound very marketable, now that I write it.
The music fit the individual sequences. But it didn't seem like it mesured up over the entire film. The only unifying distinctions would be 'Vietnam and 80's music'. I guess it's just kind of akward, but it works well in the movie's reality well, but conflicts with my reality ... while sitting there in the theater. I don't know - maybe a pointless confliction. But it was a little jarring at times. The soundtrack would probably be a bit goofy to listen to.
Zack Snyder has made another really good movie. I consider that three for three.
harpo787
03-08-09, 04:33 PM
:lol: rotfl :lol:
First of all, personal insults are going to get you tossed from the forum real fast. Grow the hell up.
Second, when you read a REVIEW, you don't expected the reviewer to SPOIL A MAJOR PLOT REVELATION. This is the REVIEW thread. If you can't seem to understand that, I'm sure there's an AICN talkback that's more to your liking.
I guess you missed the other flub in a previous post: "And then of course their is the trailer." I just love that it's followed by a statement like "use that brain of yours and think about it." This is the stuff legends are made of!
That said, I believe I posted before: it's ultimately the choice of the user clicking on the thread - they have the final say. Want to avoid spoilers? Don't go in a thread, because odds are someone's going to either be unaware of (or willingly ignore) the SPOILER TAGS sticky thread.
I find I've saved myself quite a bit of grief in life in general by assuming that the other person is either not thinking clearly or is not thinking at all. It applies just about everywhere, sadly...
harpo787
03-08-09, 04:37 PM
First of all, get hit by a semi. Just because you have all the time in the world to piss away on comic books, cartoons, and movies, doesn't mean I do, and it doesn't mean I have to know the same information you do.
Listen, you TOOL (nice avatar!). He said he's not part of any comicbook circle and never read a comic in his life, other than Watchmen! So....so THERE!
HEY! That's a spoiler! Wait, it is a spoiler, isn't it?
Suprmallet: "the first thing I thought of was, "I just blue myself."
--The first thing I thought was "Where are his jean-shorts? I thought he was a never-nude!"
harpo787
03-08-09, 05:03 PM
Everything was so damn good and interesting that the action was almost unnecessary. I wouldn't have minded seeing (or not seeing) the fights handled off-screen ... just give me the aftermath and get back to the story.
So you'd like it if Kevin Smith directed it? Laff...didn't he say something like that about a movie he was supposed to direct, like Superman or some such? It would just be a bunch of talking with all the action happening just off-screen.....
RichC2
03-08-09, 06:47 PM
That'd be fine by me, the action scenes were handled just fine but did seem a bit unnecessary.
fumanstan
03-08-09, 06:54 PM
I actually really dug the action scenes and thought Snyder did a good job with them and sprucing them up, although he quickly needs to move away from the slo-mo that he did here and 300 before it becomes tired.
Solid Snake PAC
03-08-09, 07:25 PM
I dunno..Rorschach's arrest was pretty well done. He was kicking major ass...
toddly6666
03-08-09, 07:39 PM
There's basically two types of choreographed fight scenes nowadays:
Snyder is in the Hong Kong choreographed style.
Greengrass is in the shaky cam, MTV-style, quick-cut awful style.
Those are the basic two, and I have to go with the Hong Kong style because it looks better and it's more memorable.
The fight scenes in the two new Batman films were sort of a combination of the two, mixing realism with some style, but in turn they just weren't memorable. Why make a fight scene not memorable? The 80s were filled with action movies of non-memorable parody-type fight scenes (the They Live fight scene is a classic example of the fight scene of the 80s).
Thank god Greengrass didn't direct Watchmen - it would have been awful, especially with his digital filmmaking.
I love Terry Gilliam, but I don't think he would do a good job either.
The only other directors that could have done justice to Watchmen is Fincher and Jeunet..
Patman
03-08-09, 07:50 PM
I'd like to see what Aronofsky could have done with a good-sized budget.
harpo787
03-08-09, 08:25 PM
The only other directors that could have done justice to Watchmen is Fincher and Jeunet..
And Spike Jonez! I have no idea why I just said that. Gondry? Laff...
Solid Snake PAC
03-08-09, 08:41 PM
Spike Jonze might not be a good choice cuz if he's being shitted on for a children's book...I'd hate to see what WB would give him for Watchmen. I'm a Jonze fan too but...I don't think they'd give a huge film like this. I do think Jonze will do a fine job though on his current project.
Mopower
03-08-09, 09:52 PM
Fantastic movie although it was a little too heavy on the exploding people and hanging penises.
Hokeyboy
03-08-09, 09:59 PM
Fantastic movie although it was a little too heavy on the exploding people and hanging penises.
Imagine how bugfuck it would've been if those adjectives were reversed! :rock2:
Hurmmm...Never Nude with Always Nude. Interesting.
LickTheABCs
03-08-09, 11:18 PM
Imagine how bugfuck it would've been if those adjectives were reversed! :rock2:
I'm pretty sure I saw that movie when I was 12....
toddly6666
03-08-09, 11:25 PM
You know what other movie had a generally sucky story? BLADE RUNNER. And look how amazing and what a classic it is. The story may be important, but there are other aspects to a movie which make it a masterpiece. And I think that Watchmen is a masterpiece.
So, is Watchmen considered a science-fiction film? Is this film now going to be put in those "top 20" sci-fi film lists?
calhoun07
03-08-09, 11:36 PM
OK...got around to finally seeing this...
I gave it a solid four out of five stars. Ideally, this would have been a 6 hour movie to get everything in, but I think they did a fantastic job getting in what they did. Granted, there were some minor story lines we missed out on in the movie (such as more with the psychiatrist and how Rorschach pretty much broke his spirit and stuff like that...characters who were not integral to the over all story line.)
I can only mirror the positive things said so far about this movie, and I cannot wait until the full director's cut in the ultimate edition. I get the feeling there was a more to the Rorschach origin story that didn't get told, only teased about in a few flash back scenes...and I hope to see that among some other things.
But the glaring change from graphic novel to movie (which made me knock it down in the rating just a tad...probably would have give it 4.5 otherwise) was the fact that they made Laurie a non smoker.
It wasn't like it was an issue that made me not enjoy the movie, but every time there was a scene in the movie that mirrored the comics and in the comic she was doing something with her cigarettes that was integral to the scene, it's pretty jarring.
It is every bit as part of her character as Rorschach's journal writing or Dan fumbling with his glasses and cleaning them...it is just something that adds to the depth of the character. And in the comic, her smoking added a touch to certain key scenes:
***Like when her and Dan fight off the knotheads in the alleyway...it's nearly a sexual experience for them, and she lights a cigarette in the same way somebody does after having sex. This ties in later on in the comic with them in the Owl Ship and how it seems these two are so sexually dysfunctional that they can only get it on after they perform as superheroes. That connection is lost in the movie.
***Her first meeting with the Comedian and it seems he's hitting on her...he lights what we presume is her first cigarette. Her mom comes in and she's all embarrassed about being caught smoking. It just changes the dynamic of the scene.
***When she is in the owl ship, the ONLY reason she hits the button with the flame on it is because she wants a light for her cigarette. Yet in the movie there is no logical reason why she pushes that button.
There are other scenes in the comic book where her smoking is every bit a part of her character and the scenes she is in as Dan's impotence or Rorschach's psychotic delusions. The Comedian can chomp on cigars in the movie (which is fine...it's part of his character) but Laurie gets her cigarettes taken away? It just pisses me off. Of all the minor changes, this is one of the major minor changes that is completely unnecessary.
Another thing I liked about the graphic novel were the products that existed solely in that setting...the Nostalgia perfume (missing in this movie...Laurie wore that perfume as well and threw a bottle of it on Mars which broke Dr. Manhattan's crystal cathedral) and the cigarettes themselves in the graphic novel were unique. You mean to tell me a prop designer couldn't have replicated that design? Shoot, you don't even see the knotheads smoking those cigarettes, and they are gang members.
Another element missing was the kid that young Rorschach bites...in the comic the kid is smoking and Rorschach pulls the cigarette out of the kid's mouth and puts it out in his eye. A bad ass move, ever bit as bad ass as throwing scalding hot oil on the prisoner.
I just think it's political correctness run amok. It was such a glaring change in the movie that it bothered me throughout. And I learned online we only have Alan Horn, president of WB, to blame. Apparently only bad people can smoke. Laurie is supposedly too good to have cigarettes on her lips. And it was such an issue with Alan Horn that Zach Snyder said if he wanted to leave the cigarettes in the movie, it wouldn't have been made.
The only other issue I had with the movie was I really did feel Adrian Veidt was miscast. Maybe it's because I read this in the comics when it first came out, back in the day when Dave Gibbons was also working on the Dr. Who comics and he also drew the 5th Doctor's stories, so there was a similarity in Dave's depiction of Adrian and the 5th Doctor. So I always imagined Peter Davidson playing Adrian Veidt.
Granted, Peter Davidson is simply too old to play the character, but Adrian is very well built and looks like a superhero. Matthew Goode reminds me more of David Hyde Pierce than a muscular superhero, and that was not a positive thing for me.
Solid Snake PAC
03-08-09, 11:51 PM
Somethings I noticed in Intro Credits to this thing....
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nFAM9wGRajk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nFAM9wGRajk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
1. That first frame Nite Owl I is saving The Wayne Parents in front of the GOTHAM OPERA HOUSE! There's even old Batman comic posters in the background...
2. That retirement scene mimics the last supper (obvious but cool)
3. Ozymandias at Studio 54, Bowie, Jagger, and The Village People are there...Ozy even shakes hands with Bowie.
also...maybe I'd like to think it was true but that scene with the girl putting a flower in the barrel of that rifle...didn't that actually happen?
darkside
03-09-09, 12:07 AM
I loved the movie and I'm a lifelong fan of the book. People that I have talked to that haven't read it seemed to be the ones less impressed with it or that felt lost during the story. I personally felt he got in enough of the back story to bring everything together and not extend the movie any longer than it already was. I liked this movie more than even Dark Knight last year and I liked that one a lot.
calhoun07
03-09-09, 12:13 AM
Definitely better than TDK. TDK was great Batman, but I think this movie was better overall.
PopcornTreeCt
03-09-09, 12:44 AM
Somethings I noticed in Intro Credits to this thing....
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nFAM9wGRajk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nFAM9wGRajk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
1. That first frame Nite Owl I is saving The Wayne Parents in front of the GOTHAM OPERA HOUSE! There's even old Batman comic posters in the background...
2. That retirement scene mimics the last supper (obvious but cool)
3. Ozymandias at Studio 54, Bowie, Jagger, and The Village People are there...Ozy even shakes hands with Bowie.
also...maybe I'd like to think it was true but that scene with the girl putting a flower in the barrel of that rifle...didn't that actually happen?
I liked that it had a very Forrest Gump feel showing the superheroes interacting and re-writing history. Especially, the superhero girl kissing the other girl in Times Square.
toddly6666
03-09-09, 01:02 AM
question about the end of the movie:
People have been complaining about not seeing dead bodies after the Dr. Manhattan "atomic bombing". But wasn't the lack of carnage just due to the way Dr. Manhattan's power's work? His powers evaporate things - so there wouldn't be dead bodies all over the place .
Seantn
03-09-09, 01:15 AM
question about the end of the movie:
People have been complaining about not seeing dead bodies after the Dr. Manhattan "atomic bombing". But wasn't the lack of carnage just due to the way Dr. Manhattan's power's work? His powers evaporate things - so there wouldn't be dead bodies all over the place .
From what I recall, you do actually see everyone evaporate. They lift off the ground, the old guy and young guy hug each other in the street as they begin to lift off, then they're hit by a wave of stuff and *poof* they're basically vaporized.
SIUmark
03-09-09, 01:25 AM
I have never read the graphic novel. I didn't know anything about it. I saw it Sun night and I really enjoyed it. I might see it again. As others have said, the time really flew by. After seeing the movie, I might buy the graphic novel just to see what is different.
Giantrobo
03-09-09, 02:04 AM
I went a second time with a friend Sunday evening and I still LOVE this movie.
My friend, who didn't know much about Watchmen other than what she's seen in the ads, liked it a lot. We went for a bite to eat after the show and we had a great discussion about what happened in the film, the original comic series, Alan Moore, specific characters, and much more related to Watchmen.
It was cool having the Watchmen talk with an enthusiastic non-comic reader. :up:
RKillgore
03-09-09, 02:28 AM
Somethings I noticed in Intro Credits to this thing....
Now I'm wondering why America would go through the effort of the Apollo program, when Dr. Manhattan could teleport himself or anything else to the moon in an instant.
TheySentYou
03-09-09, 02:31 AM
my little review:
Watchmen (2009) - 8.5/10
Zack Snyder is Hollywood's freshest puppet. What on Earth will this guy do without precious nerd-praise source material? Three films deep into his resume, we're looking at an enjoyable reinterpretation of Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', a mundane, frat-boy friendly, yet visually stunning rendering of Frank MIller's '300', and now Alan Moore's "unfilmable" graphic novel 'Watchmen'. 'Watchmen' completely scores top-notch for visual entertainment alone - films like this are a reason I even pay money to a shit-ass major-market movie theater... solely for the experience. The film was taken a step further than simply breathing life into a graphic novel - it unleashed a fascinating world beyond. Of course, keep in mind that an enormous Hollywood budget can make anything convincing. 'Watchmen' sucks you into a near-apocalyptic New York, where crime, rioting, decaying foreign affairs, nuclear scares, and all-around corruption are on the rise. A team of superheroes spanning from the 1940s carry a difficult torch to a rotting social climate while more and more citizens become skeptical of their role as "protectors". 'The Comedian" is a perpetual fuck-up - especially in a moral sense. He's self-righteous, he objectifies women and sexually offends them, and apparently when he's pissed enough, he'll gun down a pregnant Vietnamese girl with very little remorse. He is almost single-handedly the reason for this league of heroes to question their roles as... "heroes". 'Rorschach' is a masked man with a troubled past, attempting to put away the filth of the corrupt community, with obvious trust issues and an irrationally violent temper. "Dr. Manhattan" is a glowing, superhuman result of a science experiment gone completely wrong, who constantly speaks in non-linear scientific language, and is prone to being sexually unfaithful to women. Then there's "Silk Spectre", "Nite Owl", and "Ozymandias" - all of which begin with very little character flaw aside from troubled past, love trouble, and self-absorption. The film further succeeds with razor-sharp storytelling - beginning with Rorschach's personal journal into the death of "The Comedian", then centering in on the sorrowful pasts of each struggling vigilante-slash-hero - brilliant, to say the least. However, one pivotal character is not so well explained - Ozymandias. This may have been directly from the graphic novel - which I didn't bother reading, because I have better things to do - like type up long, mundane reviews and expect others to read it. Anyway, back to the point - the story would've benefitted in connectivity with more of a story behind Ozymandias, and even the Nite Owl, while we're at it. Perhaps they were cutting close on time constraints, since it's already almost a 3-hour feature film. Plus, I hear there's 25 extra minutes in the eventual director's cut. One other undesirable factor to this film is the atrocious soundtrack - I believe there's Jimi Hendrix, Simon & Garfunkel, and a bad 'Hallelujah' cover which made a sex scene involving two really attractive people rather unwatchable - and horribly random, at that. All in all, though, 'Watchmen' lives up to my expectations and I cannot wait to own this one and re-watch it. It intelligently questions and challenges the humanity in the super-human/hero. Between this, 'The Dark Knight', 'Iron Man', and the promising Wolverine installment, I can safely say that comic book films have attained so much more integrity and deserved appeal.
Navinabob
03-09-09, 02:59 AM
I really enjoyed it (and thanks for the animal advice, I told my girlfriend when to "hide her eyes."
The friends I saw it with either didn't like it much or "liked it, but wanted to like it more." Those who didnt like it felt confused with all the information tossed at them... one even thought it would have been better if it was set in today's timeline so it'd be one less thing to try and keep track of and try and get the references to to the 80s.
Suprmallet
03-09-09, 03:21 AM
You know what other movie had a generally sucky story? BLADE RUNNER. And look how amazing and what a classic it is. The story may be important, but there are other aspects to a movie which make it a masterpiece. And I think that Watchmen is a masterpiece.
So, is Watchmen considered a science-fiction film? Is this film now going to be put in those "top 20" sci-fi film lists?
I'm curious what you'll think about the two longer cuts if you think this current cut is a masterpiece.
mcfly
03-09-09, 06:23 AM
I went in with no knowledge of the graphic novel or anything pertaining to the Watchmen.
I didn't like it.
Perhaps not having any background with the general Watchmen story could have played a role, but from a film standpoint, I think it was overblown and too long. I feel Snyder is a talented guy (at least from what he did in 300), but something felt off with this. I'm aware this was a tough novel to execute to film, but I didn't like the way the story focused on one character at a time for long intervals. The whole film was just a little much.
I'd say it's ok at best. I don't think I'll be revisiting it again when it hits Blu-ray.
Groucho
03-09-09, 06:53 AM
I had read that this was supposed to have trailers for both Star Trek and Public Enemies. My screening had neither, so this gets a big :down: from me.
Bandoman
03-09-09, 07:03 AM
<--- Eagerly awaiting Watchmen II: Watch Harder
RagingBull80
03-09-09, 07:28 AM
Did it seem like they were consciously avoiding the fact that this movie was set in the 80s? In the book, Rorschach's journal entries always begin October ??, 1985. The movie just omits the year until the repeated narration of the first entry at the very end of the film.
I am going to see it again and will check on this.
Chew
03-09-09, 07:32 AM
I had read that this was supposed to have trailers for both Star Trek and Public Enemies. My screening had neither, so this gets a big :down: from me.
I saw it on an Imax screen and we only got a Potter trailer. I'm guessing the long runtime had them cut down on the trailers to get showings in every 3 hours.
12thmonkey
03-09-09, 07:44 AM
I had read that this was supposed to have trailers for both Star Trek and Public Enemies. My screening had neither, so this gets a big :down: from me.
Saw it on Saturday at the giant "UltraScreen" at the local Marcus.
There were trailers for Star Trek, Public Enemies, Terminator: Salvation, Observe And Report, Knowing and Tales From The Black Freighter.
There may have been others, but I can't remember. :shrug:
With regard to Watchmen (which I enjoyed a lot), that opening credit sequence set to Dylan was brilliant...
mdc3000
03-09-09, 08:45 AM
Did it seem like they were consciously avoiding the fact that this movie was set in the 80s? In the book, Rorschach's journal entries always begin October ??, 1985. The movie just omits the year until the repeated narration of the first entry at the very end of the film.
While they might not have had the year in Rorschach's narration, they certainly weren't trying to avoid the year - countless references to mid 80's stuff (TV shows, Tears For Fears, the Famine Relief poster dated 1984, Lee Iacocca etc.) I think they just dropped the year from the narration to keep things streamlined. I wish I had read this before I went and saw the flick for a third time tonight though, I would have been paying more attention to that detail. Now having seen it three times, I think I'd raise my rating from 4 to 4.5/5 - this really is a damn good movie.
hapgilmore
03-09-09, 09:38 AM
I haven't read the comic book, and I thought the movie was awesome. One of the best comic book movies ever, maybe even better than dark knight.
kms_md
03-09-09, 09:40 AM
:up: for the embed of the opening credits. i plan on seeing this again during the week.
SomethingMore
03-09-09, 10:23 AM
Saw this with my fiance yesterday. I've read the graphic novel but she hasn't.
I loved it and she said she thought it was really good, especially the opening credits. She said she didn't find it hard to follow at all, but I felt that if I hadn't read the book, I'd have been lost.
My fiance was able to point out Rorschach, without his mask, a few times before the 'official' reveal at Moloch's apartment, but only because she knew what the actor looked like
I think my rating is a 4/5, but I want to see it once more before I make that decision.
Some changes I didn't love, but still worked overall
- Rorschach getting his mask back from the psychiatrist
- Adrian's masterplan. I think the squid thing could have worked.
- No explanation of the fabric used for Rorschach's mask
Kal-El
03-09-09, 10:49 AM
Found it to be boring. Just like the graphic novel--which, by the way I eventually slogged thru--that I still don't get what the BFD is.
Seemed like Hack Snyder was just going thru the comic and filming the next "cool panel". The slo-mo was still annoying as hell, just like in the incredibly overrated 300. The fight scenes were more like choreographed poses they were actually funny. Denny Douchequette was just as annoying as he was in Grey's Anatomy. All the other no-name actors were just...there. Don't get what the big deal is with Rorschach. It's a guy in a trench coat with a sock on his head with oh-so-cool-ink-blots-that move around who speaks in a gravelly voice. big whoop.
The crowd I saw it with pretty much had the same conclusion walking out -- "That was boring"
GreenVulture
03-09-09, 11:17 AM
A failure, if a kind of noble one.
Watchmen opens with a decent scene of the Comedian's murder, but sort of points to the problem with the movie as a whole: Snyder spent all his time with getting the obsessive background details right, but didn't bother with things in the foreground. It all feels elaborately designed and ornate, but it also feels distant and bloodless, preventing any kind of emotional connection with the characters and story.
And as the film progresses, it becomes abundantly clear that "Making Shit Look Cool" was #1 on Snyder's priority list, whereas minor things like acting, writing, pacing and music were given rudimentary attention. A stronger director would have noticed that Patrick Wilson and Malin Ackerman were essential non-entities, would have noticed that Matthew Goode seemed to change accents in every scene, would have noticed that Jeffrey Dean Morgan's tearful monologue was hideously acted, and would have noticed that the makeup jobs on Nixon and Carla Gugino were one step above amateur hour. A stronger director would have noticed that the dialogue, while faithful to the comics, was faithful to a fault, making the lines sound embarassing at times, essentially proving Alan Moore's point that comic books can sometimes pull off what films can't. A stronger director would have realized that giving the audience a series of extended fight scenes, almost as a reward for enduring the previous hour of exposition was not the right way to go. A stronger director would have gone beyond his/her Greatest Hits of the 60's/70's/80's mix tapes and tried to find something more resonant with their choice of music; BTW, I'm willing to bet $50 that Snyder originally scored the scene between Silk Spectre and the multiple Manhattans to Dylan's "Tangled Up in Blue" and patted himself on the back for such cleverness before cooler heads prevailed.
Snyder's gleeful violent streak was also a bit at odds with this movie...despite my dislike with 300, the extreme violence fit that movie's over-the-top nature, whereas scenes like the incredibly excessive alleyway fight felt out of place (it felt like all the compound fractures, broken necks, broken legs was a way to ensure the audience wouldn't fall asleep for awhile). And due to the clumsy staging, scenes in the comic that should have been bravura sequences in the movie (Manhattan's back story, the Comedian in Vietnam, Veidt's monologue in the end) didn't have nearly the power I was expecting. Even the much-beloved credits sequence felt wrong, as seeing Castro, Bowie, Warhol and JFK's assassination felt trite and a lazy way of integrating real history with the comic's alternate history. Plus, the various fates of the Minutmen felt weird; fans of the comic would understand what is happening, but I have hard time believing that new viewers would sympathize with people we saw for only a few fleeting seconds before.
Still though, it's hard not to have a bit of admiration for Snyder for pulling this off, when far greater directors couldn't. Certain scenes in the comic came out better in the film, in particular the end; I always thought the comic's ending was the result of Moore painting himself into a corner, whereas the film's ending makes far more sense, even if both versions arrive at the same goal. And it's hard not to admit there's a giddy thrill in seeing people like Rorshach and Dr. Manhattan as living, breathing people, if only on the surface.
P.S.: Brilliant choice by Snyder on "Desolation Row," though--the hideousness of that cover is guaranteed to make audiences leave the theater in record time, leaving the staff more time to clean up. I'm sure all patrons and staff thank you.
PopcornTreeCt
03-09-09, 11:22 AM
One other undesirable factor to this film is the atrocious soundtrack - I believe there's Jimi Hendrix, Simon & Garfunkel, and a bad 'Hallelujah' cover which made a sex scene involving two really attractive people rather unwatchable - and horribly random, at that.
So true. That was absolutely horrendous. Though I thought Bob Dylan fit really well.
R. Hilton
03-09-09, 11:26 AM
Some thoughts on the movie from a Watchmen fan from the Reagan era. To those of you who haven't seen it over the weekend (and apparently that's a lot of you) stop reading the reviews and posts and just go form your own opinion. Overall I was very pleased with the end product. Yes, there were a lot of bad wigs (this is true of nearly every Hollywood movie), the sex scene struck me as aping laughably bad porno, and the ending seemed a little rushed. However, the acting is top notch for a fantasy film, the movie never drags, and in the end it leaves you with something to think about. It's not high art, but neither was Dark Knight.
Kurtie Dee
03-09-09, 12:07 PM
Originally Posted by TheySentYou
One other undesirable factor to this film is the atrocious soundtrack - I believe there's Jimi Hendrix, Simon & Garfunkel, and a bad 'Hallelujah' cover which made a sex scene involving two really attractive people rather unwatchable
The soundtrack was really troublesome. Some songs worked OK, some, like using so much Phillip Glass, were distracting.
Pretty sure that's the Leonard Cohen original version of Hallelujah, BTW.
whotony
03-09-09, 12:14 PM
added paragraphs so i could read it.
my little review:
Watchmen (2009) - 8.5/10
Zack Snyder is Hollywood's freshest puppet. What on Earth will this guy do without precious nerd-praise source material? Three films deep into his resume, we're looking at an enjoyable reinterpretation of Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', a mundane, frat-boy friendly, yet visually stunning rendering of Frank MIller's '300', and now Alan Moore's "unfilmable" graphic novel 'Watchmen'.
'Watchmen' completely scores top-notch for visual entertainment alone - films like this are a reason I even pay money to a shit-ass major-market movie theater... solely for the experience. The film was taken a step further than simply breathing life into a graphic novel - it unleashed a fascinating world beyond. Of course, keep in mind that an enormous Hollywood budget can make anything convincing. 'Watchmen' sucks you into a near-apocalyptic New York, where crime, rioting, decaying foreign affairs, nuclear scares, and all-around corruption are on the rise.
A team of superheroes spanning from the 1940s carry a difficult torch to a rotting social climate while more and more citizens become skeptical of their role as "protectors". 'The Comedian" is a perpetual fuck-up - especially in a moral sense. He's self-righteous, he objectifies women and sexually offends them, and apparently when he's pissed enough, he'll gun down a pregnant Vietnamese girl with very little remorse. He is almost single-handedly the reason for this league of heroes to question their roles as... "heroes". 'Rorschach' is a masked man with a troubled past, attempting to put away the filth of the corrupt community, with obvious trust issues and an irrationally violent temper.
"Dr. Manhattan" is a glowing, superhuman result of a science experiment gone completely wrong, who constantly speaks in non-linear scientific language, and is prone to being sexually unfaithful to women. Then there's "Silk Spectre", "Nite Owl", and "Ozymandias" - all of which begin with very little character flaw aside from troubled past, love trouble, and self-absorption. The film further succeeds with razor-sharp storytelling - beginning with Rorschach's personal journal into the death of "The Comedian", then centering in on the sorrowful pasts of each struggling vigilante-slash-hero - brilliant, to say the least.
However, one pivotal character is not so well explained - Ozymandias. This may have been directly from the graphic novel - which I didn't bother reading, because I have better things to do - like type up long, mundane reviews and expect others to read it. Anyway, back to the point - the story would've benefitted in connectivity with more of a story behind Ozymandias, and even the Nite Owl, while we're at it.
Perhaps they were cutting close on time constraints, since it's already almost a 3-hour feature film. Plus, I hear there's 25 extra minutes in the eventual director's cut. One other undesirable factor to this film is the atrocious soundtrack - I believe there's Jimi Hendrix, Simon & Garfunkel, and a bad 'Hallelujah' cover which made a sex scene involving two really attractive people rather unwatchable - and horribly random, at that.
All in all, though, 'Watchmen' lives up to my expectations and I cannot wait to own this one and re-watch it. It intelligently questions and challenges the humanity in the super-human/hero. Between this, 'The Dark Knight', 'Iron Man', and the promising Wolverine installment, I can safely say that comic book films have attained so much more integrity and deserved appeal.
"One other undesirable factor to this film is the atrocious soundtrack - I believe there's Jimi Hendrix, Simon & Garfunkel, and a bad 'Hallelujah' cover which made a sex scene involving two really attractive people rather unwatchable "
cover? that was the original version, sheesh.
Jeffy Pop
03-09-09, 12:17 PM
Pretty sure that's the Leonard Cohen original version of Hallelujah, BTW.
:lol: Yeah, that is definitely the original version of "Hallelujah."
In related news, glad they used the original "All Along the Watchtower," instead of that awful cover by that hack, Bob Dylan. -wink-
Trevor
03-09-09, 12:27 PM
Found it to be boring. Just like the graphic novel--which, by the way I eventually slogged thru--that I still don't get what the BFD is.
Just curious, but does your handle here mean that you're a comic fan? Do you find anything in the history of Superman comic books or film better than Watchmen?
Brack
03-09-09, 12:29 PM
The soundtrack was really troublesome. Some songs worked OK, some, like using so much Phillip Glass, were distracting.
Were you expecting dudes to start chanting koyaanisqatsi? I actually thought it fit Dr. Manhattan's character.
hapgilmore
03-09-09, 12:32 PM
A failure, if a kind of noble one.
Watchmen opens with a decent scene of the Comedian's murder, but sort of points to the problem with the movie as a whole: Snyder spent all his time with getting the obsessive background details right, but didn't bother with things in the foreground. It all feels elaborately designed and ornate, but it also feels distant and bloodless, preventing any kind of emotional connection with the characters and story.
And as the film progresses, it becomes abundantly clear that "Making Shit Look Cool" was #1 on Snyder's priority list, whereas minor things like acting, writing, pacing and music were given rudimentary attention. A stronger director would have noticed that Patrick Wilson and Malin Ackerman were essential non-entities, would have noticed that Matthew Goode seemed to change accents in every scene, would have noticed that Jeffrey Dean Morgan's tearful monologue was hideously acted, and would have noticed that the makeup jobs on Nixon and Carla Gugino were one step above amateur hour. A stronger director would have noticed that the dialogue, while faithful to the comics, was faithful to a fault, making the lines sound embarassing at times, essentially proving Alan Moore's point that comic books can sometimes pull off what films can't. A stronger director would have realized that giving the audience a series of extended fight scenes, almost as a reward for enduring the previous hour of exposition was not the right way to go. A stronger director would have gone beyond his/her Greatest Hits of the 60's/70's/80's mix tapes and tried to find something more resonant with their choice of music; BTW, I'm willing to bet $50 that Snyder originally scored the scene between Silk Spectre and the multiple Manhattans to Dylan's "Tangled Up in Blue" and patted himself on the back for such cleverness before cooler heads prevailed.
Snyder's gleeful violent streak was also a bit at odds with this movie...despite my dislike with 300, the extreme violence fit that movie's over-the-top nature, whereas scenes like the incredibly excessive alleyway fight felt out of place (it felt like all the compound fractures, broken necks, broken legs was a way to ensure the audience wouldn't fall asleep for awhile). And due to the clumsy staging, scenes in the comic that should have been bravura sequences in the movie (Manhattan's back story, the Comedian in Vietnam, Veidt's monologue in the end) didn't have nearly the power I was expecting. Even the much-beloved credits sequence felt wrong, as seeing Castro, Bowie, Warhol and JFK's assassination felt trite and a lazy way of integrating real history with the comic's alternate history. Plus, the various fates of the Minutmen felt weird; fans of the comic would understand what is happening, but I have hard time believing that new viewers would sympathize with people we saw for only a few fleeting seconds before.
Still though, it's hard not to have a bit of admiration for Snyder for pulling this off, when far greater directors couldn't. Certain scenes in the comic came out better in the film, in particular the end; I always thought the comic's ending was the result of Moore painting himself into a corner, whereas the film's ending makes far more sense, even if both versions arrive at the same goal. And it's hard not to admit there's a giddy thrill in seeing people like Rorshach and Dr. Manhattan as living, breathing people, if only on the surface.
P.S.: Brilliant choice by Snyder on "Desolation Row," though--the hideousness of that cover is guaranteed to make audiences leave the theater in record time, leaving the staff more time to clean up. I'm sure all patrons and staff thank you.
Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. I think you're the only person that didn't like the opening credits, and the music was great btw.
The Bus
03-09-09, 12:32 PM
Haven't and probably won't read through the thread. Saw this on Friday night. The movie was entertaining and decently made; it didn't infuriate me by straying from the source material (aside from the ending which I knew about beforehand).
But it didn't surprise me. It didn't amaze me. It didn't thrill me.
I don't know if Snyder was playing it too safe or if there just wasn't a way to make the material more exciting when it came off of the page. I don't mean the story, I mean the actual film, the directing, what have you. The movie, unfortunately, was nearly soulless.
The best analogy I can come up with right now is that this film is like a very reliable, well-made car that looks pretty and seems enticing on paper, but just isn't fun to drive.
slop101
03-09-09, 12:33 PM
During my screening, I noticed a lot of people walking out of the theater during the movie, just before the half-way point - mostly younger (pre-24) or older (post-55) people. Most everyone else stayed - it even got applause at the end - so, a very polarizing movie.
FWIW, I grew up with the graphic novel - still have the first printing of the very first edition trade, though dog-eared. And I appreciated the movie for what it was, instead of being disappointed in what it wasn't.
BTW, that anti-smoking thing from the head of WB is just nuts.
SomethingMore
03-09-09, 12:39 PM
Pretty sure that's the Leonard Cohen original version of Hallelujah, BTW.
Sure was! :lol:
My fiance hates his version, but I like it.
I hated the sex scene, but she thought it was hot.
:shrug:
Kal-El
03-09-09, 12:47 PM
Just curious, but does your handle here mean that you're a comic fan? Do you find anything in the history of Superman comic books or film better than Watchmen?
I'm a fan of the character itself, not just the comic book one. Truth be told, I'm not even that familiar with Superman's entire comic book history aside from the basics. (Krypton, Luthor, Jor-El, Zod, Lois, Jimmy, Daily Planet, etc.)
As for the 2nd question, I find a LOT of things in the other Superman movies better than Watchmen. Music, characterization, dialogue, pacing, action scenes, and actual FUN to be had.
12thmonkey
03-09-09, 12:50 PM
As for the 2nd question, I find a LOT of things in the other Superman movies better than Watchmen. Music, characterization, dialogue, pacing, action scenes, and actual FUN to be had.
Your first mistake was expecting Watchmen to be "fun".
It's not really supposed to be.
Trevor
03-09-09, 12:56 PM
I'm a fan of the character itself, not just the comic book one. Truth be told, I'm not even that familiar with Superman's entire comic book history aside from the basics. (Krypton, Luthor, Jor-El, Zod, Lois, Jimmy, Daily Planet, etc.)
As for the 2nd question, I find a LOT of things in the other Superman movies better than Watchmen. Music, characterization, dialogue, pacing, action scenes, and actual FUN to be had.
Thanks, I was just trying to get some perspective on your comments. I can't imagine an adult Superman comic book fan thinking that Watchmen is no big deal.
And yes, I love parts of the first two Superman films more, and may even like them slightly more than Watchmen overall. 3, 4, and Returns just stunk though.
devilshalo
03-09-09, 01:00 PM
I had read that this was supposed to have trailers for both Star Trek and Public Enemies. My screening had neither, so this gets a big :down: from me.
My screening had the old Trek trailer, new Transformers trailer, and new Harry Potter trailer.
As for the movie itself, I went in never having read the Watchmen. I came out thinking that the story was ok. I liked Snyder's visuals. What I want to know is how long Ozymandias' plan took to develop? Is that covered in the comic book series? I don't think he could have predicted the chain of events and it certainly didn't feel like he masterminded and killed off the original heroes to get to that point... unless it was all government involvement in the beginning. :hscratch:
whotony
03-09-09, 01:31 PM
I had read that this was supposed to have trailers for both Star Trek and Public Enemies. My screening had neither, so this gets a big :down: from me.
ok I realize it was you who said this but what is your thought on the movie, if you actually did see the movie.
harpo787
03-09-09, 01:35 PM
Somethings I noticed in Intro Credits to this thing....
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nFAM9wGRajk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nFAM9wGRajk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
1. That first frame Nite Owl I is saving The Wayne Parents in front of the GOTHAM OPERA HOUSE! There's even old Batman comic posters in the background...
2. That retirement scene mimics the last supper (obvious but cool)
3. Ozymandias at Studio 54, Bowie, Jagger, and The Village People are there...Ozy even shakes hands with Bowie.
also...maybe I'd like to think it was true but that scene with the girl putting a flower in the barrel of that rifle...didn't that actually happen?
Edited to add:
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g12/countzander/art/Vj_day_kiss.jpg
I also noticed:
1. Silhouette appears to have stolen some sailor's kiss! Forgot to look, is he still in the shot? I notice a guy in the background they recreated into the shot, too.
2. I can't believe it, The Comedian is the man on the grassy knoll! That bastard!
3. Is that Dean Stockwell as the Russian guy standing with Castro?
4. Off to the right at Studio 54...is that the Village People, or just wannabes?
Oh yeah, I see the Batman posters...where do you see that it's Gotham Opera House?
Nicely packed in sequence though. I do like that use of slo-mo to the point where it's almost no-mo.
lopper
03-09-09, 02:23 PM
We saw this on Saturday. Bought tickets for the 7:30 show and got there at 6:45ish to make sure we got good seats. The ticket-taker told us to check in the 7:00 showing, as there may be some seats left.
He was right, there were some seats. And by some, I mean 200 or so.
Loved, loved, loved the movie. I don't think I would've liked it nearly as much if I hadn't read the book before.
Rorshach was fucking awesome, and Malin Ackerman was not nearly as bad as people made her out to be. Neither was the 'aged' make up.
Loved it.
Suprmallet
03-09-09, 02:27 PM
I love all the complaints about the song choices. Weren't a lot of the songs the ones quoted at the end of Watchmen issues?
Giles
03-09-09, 02:33 PM
The soundtrack was really troublesome. Some songs worked OK, some, like using so much Phillip Glass, were distracting.
Pretty sure that's the Leonard Cohen original version of Hallelujah, BTW.
I kept waiting for the Muse song
...
Jeffy Pop
03-09-09, 02:48 PM
I love all the complaints about the song choices. Weren't a lot of the songs the ones quoted at the end of Watchmen issues?
I know "All Along the Watchtower" is quoted in the book. I seem to remember an Elvis Costello song as well, although I don't remember hearing that on the soundtrack.
Can't think of any others off the top of my head....
fumanstan
03-09-09, 02:51 PM
I love all the complaints about the song choices. Weren't a lot of the songs the ones quoted at the end of Watchmen issues?
I don't see how the quotation of lyrics means that the song should automatically fit the scene. I didn't have that much of a problem with the song choices, but I can see why they may feel odd or out of place.
Aphex Twin
03-09-09, 02:53 PM
I was EXTREMELY ANNOYED by the use of pop music songs in this film. I found it very distracting and unnecessary. Alan Moore must be rolling in his grave.
scott1598
03-09-09, 02:56 PM
I was EXTREMELY ANNOYED by the use of pop music songs in this film. I found it very distracting and unnecessary. Alan Moore must be rolling on his bed.
fixed. since he is very much alive!
Suprmallet
03-09-09, 03:10 PM
Don't worry, Alan Moore is never going to watch the movie, so it doesn't matter! :)
Kurtie Dee
03-09-09, 03:13 PM
Some songs worked, some didn't. Hendrix was great, but some took me out of the movie, which IMO should never happen. Even if those songs were used in the comic, (I'm not digging out my copies to check) if they distract from the movie then it's a questionable choice. Obviously most of the criticism comes from Snyder sticking so close to the book that things people go to movies to see suffer. For instance Driberg's apartment looks replicated down to the stains on the walls, but the Driberg performance itself leaves something to be desired.
FWIW I give it 3.5/5. Pretty damn good, but missing the emotional center (or at least the relatable human emotions) that should have come from Driberg and Jupiter - those performances just weren't there, and detracted a bit too much from all the other awesomeness (Rorschach, Comedian, Manhattan etc.).
KillerCannibal
03-09-09, 03:33 PM
I gave it 4 stars. Here's my way too lengthy review:
Years ago when director Terry Gilliam was attempting to bring Watchmen to the big screen he left the project after stating that the famed comic book “wasn’t filmable” and that, if it ever were done, it needed to be a 5-hour miniseries. After watching the film I’ll say I agree with his latter assessment. Zack Snyder has managed to make a faithful adaptation of Alan Moore’s seminal Cold War-era superhero drama but, with the story being such a dense, intricately-layered piece of literature and art, it falls short of providing everything it needed to fan and non-fan alike. I’m sure that in the hands of most any other director the plot would have been so drastically altered that it would have barely resembled the original story, nor would it have retained the essence of what made it work in the first place. I’m only disappointed that the film wasn’t able to be given the adequate breathing room it so desperately requires, although if you were speaking to someone unfamiliar with the comic series they would have argued against that sentiment. Watchmen is a curious film in that, if you’re a fan, Snyder couldn’t have possibly crammed enough information into the already lengthy 160 minute film, but those who aren’t will complain that the film is too heavy on the talking and too light on the action. Well, that’s what Watchmen is all about; it’s a group of regular people masquerading as superheroes, trying to prevent the world from total nuclear annihilation. They are dealing with massive global issues that can’t be solved by defeating a nefarious crime boss or “cleaning up the streets”. As a dramatic work of real world-rooted superhero cinema, much like The Dark Knight, it’s a visually impressive film with a critical message that is just as relevant today as it was when it was published back in 1986.
Set in an alternate Cold War-era America in 1985, Watchmen follows a group of masked superheroes, most of whom have retired after masked vigilantism was banned in 1977, as they attempt to uncover the mystery of who killed one of their own, The Comedian. The story follows the path each member has taken since they disbanded some years ago, with most living under their true identities while one, Rorschach, has continued on with his old ways and thinks there is much more to the Comedian’s death than they all thought.
Watchmen is such an esoteric property that I didn’t see it resonating with the masses like an Iron Man or Batman film would have done. Warner Brothers wisely chose to market the film as an action-y, visual-heavy film – sort of like a superhero version of 300, if you will. It’s a gamble that paid off with a solid opening weekend, but I’m willing to bet the film won’t keep up the momentum because audiences aren’t getting what they expected. This is a very dialogue-heavy film with some good action sequences, but it is far from being a typical superhero film. My personal complaint, as a newly-minted fan of the source work, is that too much was left out of the film that made it work so well in the first place. A typical objective view from the uninitiated is that the film is boring and too long. It seems that either way someone’s bound to be left disappointed. Most of this review will be written under the assumption that you’re either familiar with the source work, or that you’re interested enough to read on and decide if the film might appeal to you.
Being that this is a character-driven film, casting the right actors is absolutely crucial to this property. Literally dozens of names have been loosely attached to this project since it first began development back in the late 80’s, so to say that fanboys have been rabid with anticipation of the who’s who would be an understatement. Most important here was the casting of fan favorite, and my personal favorite character, Rorschach/Walter Kovacs. I’m very pleased to say that Jackie Earl Haley nailed it, big time. Rorschach’s entire persona comes to life with Haley in this role. His voice, his mannerisms… everything is just as it was in the comic. I view Rorschach as the antithesis of the Joker from The Dark Knight. Both characters are an absolute; there is no grey area. The only discernible difference is that the Joker stands for complete anarchy, whereas Rorschach struggles to rid the city of all forms of illegal activity to retain order. He just happens to utilize the most brutal means possible to get the job done. His own personal hypocrisy is that he seeks to restore law and order by meting out his own personal justice by any means necessary. Haley does a superb job and he’s easily the highlight of the film.
Also well cast is Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II/Dan Dreiberg. Wilson perfectly captures all of the subtle nuances that Dreiberg possessed in the comic. He’s a semi-retired, paunchy vigilante who’s reluctant to get back into his old ways, but once he does it reminds him of how good things once were. Along with Rorschach, I thought Wilson was the best cast actor of the film.
Billy Crudup dons the blue skin of the only team member with actual superpowers, Dr. Manhattan/Jon Osterman. I thought that Crudup really brought the Doc the life, and his voice perfectly captured the tone of the character. Jon was a scientist before he became a God among men, so it required someone with a soft-spoken demeanor to pull off. Considering at one point Arnold Schwarzenegger was lined up to play the part, we should all be happy with how it turned out.
Malin Akerman has been getting some bad press for her turn as Silk Spectre II/Laurie Juspeczyk but I really didn’t feel she did so badly. I think her delivery may have seemed a bit stifled because she was reading a lot of the lines verbatim from the comic, so that made her come across as a little wooden, but this was often the case with some of the other actors. More on that later. Aside from an awkward sex scene aboard the Owl ship with Dan, I didn’t have any qualms about her abilities in the role. She didn’t shine like Haley, but she was far from being the weakest link…
That honor goes to Matthew Goode as Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt. He’s the only publicly-known member of the Watchmen, and he’s also known to be the world’s smartest man. In the comic, Veidt is portrayed as a man of incredible physical prowess, chiseled good looks and pragmatic thinking. In the film, Goode is hardly what you would call imposing and he looks more like a 70’s androgynous David Bowie clone than a costumed superhero. His performance felt restrained like he was hiding behind some self-effacing smirk to hide his evil genius but I just wasn’t buying it. For a role as crucial as his, Snyder severely miscast the part.
On the supporting side, most everyone works here. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who keeps getting confused for Robert Downey Jr., works perfectly as the Comedian. Even though his old age makeup could have looked a little better, the guy really made the role his own. I kept thinking that, had he still been alive, the part would have been perfect for Robert Shaw. Carla Gugino plays Silk Spectre I, and she’s another one that got the part down just right. Again, her old age makeup wasn’t the best, but it’s not as horrendous or distracting as people have claimed. Matt Frewer pops up as Moloch, former arch-nemesis to the Watchmen. I like seeing him get more work; the guy is a solid actor.
Zack Snyder obviously has a tremendous love all things Watchmen, but that fact is both a blessing and a curse upon this film. Just like he did with 300, pages of the comic are faithfully reproduced here on the big screen. While that works perfectly for visuals, it doesn’t quite work as well for dialogue. I think it’s ok to leave in some fan-favorite lines to keep fanboys happy, but comic book dialogue doesn’t work as well in a motion picture. A lot of the line delivery felt stilted and forced, and this was because it wasn’t written for a film; it was written for a comic book. Snyder should have allowed more breathing room for the words in the script to flow more naturally. This is a case where it isn’t the fault of the actors if a line doesn’t work. There may have been a way to maintain the integrity of the source novel without blatantly copying it word for word, but doing so might have pissed fans off. Either way, it’s tough to win with an audience. Snyder also decided to change the ending, which I was ok with since the comic’s ending did seem a little out of place. It would have been badass to see a inter-dimensional killer mutant squid munching on millions of people across the globe, but the film would have needed an extra 30 minutes just to explain how that is even possible.
I hope the forthcoming Director’s Cut of the film will make things feel less claustrophobic. Snyder has said he cut around 30-40 minutes from the theatrical cut, plus there’s also the animated story-within-a-story Tales from the Black Freighter that will be integrated into the film as well. I’m sure it’ll help make more sense of the plot to Joe Six Pack, but it’ll also make the film a lengthy 3 hours and 40+ minutes and not many people can make it through movies that long. Given the limitations imposed on him by the studio, I think Snyder did the best possible job that he could have done. The film is extremely impressive.
Tyler Bates’ score here sucks, plain and simple. I’m beginning to wonder if the guy has any real range in his scoring, or if he’s just a whore for Rob Zombie and Zack Snyder. I really didn’t feel like his musical choices hit the mark or fit the tone of the film. Thankfully, a lot of the film is full of pop culture tunes from the 80’s so Bates’ score isn’t all over the film. Most of the song choices work (best: Bob Dylan’s “The Time They Are A-Changin’” over the opening credits), but some really don’t (Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” during an awkward sex scene, Hendrix’s “All Along the Watchtower”). I don’t mind having good tunes pumped in over the visuals, but some of these felt shoe-horned in just to get them into the movie. That I don’t like.
In the end, some things worked and some thing didn’t. Overall I really dug the movie and I’m sure it’ll hold up very well upon repeated viewings. Snyder did the best possible job that he could have and I think it’s commendable that he got a major movie studio to greenlight a brutal, graphic hard R-rated $100 million quasi-superhero flick based on an esoteric comic property from the 80’s. I can’t recommend reading the graphic novel ahead of time enough; so much more of the film will make sense if you do your homework. Also, if you can, see it on the IMAX screen. It’s incredible how good it looks and sounds in that environment.
Matty-O
03-09-09, 03:50 PM
Was hoping to see the new Trek trailer on the big screen. There was a grand total of two trailers before Watchmen...Inglourious Basterds and Observe and Report.
fumanstan
03-09-09, 03:51 PM
I had a lot of good trailers in front of my showing, including new Star Trek, Wolverine, and Terminator trailers.
PopcornTreeCt
03-09-09, 03:57 PM
I had Public Enemies, Terminator, Wolvie, Seth Rogen: Mall Cop, and luckily no Star Trek.
fishman2020
03-09-09, 04:02 PM
Personally, I loved the film because it was everything I would want an adaptation of Watchmen to be. A lot of people have been complaining about a few things here and there... but I think that Zack Snyder is extremely talented and if you don't think so please watch the intro to the movie again... As soon as that started up I was hooked... I love Watchmen though and I will say this movie was made for fans... but imo this is the only way the movie could have been made to still remain faithful to the book AND to keep it entertaining for mainstream audiences... I saw it 2x over the weekend and I will be seeing it again on Friday... yep I loved it that much... Just a quick note on my personal taste when it comes to comic films... I hated x-men & spider-man and generally I feel most Marvel movies suck... Iron Man was a good exception for that though... I love The Dark Knight (Batman is my all time favorite), Sin City, and the Hell Boy movies... I would put this movie up there with The Dark Knight.... my fiance who has never read Watchmen really really liked the movie, which was interesting, but she's also a very intelligent individual, so maybe it won't appeal to people who just can't understand what is being thrown at them... good movie, don't pass it up... give it a chance.
GreenVulture
03-09-09, 04:08 PM
I know "All Along the Watchtower" is quoted in the book. I seem to remember an Elvis Costello song as well, although I don't remember hearing that on the soundtrack.
Can't think of any others off the top of my head....
Costello's song was "The Comedians." I believe "Desolation Row" was quoted as well, and Moore also quoted a John Cale song, though the title escapes me.
fumanstan
03-09-09, 04:11 PM
I had Public Enemies, Terminator, Wolvie, Seth Rogen: Mall Cop, and luckily no Star Trek.
Forgot I had Public Enemies and Observe and Report as well. I think the Star Trek trailers have looked great, and this is from someone that generally thought Star Trek and all it's iterations were lame :)
I really love that Watchmen beginning, and I thought it did an awesome job setting the tone and time period. I've rewatched that YouTube clip a couple times now.
superfro
03-09-09, 04:11 PM
fixed. since he is very much alive!
Proof?
:lol: ;)
Luther Heggs
03-09-09, 04:16 PM
I love all the complaints about the song choices. Weren't a lot of the songs the ones quoted at the end of Watchmen issues?
Four different songs were used among the quotes that ended each issue, while also giving those issues their titles. Two Dylan songs, Elvis Costello's "The Comedians," and John Cale's "Sanities." [Übernerd]The "Desolation Row" Dylan quote was missing from first printings of Issue 1 and the John Cale quote and chapter title were botched on Issue 12; these mistakes were corrected on subsequent editions.[/Übernerd] Additionally, Billie Holiday singing "You're My Thrill" and (presumably) Iggy Pop singing "Neighborhood Threat" are played by characters in the story and "The Times They Are a-Changin'" is presented as part of a Veidt ad campaign. I can't fault Snyder for the facile juxtapositions of music and image in the movie; they're no worse than Moore's. Of course, there's a big difference between a brief song quote in print and stopping your movie dead in its tracks by reducing it to a music video.
Giantrobo
03-09-09, 04:18 PM
Proof?
:lol: ;)
:lol:
MinLShaw
03-09-09, 04:23 PM
My apologies. I've since added a spoiler tag.
NoirFan, it's great that you saw fit to go back and tag that spoiler. It's still a complete shame that a professional critic's formal review of a film would include something like that.
At least half of this thread has been nothing more than a debate over spoilers, and here's my two cents' worth:
I've been a self-identified geek since childhood. I learned more of my vocabulary from Larry Hama's G.I. Joe comic writing than I ever learned from school. I did the Episode I overnight camp-out for tickets. And in the 23 years since it was first published, I never read Watchmen until last week. I finished reading it forty minutes before the showing of the film my friends and I were going to see started.
So, if someone who is into the comic/geek culture could go that long without reading the original source material, I think it's entirely reasonable to expect that most people have not read it. This is a DVD/movies forum, and while there may be a significant overlap of demographics, this is not principally a comic book forum.
The only justification for spoilers is that you enjoy flaunting your knowledge and proving you have no obligation to common courtesy. I, for one, am not impressed by such antics.
JTH182
03-09-09, 04:31 PM
Did it seem like they were consciously avoiding the fact that this movie was set in the 80s? In the book, Rorschach's journal entries always begin October ??, 1985. The movie just omits the year until the repeated narration of the first entry at the very end of the film.
I am going to see it again and will check on this.
Maybe my memory is just off, but I thought he states the year at every journal entry except the repeat of the first entry at the end.
devilshalo
03-09-09, 04:41 PM
I actually really dug the action scenes and thought Snyder did a good job with them and sprucing them up, although he quickly needs to move away from the slo-mo that he did here and 300 before it becomes tired.
I totally understand the slo-mo tho. At Wonder Con, he explained that in his eyes, the slo-mo represents a splash page. I can certainly see and appreciate it as a comic book fan looking at the panels of a comic book and soaking in the action. I like that Snyder has the ability to translate that panel on to film much like he did with 300 and adding motion to it.
At least half of this thread has been nothing more than a debate over spoilers, and here's my two cents' worth:
The only justification for spoilers is that you enjoy flaunting your knowledge and proving you have no obligation to common courtesy. I, for one, am not impressed by such antics.
You're greatly exaggerating the amount of spoiler talk in this thread. That and again, 6 pages into a review thread you expect folks to start talking about the plot and story.
I totally understand the slo-mo tho. At Wonder Con, he explained that in his eyes, the slo-mo represents a splash page. I can certainly see and appreciate it as a comic book fan looking at the panels of a comic book and soaking in the action. I like that Snyder has the ability to translate that panel on to film much like he did with 300 and adding motion to it.
Yeah, I read the same thing and it makes sense for some scenes, such as the Comedian being thrown out the window. That's a great pause for the moment. But the slo-mo during certain action scenes were a bit overdone, such as the prison scene and maybe the end fight. I don't mind as much as others, but it's certainly noticeable.
PopcornTreeCt
03-09-09, 05:11 PM
Personally, I loved the film because it was everything I would want an adaptation of Watchmen to be. A lot of people have been complaining about a few things here and there... but I think that Zack Snyder is extremely talented and if you don't think so please watch the intro to the movie again... As soon as that started up I was hooked... I love Watchmen though and I will say this movie was made for fans... but imo this is the only way the movie could have been made to still remain faithful to the book AND to keep it entertaining for mainstream audiences... I saw it 2x over the weekend and I will be seeing it again on Friday... yep I loved it that much... Just a quick note on my personal taste when it comes to comic films... I hated x-men & spider-man and generally I feel most Marvel movies suck... Iron Man was a good exception for that though... I love The Dark Knight (Batman is my all time favorite), Sin City, and the Hell Boy movies... I would put this movie up there with The Dark Knight.... my fiance who has never read Watchmen really really liked the movie, which was interesting, but she's also a very intelligent individual, so maybe it won't appeal to people who just can't understand what is being thrown at them... good movie, don't pass it up... give it a chance.
:up:
The complaint about being too faithful to the source is ridiculous. There are tons, and I mean tons, of movies that stray from the book and this one actually is very, very true to the book is being criticized for that exact reason. It's a movie for the fans and less the movie going public. Since that happens pretty much never, Snyder gets :up::up: from me.
I'd love to see Snyder tackle a Bioshock movie. I like what he did in Watchmen with the art deco theme and I think he could do wonders for Bioshock.
devilshalo
03-09-09, 05:43 PM
But the slo-mo during certain action scenes were a bit overdone, such as the prison scene and maybe the end fight. I don't mind as much as others, but it's certainly noticeable.
I don't mind it so much as I do the overuse of bullet time. As long as it's done with a purpose. I don't recall any slo-mo used in Dawn of the Dead.. so maybe the use for it to bridge comic book panels is ok to me.
Suprmallet
03-09-09, 06:09 PM
:up:
The complaint about being too faithful to the source is ridiculous. There are tons, and I mean tons, of movies that stray from the book and this one actually is very, very true to the book is being criticized for that exact reason. It's a movie for the fans and less the movie going public. Since that happens pretty much never, Snyder gets :up::up: from me.
I'd love to see Snyder tackle a Bioshock movie. I like what he did in Watchmen with the art deco theme and I think he could do wonders for Bioshock.
Personally I think Gore Verbinski is the right choice for Bioshock.
As for the slo-mo, I can see the reasoning for it, but it didn't work all the time. It worked when The Comedian was thrown out of the window, but it didn't work when Silk Spectre saw the fireball coming towards her in the tenement house.
Gil V
03-09-09, 06:13 PM
A couple of things that I didn't like about the film - keep in mind, please, that I was quite familiar with the story, as I've owned the comics for over 20 years.
* Minor spoiler follows *
I didn't like the method that Rorshach used to kill the kidnapper. In the comic, he killed him by chaining him to something and then setting the building on fire. In the film he hits him in the head several times with a butcher knife. Overly grotesque, and didn't fit in well with the character IMHO.
Also, the second half of the film was a different pace than the first half. The story was really rushed along in the second half, whereas the first half followed the original story almost exactly.
I actually felt that the movie could have been LONGER and would have been a better film.
I will say that it is hard for me to judge this film since I was so familiar with the original story. I wonder if the film would have been hard to follow if I didn't know the story so well.
KillerCannibal
03-09-09, 06:20 PM
^ Totally agree about Rorschach's first kill. Snyder went for something brutal and shocking and lost some of the character's spirit in the process.
Also agree on the length. I could have handled an extra hour if it meant a more fully fleshed out story.
slop101
03-09-09, 07:10 PM
I disagree with the above 2 comments about Rorschach's killing of the child-murderer.
Back in the '80s, that was rough stuff, but now, after Batman Begins' "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" bit, he had to be made more brutal, and it totally fits with the character and his "spirit" - do you guys not even understand what he is? - he's a fucked up homicidal maniac and he used to be soft ("I let them live..."), so his first kill had to be more than just leaving that guy chained up in a burning building.
When he says "you're locked up in here with me", a lot of people in my theater laughed, which showed me how they didn't understand him at all - he's not "cool", and we're not supposed to "root" for him - we're supposed to be scared of him, along with the society that created him.
calhoun07
03-09-09, 07:26 PM
Did it seem like they were consciously avoiding the fact that this movie was set in the 80s? In the book, Rorschach's journal entries always begin October ??, 1985. The movie just omits the year until the repeated narration of the first entry at the very end of the film.
I am going to see it again and will check on this.
I don't think so. It was more subtle. If they deliberately tried to drive the point home it would have felt forced. Do we deliberately drive home the point every day we are a live what year we currently are living in? This was written in 1985, so the point wasn't really driven home in the novel either. It's just part of the natural flow.
Suprmallet
03-09-09, 07:27 PM
First of all, Slop, awesome avatar.
Secondly, I also didn't like the alteration of the Rorschach killing, specifically because Snyder made it look like a crime of passion. The whole point of that sequence in the comic is that when Rorschach found what the guy had done to the girl, Kovacs died and the "true" Rorschach was born. Thus, by the time the killer got back, Rorschach had planned out the murder very deliberately. In the movie, it seems like he planned throwing the dogs, but then made a last minute decision to kill the molester. That, to me, made less of an impact than Rorschach planning out the killing.
calhoun07
03-09-09, 07:31 PM
Some changes I didn't love, but still worked overall
- Rorschach getting his mask back from the psychiatrist
- Adrian's masterplan. I think the squid thing could have worked.
- No explanation of the fabric used for Rorschach's mask
1) how did he get it back in the graphic novel? I don't even recall right now (though I could walk into the bedroom and pick the copy up off my night stand!)
2) The graphic novel ending would have added another hour to the movie, at least. All the subplots involving everybody who made it happen would have confused the confused even further. The movie would have been a spectacular failure with that ending. Perhaps if the story was told as 12 episode mini series on HBO or something then it could work in, but not in the movie. I liked the new ending.
3) I think it will be explained in the director's cut. It was clear to me we should have seen more of that character's origin...we saw a few clips in the movie which tells me more was filmed.
Groucho
03-09-09, 07:31 PM
What I love about these threads is how the "crowd" magically shares the same exact opinion as the poster.
Suprmallet
03-09-09, 07:33 PM
1) how did he get it back in the graphic novel? I don't even recall right now (though I could walk into the bedroom and pick the copy up off my night stand!)
Rorschach has Nite Owl fly Archie back to Rorschach's old apartment to pick up a spare costume. While there, he encounters his landlady, who had said in the news that he had sexually assaulted her after he was put in jail, which was a lie. It wasn't a very important scene and I actually prefer the way they did it in the movie.
calhoun07
03-09-09, 07:47 PM
Don't worry, Alan Moore is never going to watch the movie, so it doesn't matter! :)
I'd love it if, in about 20 years or so, Alan Moore has a change of heart and sits down and watches this and admits he was wrong...his comics COULD work as movies.
Giantrobo
03-09-09, 07:48 PM
I'd love it if, in about 20 years or so, Alan Moore has a change of heart and sits down and watches this and admits he was wrong...his comics COULD work as movies.
Dude THANK YOU.
I've been wanting to say something like this for some time but I didn't feel like getting shit from hardcore Moore Fans.
calhoun07
03-09-09, 07:49 PM
Rorschach has Nite Owl fly Archie back to Rorschach's old apartment to pick up a spare costume. While there, he encounters his landlady, who had said in the news that he had sexually assaulted her after he was put in jail, which was a lie. It wasn't a very important scene and I actually prefer the way they did it in the movie.
Yeah, I did kind of miss the land lady. I don't know...it added a bit of humanity to Rorschach, thinking of him as the abused child and seeing him struggling with the land lady and such. Still psychotic, but it added humanity to him.
That touch is really lost in the movie. I just hope we see more of it in the director's cut.
Suprmallet
03-09-09, 07:52 PM
I'd love it if, in about 20 years or so, Alan Moore has a change of heart and sits down and watches this and admits he was wrong...his comics COULD work as movies.
I think V For Vendetta worked better as an adaptation than Watchmen does, personally. I think if Moore watched this movie, he'd think the soul had been torn out of the comic. That's just IMO.
PopcornTreeCt
03-09-09, 07:54 PM
Another thing I noticed they changed, is in the graphic novel Nite Owl's spaceship shot water out over the fire, while in the movie he used a gun to shoot down a water tank. I thought that was a positive change, I remember reading the comic and thinking, it just happens to shoot water? How often would they need that?
Suprmallet
03-09-09, 07:55 PM
Your superhero flying vehicle isn't equipped with a water hose?
calhoun07
03-09-09, 07:57 PM
the Driberg performance itself leaves something to be desired.
Last night after I posted my review I pulled out my old copy of the Watchmen graphic novel and looked at some of Dan's scenes. He was a nervous man, for sure. Stuttering when Rorschach was around and just kind of this middle aged overweight social loser. He says "uh" a lot in the comic and just doesn't come off very confident in himself. I think some of that was lost in the performance.
I don't know if I blame the actor as much as the director for that, though. I don't really understand why Snyder didn't direct those scenes to read more like how Dan came off in the comic.
My favorite performance in the movie was Matt Frewer. I kept on looking for him in the movie and didn't realize that he was Moloch until the end credits. Hard to believe that was Max Headroom!
Suprmallet
03-09-09, 07:58 PM
I spotted him immediately. :shrug:
calhoun07
03-09-09, 08:04 PM
I actually felt that the movie could have been LONGER and would have been a better film.
That's what I was saying to a friend of mine after I saw it. They could have made this movie 4 hours long, if not more, and I would have gladly paid more for the ticket price if that's what it would take to see a longer version of this on the big screen.
This is the Lord of the Rings of the comic book world...it didn't need no freaking cutting!
calhoun07
03-09-09, 08:13 PM
^ Totally agree about Rorschach's first kill. Snyder went for something brutal and shocking and lost some of the character's spirit in the process.
Also agree on the length. I could have handled an extra hour if it meant a more fully fleshed out story.
Do you think this might have been another Alan Horn change? He didn't like Laurie smoking, so no cigarettes for Laurie. If he had a problem with that, he probably had some serious reservations over a dog getting that butcher's cleaver to the head. That was the defining moment for Walter Kovaks/Rorschach in the movie...that is when his psychotic persona took over. But I am betting Alan Horn feared the back lash from animal rights lovers who can't separate a CGI/fake dog getting severed from a real dog.
While we did see the image of the dog's head, I don't really recall seeing it happen. The brutality of the scene is now reserved for the killing of the child murderer.
Another change to the scene that kind of bugged me and I wondered if it was Zach or the studio...the bone the dogs were fighting over still had the girl's foot and shoe. Give me a freaking break. In the comic, the realization of what bone the dogs are fighting over is much more creative...and the reader knows Rorschach realizes it by the "surprised" look on his mask when he looks through the window and pulls his hand down suddenly from his chin. Even though he had a mask on, the pattern on his mask often mirrored his emotions in a lot of key scenes.
Perhaps something like that is hard to translate to film. I still blame Alan Horn.
fumanstan
03-09-09, 08:22 PM
This is the Lord of the Rings of the comic book world...it didn't need no freaking cutting!
Er... except parts of LOTR was cut too...
GreenVulture
03-09-09, 08:35 PM
I'd love it if, in about 20 years or so, Alan Moore has a change of heart and sits down and watches this and admits he was wrong...his comics COULD work as movies.
When one is made, let me know, please.
:up:
The complaint about being too faithful to the source is ridiculous. There are tons, and I mean tons, of movies that stray from the book and this one actually is very, very true to the book is being criticized for that exact reason.
Not ridiculous at all. It may be "true" in that, yes, it looks a lot like the panels, but any other comparisons stop right there. You can spend all the time and money in the world getting things to look just like the book, but if you can't capture the spirit and feel of the source, then it's basically a squandered opportunity.
And since when is a film's quality judged by how faithful it is to the source material? You know what you would get if Paul Thomas Anderson decided to be slavishly faithful to "Oil! Oil!" when he made There Will Be Blood, or if Paul Verhoven replicated Heinlein's Starship Troopers to the letter, or if Kubrick made a "true" version of Peter George's "Red Alert" instead of Dr. Strangelove? Really fucking boring movies, that's what.
toddly6666
03-09-09, 08:43 PM
WATCHMEN SEQUEL CONFIRMED!!! Alex Tse gets his chance finally! He writes the screenplay to the sequel!
Watchmen 2: The Return of Rorschach
The year is 1990. Peace has ended, and wars are brewing in other countries. Dan and Laurie are having trouble with their twins, Walt and Ed (named after two former Watchmen), whom both have Attention Deficit Disorders. Adrian Veidt moves his base to Mars, where he observes and befriends Dr. Manhattan. He finds out that Dr. Manhattan is farming huge martian squids. Adrian realizes he needs something more shocking than an atomic bomb to scare the world into peace, so he tricks Dr. Manhattan into teleporting a martian squid to NYC which causes destruction and chaos. Dan, Laurie and children get killed by the destruction this time. As Adrian basks in his glory on his Mars base, Rorschach and Bubastis return as blue superbeings as well. Rorschach destroys Adrian's Mars base and Bubastis attacks and mauls Adrian to death. The movie ends with an intergalactic battle between Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan, whom fight so hard until they merge into one blue star. Earth lives in peace....for now.
slop101
03-09-09, 08:46 PM
First of all, Slop, awesome avatar.
Secondly, I also didn't like the alteration of the Rorschach killing, specifically because Snyder made it look like a crime of passion. The whole point of that sequence in the comic is that when Rorschach found what the guy had done to the girl, Kovacs died and the "true" Rorschach was born. Thus, by the time the killer got back, Rorschach had planned out the murder very deliberately. In the movie, it seems like he planned throwing the dogs, but then made a last minute decision to kill the molester. That, to me, made less of an impact than Rorschach planning out the killing.I disagree with the bolded parts as, to me the cleaver to the head didn't come off any less planned out than the rest of the scene - he did to that guy exactly what he did the dogs.
Now stand still while I practice my stabbing! haHA! haYAA!!
slop101
03-09-09, 08:51 PM
I'd love it if, in about 20 years or so, Alan Moore has a change of heart and sits down and watches this and admits he was wrong...his comics COULD work as movies.I know he's still in contact with Dave Gibbons, who I'm sure has said to Moore something along the lines of, "Dude, it's not as bad as you think it is", which might pique his interest in seeing it.
calhoun07
03-09-09, 08:52 PM
WATCHMEN SEQUEL CONFIRMED!!! Alex Tse gets his chance finally! He writes the screenplay to the sequel!
Watchmen 2: The Return of Rorschach
The year is 1990. Peace has ended, and wars are brewing in other countries. Dan and Laurie are having trouble with their twins, Walt and Ed (named after two former Watchmen), whom both have Attention Deficit Disorders. Adrian Veidt moves his base to Mars, where he observes and befriends Dr. Manhattan. He finds out that Dr. Manhattan is farming huge martian squids. Adrian realizes he needs something more shocking than an atomic bomb to scare the world into peace, so he tricks Dr. Manhattan into teleporting a martian squid to NYC which causes destruction and chaos. Dan, Laurie and children get killed by the destruction this time. As Adrian basks in his glory on his Mars base, Rorschach and Bubastis return as blue superbeings as well. Rorschach destroys Adrian's Mars base and Bubastis attacks and mauls Adrian to death. The movie ends with an intergalactic battle between Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan, whom fight so hard until they merge into one blue star. Earth lives in peace....for now.
Lots of time on your hands, eh?
Twilight of the Superheroes was supposed to be the sequel to the Watchmen or at the very least his follow up work...I can't recall now if it was supposed to be a sequel of sorts or a new work entirely. Alan Moore was working on it when he had a falling out with DC and that never transpired. It's been a long, long time since I read a synopsis of that idea. Any time I find a website that claims to have the full synopsis, I find that it was taken down by demands from DC comics. EDIT...Never mind, I found on wikipedia that it wasn't tied to Watchmen. Should've check there first!
If Alan Moore hadn't had a falling out with DC, it would have been cool if his return to fun comics wasn't just stuff like Tom Strong, but comics based on the Minutemen characters. Perhaps not the "real life" adventures but perhaps based on the idea that pulp comics were made based on the "real characters" at the time. It could have been really fun, and good.
http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/Nite%20Owl%20Comics.jpg
slop101
03-09-09, 08:56 PM
WATCHMEN SEQUEL CONFIRMED!!!If there HAD to be sequel, I'd guess that the most interesting approach would be to do a prequel of sorts, fleshing out the flash-backs and expanding on the material from "Behind the Hood". But even if it was done really well, it could never have a satisfying ending.
PopcornTreeCt
03-09-09, 09:14 PM
When one is made, let me know, please.
Not ridiculous at all. It may be "true" in that, yes, it looks a lot like the panels, but any other comparisons stop right there. You can spend all the time and money in the world getting things to look just like the book, but if you can't capture the spirit and feel of the source, then it's basically a squandered opportunity.
And since when is a film's quality judged by how faithful it is to the source material? You know what you would get if Paul Thomas Anderson decided to be slavishly faithful to "Oil! Oil!" when he made There Will Be Blood, or if Paul Verhoven replicated Heinlein's Starship Troopers to the letter, or if Kubrick made a "true" version of Peter George's "Red Alert" instead of Dr. Strangelove? Really fucking boring movies, that's what.
True, I certainly agree that there are some great movies inspired by books. But not very many. I guess where we disagree, is that I believe the movie did capture the essence of the graphic novel.
calhoun07
03-09-09, 09:16 PM
I have never read the graphic novel. I didn't know anything about it. I saw it Sun night and I really enjoyed it. I might see it again. As others have said, the time really flew by. After seeing the movie, I might buy the graphic novel just to see what is different.
Dude, buy the graphic novel. I got into the comics when the individual issues came out in 1985 and even still today I am amazed by the layers in the whole story.
Aphex Twin
03-09-09, 11:19 PM
Have they said how long the director's cut will be?
Were the naked scenes done by the actors or were there body doubles?
whotony
03-09-09, 11:24 PM
Have they said how long the director's cut will be?
Were the naked scenes done by the actors or were there body doubles?
not that it matters but it looked pretty clear they were not doubles.
Akerman has done nude scenes before, not sure about Night Owl guy.
fumanstan
03-09-09, 11:36 PM
Have they said how long the director's cut will be?
Were the naked scenes done by the actors or were there body doubles?
A quick search mentions something about 3 hours, and 10 minutes.
RagingBull80
03-10-09, 12:34 AM
I don't think so. It was more subtle. If they deliberately tried to drive the point home it would have felt forced. Do we deliberately drive home the point every day we are a live what year we currently are living in? This was written in 1985, so the point wasn't really driven home in the novel either. It's just part of the natural flow.
I understand not shoving it down people's throats about it being the '80s but it didn't feel like the '80s to me. I understand that it was an alternate reality but it felt too pristine. I don't really know how to explain it but I was expecting more of a Blade Runner look for the characters and sets.
Maybe my feeling will change on how much it felt like the '80s on my second viewing, which I'm planning very soon.
And for every journal entry in the comic, Rorschach states the year. In the movie they dropped the year, except for the last one as I stated earlier, I was just cursious for what reason this was done.
Initially I gave the flick three stars in the poll. My opinion of it has changed after letting it sit with me for a while and I think it's now a four in my book.
PopcornTreeCt
03-10-09, 01:12 AM
Personally I think Gore Verbinski is the right choice for Bioshock.
Okay, well I'm gonna throw Snyder's name in there for a Fallout movie. The alternate reality and the uber amount of violence, especially the gore and slo-mo in VATS mode... perfect fit.
Suprmallet
03-10-09, 01:29 AM
Fallout could be cool, yeah.
devilshalo
03-10-09, 03:26 AM
And since when is a film's quality judged by how faithful it is to the source material? You know what you would get if Paul Thomas Anderson decided to be slavishly faithful to "Oil! Oil!" when he made There Will Be Blood, or if Paul Verhoven replicated Heinlein's Starship Troopers to the letter, or if Kubrick made a "true" version of Peter George's "Red Alert" instead of Dr. Strangelove? Really fucking boring movies, that's what.
However, I do not believe any of those books were illustrated, were they?
The Bus
03-10-09, 08:24 AM
True, I certainly agree that there are some great movies inspired by books. But not very many. I guess where we disagree, is that I believe the movie did capture the essence of the graphic novel.
The story was very faithful to the source material.
I don't know why Zack Snyder, using Dave Gibbon's art as a storyboard, failed to make Watchmen very visually exciting. Maybe it's just not meant to be visually exciting, which I'm not ready to believe.
Sin City used the graphic novel as storyboard and it was excellent. But Rodriguez is a very good kinetic director. I don't think Snyder is there yet.
Snowmaker
03-10-09, 08:31 AM
Saw the movie last night never having read the comics. I thought it was good, but doubt I could sit through it again.
nmr1723
03-10-09, 08:42 AM
My take...if anyone cares...
Loved the graphic novel...but the movie...was just ok (3/5 stars for me). It was visually impressive and JEH was flippin' amazing as Rorschach. But, I just feel like the movie didn't translate that well on screen. As someone said earlier, maybe it was too faithful to the GN. There were parts of the movie I did enjoy though. The reworked ending did in fact...work for me, Manattan on Mars was good...and as I said...Jackie Earl Haley was phenomenal.
I completely agree about the Kovacs/Rorschach transformation...the graphic novel version shows a calm Rorschach leaving the scene...knowing that he is forever changed. Rorschach is a badass...but he's also a thinker. He drives the entire book, and he's the one that is onto something funky from the beginning. The film version of his transformation just seemed too violent and raw...even for Rorschach.
I'm with Moore on this one...I think he was right in saying that Watchmen is best as a graphic novel. He didn't think it would translate well to film, and I think he was right.
Snyder did an excellent job of sticking to the source material, but as GreenVulture stated earlier...it isn't always necessary when adapting a novel to film.
I'm happy to hear a great many of you did really enjoy the movie though. It's all about personal taste...and I'd rather it do well and be critically acclaimed than not. That being said...it just wasn't for me.
fumanstan
03-10-09, 09:43 AM
The story was very faithful to the source material.
I don't know why Zack Snyder, using Dave Gibbon's art as a storyboard, failed to make Watchmen very visually exciting. Maybe it's just not meant to be visually exciting, which I'm not ready to believe.
Sin City used the graphic novel as storyboard and it was excellent. But Rodriguez is a very good kinetic director. I don't think Snyder is there yet.
Maybe its just me, but I don't think the original art was ever "visually exciting" although I agree that the movie left a bit to be desired. I think it needed more atmosphere like those shots of the Gunga Diner balloon and what not.
Xander
03-10-09, 09:56 AM
And for every journal entry in the comic, Rorschach states the year. In the movie they dropped the year, except for the last one as I stated earlier, I was just cursious for what reason this was done.
Wrong. You have it backwards. I just saw it last night. He states the year in every entry EXCEPT the last one.
I ended up liking this movie, though it wasn't really what I was expecting, having never read the book.
Rorshach was awesome. Truly a great portrayal of a vigilante pushed over the edge.
Totally didn't recognize John Winchester as the Comedian. That was some crazy casting.
I did appreciate the character development at the beginning as a newcomer, but it did feel a bit slow to me.
I thought the soundtrack definitely did NOT work in some situations. 99 Luftballoons in the diner scene was one example. Totally jarring and took me out of the movie.
Overall I really liked it and am going out to buy the graphic novel soon. :)
RichC2
03-10-09, 10:06 AM
I think my primary issue with the movie is it didn't feel like a movie. It felt like a shortened motion comic with actors, not necessarily a bad thing per se, but I think I prefer cinematic interpretations of material versus the acting out of comic panels.
mdc3000
03-10-09, 10:17 AM
Last night after I posted my review I pulled out my old copy of the Watchmen graphic novel and looked at some of Dan's scenes. He was a nervous man, for sure. Stuttering when Rorschach was around and just kind of this middle aged overweight social loser. He says "uh" a lot in the comic and just doesn't come off very confident in himself. I think some of that was lost in the performance.
I don't know if I blame the actor as much as the director for that, though. I don't really understand why Snyder didn't direct those scenes to read more like how Dan came off in the comic.
I couldn't disagree more. He may not have been as verbally 'nervous' as he appears in the comic, but Wilson's performance REALLY sells Dreiberg's lack of confidence and fear that he is nothing without the suit... it's all in his face and mannerisms. I think it works perfectly well that he's trying to 'put on a brave face' with his words, but his body language sells him out. I think Wilson's performance is kind of the unsung hero of this movie - it's so damn good people aren't even noticing how good it is.
The Bus
03-10-09, 10:31 AM
I think my primary issue with the movie is it didn't feel like a movie. It felt like a shortened motion comic with actors, not necessarily a bad thing per se, but I think I prefer cinematic interpretations of material versus the acting out of comic panels.
:up: I think Snyder was so concerned with having the material being spot on with the comic that he didn't let the movie breathe. To be fair, he also had to deal with a very specific story, not a character. Iron Man has certain traits. Batman has certain traits. He deals with the Joker in very specific ways. It's a base to build a story and you've got decades of comics to cull from.
Watchmen is just one short series and that's it. Snyder played it extremely safe. It means that it's hard to fail, but it's also not going to be anything new either.
Slumbering Fist
03-10-09, 11:39 AM
I think they had a great script and great cast but many of Snyder's choices were too artificial, made it too fake, too unreal, which essentially betrays what Watchmen is about. I'm not saying they needed documentary style realism or go all Cassavettes or anything, but had the film focused on more realism (where it was warranted, of course) in the sets, action, and post production it would have stayed truer to what the source is about- costumed/superheroes in the actual world.
Kurtie Dee
03-10-09, 11:51 AM
Maybe its just me, but I don't think the original art was ever "visually exciting" although I agree that the movie left a bit to be desired. I think it needed more atmosphere like those shots of the Gunga Diner balloon and what not.
Agreed. Gibbons' art is amazingly detailed, but compared to what else was going on at the time, pretty average on the excitement scale. (For excitement see; Miller, Sienkiewcz, Cowan, Bolland, etc. Heck, even Byrne and Perez)
Dr Mabuse
03-10-09, 01:07 PM
Just finished it.
I liked this film. I have never read the GN, and I enjoyed it.
I was interested all the way through, good to see the kid from 'Bad News Bears' do such a great performance. He was terrific.
Some of the music was a little... something off, I agree there.
But I enjoyed it an I think I'll watch it again later today.
Think I'll pick the GN up and read it.
Solid Snake PAC
03-10-09, 01:42 PM
Agreed. Gibbons' art is amazingly detailed, but compared to what else was going on at the time, pretty average on the excitement scale. (For excitement see; Miller, Sienkiewcz, Cowan, Bolland, etc. Heck, even Byrne and Perez)
I think that's kind of the point in a way...but overrall his art is like that. It fit the comic well. Seemed very real with the dullness of the world but the insane detail to it as well.
Mopower
03-10-09, 02:04 PM
While I like the movie it seemed like it had a bunch of stuff cut out of it. Like the whole temple at the end and the tiger thing. What was all that? It's like they cut out the parts that explained it. I'm sure there is other stuff that I can't think of at the moment. I never read the comic book.
Yavin
03-10-09, 02:06 PM
While I like the movie it seemed like it had a bunch of stuff cut out of it. Like the whole temple at the end and the tiger thing. What was all that? It's like they cut out the parts that explained it. I'm sure there is other stuff that I can't think of at the moment. I never read the comic book.
Yup, there was quite a bit of exposition and subplots that were excised from the film (but expected to reappear on the ultimate cut on DVD/BD).
The explanation of Bubastis was one that I noticed as well. The comic had a least a few panels of Ozymandias explaining to (I think) Nite Owl and Silk Spectre just was exactly Bubastis was. But in the film, he was just ... there. Actually, seeing as how they changed the squid monster to the Dr. Manhattan monster at the end, Bubastis seems to not fit in as well. IMO he fit in better with the whole genetic experimentation vibe of Ozymandias from the book.
Giles
03-10-09, 02:11 PM
While I like the movie it seemed like it had a bunch of stuff cut out of it. Like the whole temple at the end and the tiger thing. What was all that? It's like they cut out the parts that explained it. I'm sure there is other stuff that I can't think of at the moment. I never read the comic book.
I agree, I can't wait to see the extended cut on bluray.
Kurtie Dee
03-10-09, 04:11 PM
I think that's kind of the point in a way...but overrall his art is like that. It fit the comic well. Seemed very real with the dullness of the world but the insane detail to it as well.
Agreed. In large part the whole work is a bunch of intricate inner dialogs of people mostly out of touch with anything but their own agendas, so Gibbons' Tin-tin-like exhaustive detail is a good fit.
But from this earlier comment I don't know why Zack Snyder, using Dave Gibbon's art as a storyboard, failed to make Watchmen very visually exciting. Maybe it's just not meant to be visually exciting, which I'm not ready to believe. - I'd say the movie is way more visually exciting than the book ...
Solid Snake PAC
03-10-09, 06:03 PM
Ditto...
majorjoe23
03-10-09, 07:36 PM
Who was the actor who played the reporter who brought up Dr. Manhattan's ex at the interview? He sounded really familiar, but I couldn't place him.
My only complaints were the actor playing Ozymandias, he wasn't horrible, he just wasn't great, and the Skinemax worthy sex scene. Not that I mind naked Malin Ackerman.
Aphex Twin
03-10-09, 08:19 PM
Who was the actor who played the reporter who brought up Dr. Manhattan's ex at the interview? He sounded really familiar, but I couldn't place him.
Wasn't that Gary Oldman?
Brack
03-10-09, 08:23 PM
Wasn't that Gary Oldman?
:lol:
the actor's name is John Shaw.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0789794/
whotony
03-10-09, 08:25 PM
Wasn't that Gary Oldman?
you thouht that was Gary Oldman?
Maye Gary Cole, but his name isn't listed among the many "reporters"
on IMDB.COM
majorjoe23
03-10-09, 09:30 PM
:lol:
the actor's name is John Shaw.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0789794/
Weird, he sounded like Harry Anderson.
An4h0ny
03-10-09, 09:38 PM
Jackie Earle Haley should get at least a Golden Globe if not an Oscar for that performance.
He was the best actor in the whole thing.
Breakfast with Girls
03-10-09, 11:05 PM
I thought it was what a superhero movie should never be: boring.
I'm a fan of the Watchmen comic (although I think Alan Moore is a bit overrated), but a comic book is not a movie, nor should it try to be. That's why they call it an adaptation, and why Snyder is anything but "visionary". What I'm saying is that he should have braved the vocal fanboy lynch mob and made a good movie first and a Watchmen movie second. (I liked V for Vendetta, which took some liberties with the story, for instance.)
Besides the running time, which was 30 minutes too long, there were other problems. The violence frequently felt gratuitous and out of place, like something from the <em>Saw</em> series. I might be inclined to think Snyder felt like he had to up the ante to shock and disturb the audience, but at times it also seemed to glorify the disturbing behavior of characters like Rorschach, like when he poured the grease on the other inmate. And the alley fight—what the fuck? What was the justification for the hyper-violence there?
The sex scene was just bad: it ran too long and it was unintentionally hilarious. I didn't even really get why it was edited the way it was, other than to offer up a naked Malin Akerman to the geeks in the audience (again). Showing them kissing, then start to take off their clothes, then cut to the exterior shot with the flame shooting out would have conveyed everything that needed to be conveyed. And it would have been intentionally funny, like the train in <em>North by Northwest</em>.
The soundtrack was uninspired and didn't evoke the period very well. <em>Donnie Darko</em> and <em>The Wedding Singer</em> both had jukebox soundtracks that worked really well in the context of each film. <em>Watchmen</em>'s soundtrack was just all over the place, thematically.
All that said, I did like the standout casting of Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. They were both very good in their roles, especially Morgan. Like most other people, I loved the credits sequence.
Won't be buying it when it comes out, though. My god, I can't even imagine an extended cut of this interspersed with the Black Freighter story.
2.5/5
Solid Snake PAC
03-11-09, 12:09 AM
You liked Watchmen yet...you thought the film adaptation of it was 30 mins too long? No offense...but a 2 hour Watchmen would've been horrendous. V for Vendetta was good/ok for what it was...it's message was weak though...too current and very much emotional knee jerk reaction..it totally lacked the impact of Moore's V for Vendetta. Also...the Watchmen soundtrack pieces was totally referenced in the comic and used well (except maybe that sex scene...maybe it was too funny), it's actual score was pretty good.
RocShemp
03-11-09, 12:50 AM
You know, with all the mixed reviews here, I want to read David Hayter's script more than ever. Although Alan Moore stated he'd never watch the movie, he did state that "David Hayter's screenplay was as close as I could imagine anyone getting to Watchmen" of course he followed that by saying "That said, I shan't be going to see it. My book is a comic book. Not a movie, not a novel. A comic book. It's been made in a certain way, and designed to be read a certain way."
The reason I bring this up is because apparently Hayter's script had a contemporary atmosphere. So it seems Moore wasn't too bothered about superficial changes but appreciated the fact that the spirit of the comic book was intact. It's also worth noting that Hayter's third draft was 134 pages long. Since a page roughly equals a minute of screentime, he truncated a lot and still got a semi-blessing from Alan Moore.
I just think it'd be interesting to contrast Snyder's panel-by-panel recreation to what would have been an actual adaptation.
RocShemp
03-11-09, 12:54 AM
And here it is: http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/watchmen-movie-scripts.php
Solid Snake PAC
03-11-09, 01:06 AM
I've been wondering about the same thing cuz of Moore's approval of the script being good...*reading Hayter script*
Brack
03-11-09, 01:44 AM
I'm a fan of the Watchmen comic (although I think Alan Moore is a bit overrated), but a comic book is not a movie, nor should it try to be. That's why they call it an adaptation, and why Snyder is anything but "visionary". What I'm saying is that he should have braved the vocal fanboy lynch mob and made a good movie first and a Watchmen movie second. (I liked V for Vendetta, which took some liberties with the story, for instance.)
I don't think this is completely accurate. Movies themselves are moving pictures. Comic books by definition are waiting to be made into films (which we do with our minds).
Suprmallet
03-11-09, 03:25 AM
I disagree. Comic books are their own art form. As a medium, comics share certain similarities with film (using pictures in sequence to tell a story being the main one), but the two are not interchangeable. That being said, there are certain comics that might be made more easily into films, just as there are books that are more easily made into films (The Da Vinci Code or Jaws as opposed to The God Delusion or House of Leaves, for example).
Anyway, saw this again tonight and thought it worked much better than on my first viewing. I was so busy comparing it to the book that I forgot to take it in as a movie, and watching it that way, it was a much more cohesive experience. I still have problems with it, but I'm hoping that most of them will be alleviated in the longer cuts. I will say this: It's more of a transcription than an adaptation. If I'm going to dock points for anything, it was in Snyder being so faithful to the graphic novel that the piece felt constrained at times. V For Vendetta is still, to me, the textbook on how to adapt a comic. It took a specific story, and transplanted the themes and ideas, while changing it so that it worked better on film. Whereas Snyder was more concerned with making sure specific shots looked just like the corresponding frame of the comic.
JTH182
03-11-09, 05:22 AM
Maybe my memory is just off, but I thought he states the year at every journal entry except the repeat of the first entry at the end.
Wrong. You have it backwards. I just saw it last night. He states the year in every entry EXCEPT the last one.
Thank you
The Bus
03-11-09, 08:41 AM
I think they had a great script and great cast but many of Snyder's choices were too artificial, made it too fake, too unreal, which essentially betrays what Watchmen is about. I'm not saying they needed documentary style realism or go all Cassavettes or anything, but had the film focused on more realism (where it was warranted, of course) in the sets, action, and post production it would have stayed truer to what the source is about- costumed/superheroes in the actual world.
To me, there are two sci-fish movies that seem the most real: Children of Men and A New Hope. I believe that the reason the first Star Wars movies seem like they are "real" is because all the gadgets and tech/props were real: that is, they used, say, parts of a coffeemaker that was painted or referenced existing battleships, etc.
The world of Watchmen is not ours; I think it would've been a stronger feeling if at times we didn't know that.
toddly6666
03-11-09, 08:56 AM
Can someone list all the things that Adrian was watching on his TVs in his fortress?
Here are the things I noticed him watching:
1. Where's the Beef? commercial
2. Mad Max 2 movie
3. some Stallone movie
4. Robert Palmer's Addicted to Love video
There was one I saw and I couldn't figure it out - it was a black & white prison/futuristic/sci-fi movie. Anyone know what that was?
This scene is something to definitely to pause on the DVD. I've seen the movie twice and I was trying to see more of what was on those tvs.....
Giles
03-11-09, 09:04 AM
^ i thought there was also the Ridley Scott Apple commercial in there too.
12thmonkey
03-11-09, 09:06 AM
^ i thought there was also the Ridley Scott Apple commercial in there too.
I concur.
toddly6666
03-11-09, 09:23 AM
Is there a website which shows how much money books are making? Alan Moore may be bitching about the movie, but isn't he getting a cut of all those Watchmen books being sold now? I have seen so many people reading the Watchmen book the past couple months. The last time I saw so many people reading one common book was for The DaVinci Code...
An4h0ny
03-11-09, 10:02 AM
Is there a website which shows how much money books are making? Alan Moore may be bitching about the movie, but isn't he getting a cut of all those Watchmen books being sold now? I have seen so many people reading the Watchmen book the past couple months. The last time I saw so many people reading one common book was for The DaVinci Code...
IIRC, Moore and Gibbons sold the entire thing to DC b/c they thought that at some point the rights would revert back to them and they could get all the profits from sales of not only the actual G.N. but action figures and other merchandise.
The deal stated that once D.C. had let Watchmen go out of print for a year, Moore and Gibbons would then get all their ownership back permanently. However DC never intended to ever let Watchmen go out of print so they pretty much swindled Moore, which is why he left and why he doesn't want his name on any filmed versions of his projects.
toddly6666
03-11-09, 10:18 AM
So is this the biggest selling D.C. book then?
Solid Snake PAC
03-11-09, 11:26 AM
I'd assume so. Does Moore and Gibbons really get no profit off of them? I'd be pissed considering that that would happen to me if I was either gentleman. Gibbons seems pretty positive about Watchmen in anything...of course he was payed to work on this film too I assume, so there's that for being happy. Damn that sucks...cuz...that's the most critically and financially famous work that they both have.
Brack
03-11-09, 12:21 PM
I disagree. Comic books are their own art form. As a medium, comics share certain similarities with film (using pictures in sequence to tell a story being the main one), but the two are not interchangeable. That being said, there are certain comics that might be made more easily into films, just as there are books that are more easily made into films (The Da Vinci Code or Jaws as opposed to The God Delusion or House of Leaves, for example).
I'm not saying they're the same, but the idea that they can't or shouldn't be made from one or the other is a pretty limited point of view. I think the Watchmen works because it is very loyal to the source material. Narrative is narrative, whether it's in a comic or film form.
slop101
03-11-09, 12:29 PM
I'd assume so. Does Moore and Gibbons really get no profit off of them? I'd be pissed considering that that would happen to me if I was either gentleman. Gibbons seems pretty positive about Watchmen in anything...of course he was payed to work on this film too I assume, so there's that for being happy. Damn that sucks...cuz...that's the most critically and financially famous work that they both have.Well, while Moore opted out of profits from the movie, he still gets a sizable chunk from the graphic novel. And since the movie's caused the sales of the graphic novel to increase exponentially, I think he'll be fine.
Solid Snake PAC
03-11-09, 12:43 PM
Ok..that's what I thought. My mind was just going "Why doesn't Moore get payed for his work?", work being his graphic novel...not the adaptation of it.
majorjoe23
03-11-09, 12:45 PM
A year or so back Moore requested that his name also be removed from his DC books, but DC refused. They're still sending him royalty checks, but I heard a rumor that he may not be cashing them.
Breakfast with Girls
03-11-09, 01:27 PM
You liked Watchmen yet...you thought the film adaptation of it was 30 mins too long? No offense...but a 2 hour Watchmen would've been horrendous.Well, the nearly 3-hour version wasn't great. The story really doesn't need to be that complicated, despite what many say. The plot is fairly simple. What makes it complicated is setting up the atmosphere of living in a society with real-life costumed heroes and villains, some of which could be cut without losing the audience.
A lot of the character background and flashbacks, while interesting in a comic book, were unnecessary for a film. I would have kept the Vietnam sequence, as I think it is one of the most powerful sequences in the film, but maybe for example Rorschach's first murder could have been conveyed by exposition from Rorschach himself in the psych evaluation (more effectively, I suspect) instead of the flashback.
V for Vendetta was good/ok for what it was...it's message was weak though...too current and very much emotional knee jerk reaction..it totally lacked the impact of Moore's V for Vendetta. Also...the Watchmen soundtrack pieces was totally referenced in the comic and used well (except maybe that sex scene...maybe it was too funny), it's actual score was pretty good.Too current? Freedom versus authoritarianism with the promise of security is a pretty timeless theme. The visual references to 1984 (the novel) in <em>V for Vendetta</em> were not accidental, and that book, based on very similar themes, has stayed in the collective consciousness for the last 60 years.
Suprmallet
03-11-09, 03:30 PM
Thank you
Having seen it last night, I can see the confusion. He says the year in the first few entries, then drops it for the next few. Then he says it again at the end.
toddly6666
03-11-09, 08:38 PM
Besides adding the additional Tales of the Black Freighter animation scenes into the movie, I can't imagine this film being any longer, nor does it need to be because the film perfectly adapted the book. It just sounds retarded for fans of the book to say that the movie would have been better as a three-film trilogy.
whotony
03-11-09, 08:47 PM
So then I guess your calling me a retard then.
I would love and can't wait for the longer cut.
toddly6666
03-11-09, 08:55 PM
So then I guess your calling me a retard then.
I would love and can't wait for the longer cut.
no im not calling you a retard. I'm excited to see the Director's cut as well. I just don't know where they could get all the material for a three-movie trilogy over 6 hours. As described below, his final cut would run at around 3 hours and 30 minutes, which is still not that long. It would have been really awful if Fox decided to release the film as a 3-film trilogy, each running one hour and ten minutes each?
Snyder's director's cut will still be shorter than the Kingdom of Heaven and Lord of the Rings Director's cuts:
his cut will feature “99% of what we shot,” footage which Zack Snyder said he liked. The run time on this edition will be just over 3 hours long, compared to the 2:35ish run time of the theatrical version. It will be more violent, more sexy, and have more naked Dr. Manhattan. Also included will be entire scenes excised from the movie for time.
Fall/Last Quarter: The Black Freighter Edition. This title may not be the final title, but it is how Snyder identified it. He told us that they shot all the Ins and Outs of The Black Freighter pieces from the comic book, which for those of you who haven’t read it, mostly revolve around a boy and newsstand salesman. You can see these characters in the film, but they don’t have an impact on the story. The big news is that The Black Freighter, the animated movie, will be cut into the film. The animated film is said to be 22minutes long which, with the In and Out shots, will bump the presentation to about 3hours and 25minutes. Snyder referred to this release as the “fetishistic and kind of crazy” release, as it is so complete.
NiCK Crush
03-11-09, 10:09 PM
A few thoughts:
-they should have included how Rorschach got his "face". It is so brief in the novel and could have easily been thrown in.
-they never touched on how Ozymandias got Bubastis (the purple tiger-like creature). Again, its brief in the novel, and should have been mentioned in the film so people aren't just like "what the fuck?"
-loved the prison scenes. more action packed than the novel, which works because they needed it to translate better to the screen, which I think it did.
fumanstan
03-11-09, 10:22 PM
no im not calling you a retard. I'm excited to see the Director's cut as well. I just don't know where they could get all the material for a three-movie trilogy over 6 hours. As described below, his final cut would run at around 3 hours and 30 minutes, which is still not that long. It would have been really awful if Fox decided to release the film as a 3-film trilogy, each running one hour and ten minutes each?
I don't think it should have been a trilogy, but it sure seems like they cut out enough that it could have easily been 4+ hours worth of movie. Snyder's final cut may be 3 and a half hours, but that still doesn't mean that includes everything from the comic. I'm not sure why you're concluding that his cut encompasses everything.
tommyp007
03-11-09, 10:39 PM
Just got back from seeing this, and loved it. Gave it 4 stars on the poll. I thought the 2:45 flew by, and was really pleased with how much of the novel they got in. No complaints here, a definate recommend.
Suprmallet
03-11-09, 10:46 PM
Toddly, if they really put everything in from the book, including the Black Freighter and Under The Hood stuff, I could see the project working as a 6 hour miniseries.
toddly6666
03-12-09, 12:15 AM
Toddly, if they really put everything in from the book, including the Black Freighter and Under The Hood stuff, I could see the project working as a 6 hour miniseries.
well with the Under The Hood stuff it's possible, but thank god they did a movie!
I like the idea of reading the Watchmen book anytime I want without losing too much time because it's a quick read.
And I'm going to like the idea of watching the Watchmen DVD anytime because a 3 and half hour director's cut is a perfect length as well. If it was over 6 hours as a miniseries, I just know I wouldn't be watching it on dvd as much - sort of like the Lord of Rings Extended cuts. Those extended cuts are such masterpieces, but I never feel like watching them cuz they are so long - probably going to average watching them once every 10 years. Now if the Watchmen Director's Cut is 3 and a half hours, then i see myself watching it once a year.
Suprmallet
03-12-09, 12:35 AM
You're like the anti-chris_sc77.
fumanstan
03-12-09, 12:39 AM
You're like the anti-chris_sc77.
God I hope the director's cut is PG-13. They really need to cut out all that blue penis.
will travel
03-12-09, 01:58 AM
Very good movie.
I like the movie ending better then the comic book ending.
Best part of the film was the newsreel style opening credits.
Gets a solid 'A' from me.
Michael Ballack
03-12-09, 02:05 AM
I've only read the first two pages of this thread, but a common theme seems to be that if one hasn't read the comic, they will come away unsatisfied. While I had many people tell me to read the comic before seeing the movie, I choose to see the movie beforehand. In my experience, books are almost always better than the movie. I have a philosophy of seeing movies before reading books so that I can enjoy the movie more than someone who has read the book first. I saw the Jurassic Park movie first and read the book after. The book totally blew away the movie, but it didn't take away the experience that I had of seeing the T-Rex on the screen for the first time.
One of the problems I find with super heroes is that they are too perfect. I like Superman like any average American, but I've always been a Batman guy. I didn't think super hero movies could get any better than the Christopher Nolan Batman franchise, but last night I was proven wrong. Like Batman, the Watchmen have flaws and traumatic pasts. The flawed humanity in the Watchmen was the most adult in nature that I've ever seen for super heroes. I believe in film being a visual medium, and for me Watchmen didn't disappoint. I was hooked from the opening montage showing the history of this comic book universe.
Were there flaws in the movie? Sure, but there is no perfect movie out there. I totally agree that certain actors had shaky moments in the film, but I was able to overlook the flaws and focus on the positives such as Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach. I could go on and on, but it's late and I'm getting tired. I loved the film and I haven't read the graphic novel. I am definitely going to pickup the novel as soon as I can. 5/5 stars from me.
RagingBull80
03-12-09, 02:18 AM
Having seen it last night, I can see the confusion. He says the year in the first few entries, then drops it for the next few. Then he says it again at the end.
I just got back from my second viewing and JTH182 was right, he says the dates.
I tried to watch different things this time around and I noticed something cool. In the scene where Manhattan and Laurie are arguing, on the video screen there are words on the wall behind Veidt and the scientists that spell out SQUID. The shot is so quick I couldn't make out the words but could see that the first letters in each word spelled out SQUID.
Buy: