• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rottenwatch: WATCHMEN

Status
Not open for further replies.
For those who have seen it already, will the movie make sense for someone who has never read or heard of Watchmen or will it feel too convoluted?
 
GATDDAMMIT

Okay so like.

I finally watched a trailer.

And what do I hear?

Rorschach. Roar-shack.

All these years. All these years I've been reading it as Rorschk. I've read it cover to cover four times at least and I would have sworn up and down that's how it was spelled. Like Roark but with some "shk". Fucking Sin City. What the fuck.

The thing is... I can't help but feel that Rorschach is a fucking lame name. The whole thematic naming thing... ugh.
Which I guess fits cuz he's a fucking lame character.
 
Son of Godzilla said:
GATDDAMMIT

Okay so like.

I finally watched a trailer.

And what do I hear?

Rorschach. Roar-shack.

All these years. All these years I've been reading it as Rorschk. I've read it cover to cover four times at least and I would have sworn up and down that's how it was spelled. Like Roark but with some "shk". Fucking Sin City. What the fuck.

The thing is... I can't help but feel that Rorschach is a fucking lame name. The whole thematic naming thing... ugh.
Which I guess fits cuz he's a fucking lame character.
Click to expand...

You never heard someone say Rorschach as in Rorschach test out loud before?
 
Operations said:
For those who have seen it already, will the movie make sense for someone who has never read or heard of Watchmen or will it feel too convulated?
Click to expand...

I went with some friends who have never read it and 3 of them loved it to death, one of them didn't really like it then 2 hated it. It's a very dividing film, I don't think one can tell. I would recommend seeing it though, it's quite worth it regardless if you have read it or not.
 
Cheebs said:
You never heard someone say Rorschach as in Rorschach test out loud before?
Click to expand...
Of course I have. And of course the name is blindingly obvious after connecting it. But still, I first read it that way and it stuck. I know I've said it to other people too... Must have seemed a bit daft.
 
Son of Godzilla said:
All these years. All these years I've been reading it as Rorschk. I've read it cover to cover four times at least and I would have sworn up and down that's how it was spelled. Like Roark but with some "shk".
Click to expand...

"Raw shark? Why should I want to know where to find... Raw shark."
 
Roger Ebert said:
The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again.
Click to expand...

full review is up at suntimes.com

ebert gave it 4 stars, so it should be interesting
 
Son of Godzilla said:
Of course I have. And of course the name is blindingly obvious after connecting it. But still, I first read it that way and it stuck. I know I've said it to other people too... Must have seemed a bit daft.
Click to expand...


delga.jpg
 
Rorschach a fucking lame character? What the hell man, are you kidding me. One of the most bad ass vigilantes in history of mankind.

Anyway, three more hours and I am sitting in a chair in the theatre watching the Watchmen. FINALLY!!!!! I am so fucking stoked for this.
 
polyh3dron said:
Have you guys never heard someone refer to a Rorschach test? Honestly!

It's "roar-shack".
Click to expand...
people pronounce it according to how they read it

behold, the ultimate ironic name!
 
Kastro said:
i thought i new how to pronounce but when the police detectives got that tip he kept saying "raw shark"
Click to expand...

That's how it was in the comic. They said it exactly like that, "Raw Shark"
 
polyh3dron said:
Have you guys never heard someone refer to a Rorschach test? Honestly!

It's "roar-shack".
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the word. I've taken some tests before and the people giving them always said "Roar-shock."
 
I used to pronounce it Roar-shock.

I was expecting the worst from Ebert. He's really the only film critic I respect in that even when I disagree with him, I understand where he's coming from, so I'm very surprised and relieved to see he gave it four stars.

I'm also interested in how the directors cut of this film will compare. Hopefully it's another Kingdom of Heaven in that regard.
 
This is the problem with review aggregate sites like Rotten Tomatoes. People will just look at the percentage and think that everyone was all "meh" about the movie when in fact the majority of the reviewers who hated it are basically shitting on elements of the story that were integral to the GN which is coincidentally in Time Magazine's top 100 English language novels of the 20th century.
 
Just came back from it. Great movie. Everything that's really important is in it and it is all beautifully shot thanks to Snyder. The only things missing are pretty much the Black Freighter stuff (which you can get later this month) and the Squid with the corresponding subplot. The ending still works this way and only the die hard comic geeks among us will miss how it was in the book. I knew this isn't really a problem when
I still felt something when Rorschach died.

Oh and it's also not pronounched "rorshack". Learn some German pronunciation ;)
 
polyh3dron said:
This is the problem with review aggregate sites like Rotten Tomatoes. People will just look at the percentage and think that everyone was all "meh" about the movie when in fact the majority of the reviewers who hated it are basically shitting on elements of the story that were integral to the GN which is coincidentally in Time Magazine's top 100 English language novels of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

Things integral to the GN might not necessarily work in film, though, as Moore himself has said so often.

Also, I don't know what reviews in particular that you're reading, but many seem to think Snyder missed the point of the book in several areas with some of his edits and alterations- (This has been a common sentiment from detractors here on GAF too.) the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Edit: I thought the 300 was a decent, entertaining flick, but entirely forgettable (outside its visuals) and far from a great film. It was, to me, the very definition of mediocre.

And, besides, this type of logic:

fistfulofmetal said:
300 is 60%
and 300 is fucking awesome.
Click to expand...

doesn't really make any sense anyway. You can't extrapolate anything from that, unless, perhaps, the reviewers were the exact same in both cases (falling on the exact same sides) and the material was extremely similar. Even then, though, the text is going to be infinitely more telling than the number.
 
I'm reading Watchmen as we speak, I've been putting if off for some time and today is my last chance to watch it before seeing the movie. Fairly interesting so far, not really what I expected but that's definitely not a bad thing.
 
polyh3dron said:
This is the problem with review aggregate sites like Rotten Tomatoes. People will just look at the percentage and think that everyone was all "meh" about the movie when in fact the majority of the reviewers who hated it are basically shitting on elements of the story that were integral to the GN which is coincidentally in Time Magazine's top 100 English language novels of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

Plus 65% means that more people think it's good than bad. I think people seems to take it as a school grade or something when that's not what RT actually does.
 
I'm probably not going to see the film (until the extended blu-ray, maybe), but some of these reviews being counted at RT...

Metromix.com said:
Snyder has no interest in making sense of a world overcome by evil and the heroism that works to stop it. All he's mastered is the sensation of bullets tearing through flesh.
Click to expand...
Heroism? Evil? What do these things have to do with Watchmen, I wonder?
New York Press said:
Neither political satire nor camp, it fails the unique, fantasy mix of classicism and modernism that distinguished both 300 and Vin Diesel’s The Chronicles of Riddick.
Click to expand...
...
New Yorker said:
Incoherent, overblown, and grimy with misogyny, Watchmen marks the final demolition of the comic strip, and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?
Click to expand...
.............................................................
IGN Movies UK said:
This movie is a shallow interpretation of Watchmen, shorn of sophistication or literary density. Worst of all, watching the film makes you wonder whether the source material was actually any good to begin with.
Click to expand...
Makes sense!
CBS Radio said:
The flick is brutal, beautiful, thought provoking, phenomenal, genius, violent, sexual, brilliant and just overall completely mind blowing. Alan Moore would even like it!
Click to expand...
The most delusional of all!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rottenwatch: The Bride!
37
924
CGNoire replied
Megalopolis | Rottenwatch
2 3 4 5
235
17K
Chuck Berry replied
Watchmen: Chapter 1 (Animated comic adaptation)
5
1K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Watchmen Chapter 1 & 2 Teaser.
34
4K
DeafTourette replied
Section 31 Rottenwatch: Kurtzman makes a worse Star Trek movie than Into Darkness, Nemesis, and Final Frontier combined
2
94
8K
Darkmakaimura replied
Top Bottom