Whos goin to the watchmen Next weekend?

Tusky

Also, dunno if this has been posted. Saturday Morning Watchamen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

faceman

I had to give the movie a second viewing to really take it in. (I have read the book) I think it was pretty poor. Its all been said and done at this stage so I will just summarise my views on it:

Its far too long and tries to do far too much.

Silk Spectre and Nite Owl's performances were poor and I particularly felt they served nothing more than to moan and offer unintentional comic relief.

Rorshack wasnt given enough focus so you dont get behind him in the same way you do in the book. By the end of the book you are routing for him.

Despite ropey looking CGI in parts, Dr. Manhattan is the one character that you could empathise with although his turning was handled badly.

The ending didnt work for me.

johnny_ultimate

Finally got to see this last night, and as a huge fan of the original I have to agree with the "OK, but..." school of thought i.e. a mix of good judgements and bizarre misfires.

Firstly, the essence is there. The basic story (albeit minus some subtleties / subplots) exists which is admirable. Some of the most iconic moments remain - most notably the zoom from the badge, which was cinematic even on the page, but pleasant to see it on film. Some scenes were wonderfully realised, in particular the flashbacks - Dr. Manhattan's with the Philip Glass soundtrack stands out as a hugely effective sequence, along with the opening montage (one of the few occasions in the film I felt the 'pop' songs actually worked to the films credit). I think the graphic novel was hard to adapt, but they did a fairly decent job at creating something which at least remains partially loyal to the original.

But I really think Zack Snyder was the wrong director for the job. To his credit, he does have a unique visual style and a characteristic approach. However, he is one director who overstylises things and his experimentations can fail dramatically. Its been pointed out many times in this thread, but the Hallelujah sequence is a lowpoint - actually cringey. Sure they may have been going for parody, but it just doesn't fit with the overall tone. Indeed, the film often struggles to remain consistent - this is a problem with the original story, but the episodic structure works better as chapters than it does here (a minor complaint, and certainly would've been difficult for the filmmakers to sort it out). Visually it can be impressive - fight scenes are visceral (occasionally too many dramatic pauses though), and the cityscapes are impressive. Thought there was an overuse of CGI, a problem with 300 too - computers needed to be use to visualise some of the imagery, but some bits -

especially the Arctic lair and destroyed NY

- look pretty awful. As said, sometimes the style was really OTT - the dreadful Nite Owl dream sequences for example... - but for the most part was impressive. Just a shame the experimentation of Snyder made it seem cheesy and forced - his ambition is evident, but just didn't have the ability to pull it off in the way, say, Aronofsky / Gilliam / Greengrass could've (three directors who were interested, but sadly never followed it up).

Performances were a mixed bag. Rorsach is perfect, really and truly inspired casting. Pulls it off perfectly (although the diary entries sound a bit more forced when spoken IMO). Cruddup, Wilson and Morgan all suit their roles well too, and do good jobs. Ozymandias was the real weak point I felt - has none of the threat or intelligence the character deserves. Also Goode just seems to slur his speech. Very poorly cast role I thought. Didn't think Akerman was as awful as everyone made out - not a great performance, not a car crash either.

I don't know how objective I can be when it comes to this film, but overall I thought it was decent but unspectacular. Could've been far worse, and when the movie stuck to the book it was pretty impressive - almost to the point where everything good about the film may be a result of Moore and Gibbons. However as many others have said, when Snyder tried to add his own style it just came across as silly (mostly). At the end of the day, graphic novels are an inherently different medium to film, so what may have worked well in the book - All Along the Watchtower is a good example - doesn't always work here. I think some of the things left out work in the films favour - Black Freighter is great in the comic, but would like seem awkward here. But other absent subplots are noticeable - while the New Frontiersman, psychiatrist and news-stand characters all have cameos, their significance is lost and their minor presence only seem there as fan service. I also miss the

squid

, but reluctantly agree it would have been a step too far for a wider audience.

I don't know who this film is for really - too dense for newcomers, too flawed for fans. Snyder had a hard job considering the expectations, and while it is a solid adaptation, it ultimately seems forgettable. Could've been worse, could've been better. An indecisive conclusion, but thought on the whole the film was pretty indecisive anyway.

Richard Dower

Not having read the GN or knowing anything about the novel or read anything to do with the movie in advance i was very much a virgin, so i approached it from being an avid fan of superhero/comic book films. I thought it was very good, i loved the fact that it had an 18 rating, many superhero flicks alter and edit things to ensure a 12A rating. As such i liked this and was a more adult affair. Seeing sex scenes in a superhero flick was a first, i found the story easy to understand and it was all explained. I liked the fact they went for alot of backstory with each character...it gave context to what was going on.

It's really not a superhero movie but a who-done-it, but also a fairly honest exploration of how so called superheroes might and probably would behave in the real world. Too often the likes of Spiderman are unrealictically moral, as if Peter Parker could never ever uses his powers for anything other then saving lives or using them for personal gain or just giving into our most basic animal instincts.

Watchmen teaches us that there are two types, costumed heros who are just flawed human beings and true superheros with god like powers and being god like they evolve and see the universe, humans in a differerent light. Dr. Manhattan is evolved, he no longer feels any true hamanity or connection to see limited beings...in that sense he is very god like.

It also tests us, in much the same way Spock said "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few" Watchmen takes this and applies it to the real world which in turn tests or morality and says...is it right for millions to die to save billions?, can it be justified?

We've been brainwashed into thinking a superhero could NEVER make this decision or even contemplate it...which is why i really liked Watchmen, these guys are very much immoral...they kill pregnant womem, allow governments to get them involved in wars, almost commit rape and they blur the line between the typical superhero and what could happen if such people existed.

Ozy's "final solution" mirrors in some ways that seen in The Dark Knight whereby the superhero goes bad for the greater good, or appears to go bad....a backroom deal struck, a patsy, a scapegoat....all this in of itself is very realistic and happens all the time. I liked it but i look forward to the directors cut, often studio interfere in the creative process. His DVD version could be very different, the movie could be cut different and different music used.....overall i liked it and the length of the film didn't bother me.

delly

Richard Dower wrote: »

i loved the fact that it had an 18 rating

Its actually rated 16's, after an appeal of the 18's cert was accepted.

faceman

Did anyone notice the nod to batman in the opening credit sequence?
The original niteowl is seeing punching an armed masked villian while a very fancy dressed couple with their child are seeing emerging from a door on the left. Looks very Bruce wayne like. Also on the wall behind the Niteowl is a Batman poster. Perhaps they are trying to suggest how Batman never came to be in the Watchmen world?

Nevyn

The nod to batman ?

Eh don't you get that the whole thing is a parody of and a commentry on the superhero genre as it stood back then when Alan Moore wrote it

faceman

Thaedydal wrote: »

The nod to batman ?

Eh don't you get that the whole thing is a parody of and a commentry on the superhero genre as it stood back then when Alan Moore wrote it

I think that particular nod was more of Snyder's doing though than Moores?

Nevyn

That may have been synders visual but the idea and concept is there in the original and was Mr Moore's :P and that visual is a quick summing up for those who are lacking in the comic knowledge to get the nuances most of which were not in the film and even those which are are far to much
of a garbled short hand.

Actually that sums up the movie as far as I am concerned it is a pretty looking garbled sort hand of The Watchmen. Then again I am a self confessed comic geek and Alan Moore fangirl.

robby^5

Thaedydal wrote: »

The nod to batman ?

Eh don't you get that the whole thing is a parody of and a commentry on the superhero genre as it stood back then when Alan Moore wrote it

There is a nod to Batman in the opening credits. It's set-up to look like NiteOwl stopped the Waynes' murder, it's just a little Easter egg and not actually part of the story or connected in anyway to the Batman storyline or universe.

Richard Dower

Malin Ackerman is *officially* the hottest ever superhero chick!!...i actually thought the long straight browm hair suited her...she's a blonde in real life. She's also looking mighty HOT in the April issue of Maxim!!!!

The sign of a good movie, for me, is one that makes you think....one that requires you to concentrate and take note, a movie that lingers on days fater you've seen it....Watchmen is such a movie.

faceman

Richard Dower wrote: »

Malin Ackerman is *officially* the hottest ever superhero chick!!...i actually thought the long straight browm hair suited her...she's a blonde in real life. She's also looking mighty HOT in the April issue of Maxim!!!!

She wouldnt do it for me I have to say.

godspal

Richard Dower wrote: »

Malin Ackerman is *officially* the hottest ever superhero chick!!...i actually thought the long straight browm hair suited her...she's a blonde in real life. She's also looking mighty HOT in the April issue of Maxim!!!!

The sign of a good movie, for me, is one that makes you think....one that requires you to concentrate and take note, a movie that lingers on days fater you've seen it....Watchmen is such a movie.

Just checked her out there. Gestapo-girl. She is scary looking.

ztoical

robby^5 wrote: »

There is a nod to Batman in the opening credits. It's set-up to look like NiteOwl stopped the Waynes' murder, it's just a little Easter egg and not actually part of the story or connected in anyway to the Batman storyline or universe.

It's not a nod or an easter egg its from the comic, as Thaedydal already pointed out the whole thing is a parody of and a commentry on the superhero genre as it stood back then when Alan Moore wrote it.

BlitzKrieg

Just got to see it at long last (was planning on going saturday, but I have me a treasure hunt to get to)


Anyway

my review: It has to be the best updating, characterization and adaptation of the Old Testament I have ever seen. I mean they got everything that made the Old testament fantastic right in there, various disjointed stories that dont feel too well together, some of which are quite good while others feel like uninspiring lists, throw in a healthy amount of gore and justified violence, just like those crazy jews back then top it all off with a message of behave or vengeful god will smite thee! Of course its all a hoax. Just like the Old Testament.

its exactly like it and yet it now relates to me because it has white people and cities and pretty explosions.


Oh and everything is extra slow so I can follow without getting confused.



Serious opinion

I called it about 100 threads ago, Snyder's problem is that he cant adapt, he took physically what was there and recreated it which will keep about 60% of people satisfied, but he didnt get the essence and he further f*cks up by then trying to shove in his own meanings/messages/events into the film which never work with the source material (see: 300) which then weighes down the good original work and the finished piece ends up being a big meh, but because what is p*ssing me off is stuff that was put in and not stuff taken out, it ends up sounding much more negative because it is stuff put it in. It is stuff that sticks out, irratates the viewer and in the end dominates all discussion that follows. He did it with 300 and now he did it with Watchmen. Please just let him do his own stuff cause he seems to really want to.

ztoical

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Oh and everything is extra slow so I can follow without getting confused.

RLMAO!!!!!!!!!! brilliant

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ztoical

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not actually correct. Watchmen is a comic - it was published as a 12 issue series but most people here have only ever seen it in its collected trade forum and as such mistakenly refer to it as a Graphic Novel. It has slightly annoyed me to see people saying Graphic Novel or just Novel when taking about Watchmen as you need to be aware that the story was published in 12 chapters and to really get the feel of reading it you should read one chapter then take break for at least a day if not longer.

The term graphic novel is not strictly defined, and is sometimes used as a generic term for comics. Comics that are published as a series of short issues then collected into one collection for print are generally called Trades or Trade paperbacks [or Albums in France] while a Graphic Novel is used to refer to a work that was only ever published as one long story. Alot of cartoonists dislike like the term Graphic Novel and some like Craig Thompson use the term "an illustrated novel" on their books.

End of fangirl comic nerd rant.

fourfiveone

Saw it yesterday. I went with no knowledge of the graphic novel/comic canon. Well worth seeing, definite cinema movie rather than waiting for HDDVD or HDTV. I loved the soundtrack, especially when (spoiler?) Everybody wants to rule the world by Tears for Fears was the background muzak in Ozymandias' office while he's facing off the high-powered energy executives. Action sequences were excellent, effects were good, characters were well portrayed BUT the Nixon, Kissinger, Buchanan etc lookalikes didn't work. Nixon's prosthetic nose was especially distracting.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Fysh

I don't think this has been mentioned thus far in the thread, but something that really bugged me about the "new" ending was the implications it had for the world the story was set in. I've made a point of not re-reading the comic recently (I wanted to go into the film without having a particularly clear or detailed recollection of the comic) but I seem to recall Dr Manhattan creating a revolutionary engine based on new, clean energy sources that rendered fossil fuels irrelevant. This is what leads to Hollis Mason being turned overnight into an expert in "obsolete" cars - and yet, the sign for Mason's workshop is taken straight from the comic, despite there no longer being a context for it to make any sense.

The violence was another serious problem. I don't object to violence or gore in general; for instance, the scene with

Rorschach in jail where he defends himself by pouring boiling chip fat over his attacker's face

worked really well. However, the point of that scene and Rorschach's tactics in general was supposed to be that he was a sociopathically violent individual whose methods scared and intimidated everyone, even his few friends. There's a similar situation with the scene where

The Comedian gleefully assaults citizens in the riots preceding the passing of the Keene Act

.

That point is completely lost in a world where

Night Owl will casually break someone's arm so badly that the bone tears through the flesh

, or where

Silk Spectre will stab someone through the neck without batting an eyelid, before then using the still-twiching person as a human shield

.

Overall I thought it was eye-candy, but too little of what I enjoyed about the book survived the transition to make it a great film, or even a good film - a situation compounded by Snyder making time to introduce a bunch of extraneous nonsense like the porntastic sex scene or all the slow-motion hyper-gory fight scenes. Also, was I the only person for whom the

cancer revelations

felt silly due to the way Dr Manhattan glows? I couldn't help but think

"Wow, it's so completely surprising and unbelievable that you might have given people cancer! I mean, you only glow in the f***ing dark - what's unusual about that?!"

- it seemed much more moving in the comic because the character felt like an individual, not a special effect.

BlitzKrieg

On the ending, the bit that pissess me off the most and drives me up the wall everytime I think of it is the line: "As long as people John is watching over us, there will be Peace" its the reason why I compare it to the old testament because thats all it was, replacing wrathful God (that was the word I was looking for) with wrathful John and it all being made up (I say some athiests must love that aspect) but it changes the tone of the ending completely. In the original the tone was that the violent aggressive nature of humans hadnt been changed, its just been focused on a third party (that doesnt exist) but with that god awful line combined with the numerous scenes comparing Dr Manhatten to God the tone of the ending is now changed to the world behaving because they dont want to upset Dr Manhatten. So essentially we have gone back in time to the dark ages were nobody messed with the Roman Catholic Church because that will get God on your ass. f*cking hell!