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

Rottenwatch: WATCHMEN

Status
Not open for further replies.
EviLore said:
The story's not supposed to give you what you want. It's supposed to challenge and dismay and not allow you to categorize "good" and "evil" so easily. Maybe Snyder's not bringing this home as well as he could've, but think it over a bit.
Click to expand...

This!

I went to an early showing on Friday, mostly late twenties early thirties crowd. People that grew up reading the books. Only complaint I heard from them was the ending, but after making a pre/post 9/11 statement just about everyone understood why changes were made.

Personally, I'll admit I only recently entered into this awesome story only less than a year ago. Could nit-pick about some changes, but as a film who's source material is so vast and complex I enjoyed the translation. Key word, translation.

Soundtrack made me very happy many of the songs used where either directly quoted in the comics or had blatant visual representation.

My main concern was how Rorschach would be used as the audience's vehicle threw most of the narrative in the first half. He seemed more humanized in the movie to me. And you really miss the point of him being
just another victim of his own mask
.

More later, I need to re watch and reread before I attempt to dissect the film any more.

Anyone witness any walk outs? Had two friends tell me they had people just leave mid movie.
 
B!TCH said:
Because the movie is terrible on it's own and a disservice to the source material. If you like the movie you are condoning the way it handled the source material.
Click to expand...

Even if it is a disservice to the book by handling the source material poorly, I still managed to be entertained, because I just saw bits of the comic on the big screen. Some of it worked, some of it didn't.

I guess I just didn't expect it to be the all and end all of an adaption.

I admit I don;t think it works all that well on its own, which is curiously both the reason people like it and dislike it.
 
B!TCH said:
Because the movie is terrible on it's own and a disservice to the source material. If you like the movie you are condoning the way it handled the source material.
Click to expand...
Are you joking? Liking the movie is condoning the way it handled the source material? Are you trying to say something negative? Why would anyone care if they liked the movie?

I readily admit that the movie fell on it's face a good many times and doesn't handle a few scenes well. I still liked it as a movie, and I'd love for more movie adaptations like it.
 
He seemed more humanized in the movie to me.
And you really miss the point of him being just another victim of his own mask.
Click to expand...

He has definitely lost that edge he had in the comic, I think the changes to his backstory make him that bit more sympathetic to the viewer.
Yes he butchered someone, but at least it was someone who confessed to murdering a young child. In the comic there is always that ambiguity as to whether that man is guilty. There is evidence, albeit circumstantial, but ultimately we see Kovacs turn from a masked vigilante into judge, jury and executioner.

Rather than the pyschopathic vigilante from the comic you've just got the ultimate anti-hero, someone the audience can get behind (and sell t-shirts too as well).

Hopefully the director's cut puts back in a few scenes, specifically the complete sessions with his therapist including the Kitty Genovese story, and also that interrogation at Happy Harry's bar early in the comic.
 
sionyboy said:
Hopefully the director's cut puts back in a few scenes, specifically the complete sessions with his therapist including the Kitty Genovese story, and also that interrogation at Happy Harry's bar early in the comic.
Click to expand...

I was hoping so much for those two main character points.
 
Wow people are actually saying to add more scenes to this movie!? If any thing it needs some editing and some proper rewrites.
 
Hitman said:
Wow people are actually saying to add more scenes to this movie!? If any thing it needs some editing and some proper rewrites.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is (for people who have read the comic) is that the movie sticks to the source material for so much of the film, when it deviates you really notice it.

Its a Catch 22 really, people who have read the comic want it to mirror the source material more closely, people who haven't want a much tighter cinematic experience.


Oh yeah, something else which I was hoping would be in there (though it may just be me)
During the first meeting of the Crimebusters Watchmen its the only time in the comic that we see Kovacs pre-Blair Roche case, and if you look at the speech bubble for him its actually the standardised oval. Now I've always read this as if Kovacs is speaking in a normal everyday voice, as opposed to the trunctuated speech patterns he normally talks in, was sort of hoping Snyder would mirror that in the movie.... although I'm probably delving into levels of serious geekness here. :p
 
Well I read the comic and enjoyed it. I think as a film it needed some changes. I would have rather had an adaptation that was less concerned with sticking to the subject material, but not to DBZ type retardedness but done intelligently like Nolan's Batman movies.
 
Saw this last night, so glad I read the book before watching it. I had a big grin on all the word for word lines.

I even noticed the differences and the bits cut which I geekly explained to my girlfriend.

Really enjoyed it.
 
wi@tt said:
Noted, but why not watch a decent adaptation if you're not familiar with the source material?
Click to expand...


well, some people would say that having nearly half the movie be a direct... lifting (for lack of a better term) of the book page for page is not an adaptation but more like trying to appease the hardcore.
Snyder had an unenviable job here so I won't criticize him too much, but, he should have trusted himself a little more and not have aped the whole comic. there was no need for that. other than that, not a bad film, could have been better of course.
 
Snyder and the screen writers were given a burden of proof in regards to the comics. How to make a complex, non-traditional, and beloved story work on film.
 
Never read the graphic novel, but loved the movie. Now I'd like to take the time to read it.

It's unfortunate that some fans didn't like it.

oh well.
 
jmdajr said:
Never read the graphic novel, but loved the movie. Now I'd like to take the time to read it.

It's unfortunate that fans didn't like it.

oh well.
Click to expand...
I'm a fan and I enjoyed it.

I understand a lot of the criticisms people are throwing at it, but I'm a little surprised by the little old lady syndrome going on with the sex and violence. I also find it funny that people think Dan needs to be superhuman to break an arm, but don't have a problem with Ozzy
catching a bullet with his bare hands in the graphic novel
. The weird thing is that the movie tries to give a more plausible explanation for the latter (
he had gloves with some kind of bullet-resistant material in them that the bullet stuck in
), but also
has Ozzy do a crazy Beast-style leap. I think the movie was trying to imply that he had either some kind of super-suit or genetically modified himself. Neither of them would be too bizarre considering the circumstances.
 
I'd be curious to know how old everyone is when they are giving their opinion, and how long ago did they read the Watchmen GN.

I'm 23 and just read the GN a few days before I saw the movie, and I loved them both a ton.

...from some of the comments I get a feeling like some people have read the GN 10+ years ago and have some grand idea of what Watchmen is.

Like how kids nowadays thing the newer Star Wars are all good, people who grew with the source material have built up the franchise to a point where no one can be happy with any attempt to recreate or continue the material.
 
RubxQub said:
I'd be curious to know how old everyone is when they are giving their opinion, and how long ago did they read the Watchmen GN.

I'm 23 and just read the GN a few days before I saw the movie, and I loved them both a ton.

...from some of the comments I get a feeling like some people have read the GN 10+ years ago and have some grand idea of what Watchmen is.

Like how kids nowadays thing the newer Star Wars are all good, people who grew with the source material have built up the franchise to a point where no one can be happy with any attempt to recreate or continue the material.
Click to expand...

I reread it this weekend. It's a lot better than I remembered.
 
there was another gaffer here who explained his opinion on the movie, and as I was watching it I started to agree with him 100%.

He said that the movie felt like a collection of the best scenes from the GN played one after another, rather than a movie that combined them all and made them flow together. The movie was very disjointed, as if they shaved the edges off of each scene to fit the alotted time, but shaved too much.

It was an OK movie but they failed at many things. I'm still hopeful for the director's cut, but I was let down by the theatrical version. It really needed to be multiple movies, like Kill Bill parts 1 &2, or like how Matrix and Back to the Future parts 2 and 3 were filmed at the same time, but released a few months apart.

I got no snickers from the crowd for blue penis, and there was applause at the end of the movie. I also won a poster for the film by answering a trivia question out loud before the film started, "What was the name of Hollis Mason's book?"

edit: I'm 26, originally read the GN 4 years ago, read it again last week in preperation for the film.
 
Saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it. I brought my wife, and she also liked it a lot. I was surprised at how much she talked about it with me afterwards. The only info she had going into it was having watched the first motion comic the night before, and me giving her a 'rundown' on the way to the theater.

Regarding the ending, the only part that really bothered me is that the final encounter between
Adrian and Jon never really happens. In fact, it seems that Adrian did 'win' in the end, because he seems to have gotten closure with Jon, unlike the GN
.
 
Cosmic Bus said:
Thought this was quite terrible, and the sort of movie that is almost better critiqued by throwing adjectives at it (jumbled, clumsy, stilted, ugly, boring, awkward, inept, laughable, poorly-paced...) rather than attempting to detail everything that was so wrong.

Not having read the book, I can only hope that the dialogue was mostly rewritten for the script, because it was wincingly bad in many instances, and hearty congratulations to Snyder for managing to accumulate the worst uses of popular music in a film since Vanilla Sky.
Click to expand...
ok you convince me, I skip the movie
 
Loved the film cant wait for the directors cut. Not gonna read into this thread much further or it will just wreck my enjoyment of it.

Also what got me too was all the talk outside the cinema talking about the film and how much they liked it too especially from a goup of women in there 30's.

Big blue penis........... I can just imagine him using it in nam to smite the VC.
 
Vik_Vaughn said:
Regarding the ending, the only part that really bothered me is that the final encounter between
Adrian and Jon never really happens. In fact, it seems that Adrian did 'win' in the end, because he seems to have gotten closure with Jon, unlike the GN
.
Click to expand...
I had the same reaction. This change was more significant than the
squid
for me.
 
jett said:
And it simply looks too fucking weird, visually. I think being so slavish to a 1985 superhero comic book was not quite the right decision. Some of those characters already looked fucking stupid in the book, and look even worse in the flesh.
Click to expand...
it was right decis month or too ago from now
 
Tobor said:
Guessing passwords in the 80's was pretty easy.

Wargames.gif
Click to expand...

Hey! They had to do research for days to come up with "Joshua". :lol
 
Question about the book (and the film): why is Doctor Manhattan surprised by some things in his personal future when there's no (referenced) presence of tachyons?

He seems to be caught off guard at the TV interview.

"I wasn't told." There's no "was" or "will be" to Doctor Manhattan. It either exists, or it doesn't. Since he was notified that his ex-girlfriend has cancer, he should always know it.

And on Mars, when talking to Silk Spectre, he has to find out that
she's the daughter of The Comedian.
Sure, it came from inside her head, but he finds it out. Therefore, he should always know it, even in what Laurie would call "the past."

Weird.
 
B!TCH said:
Because the movie is terrible on it's own and a disservice to the source material. If you like the movie you are condoning the way it handled the source material.
Click to expand...

I love people like you. I'm gonna go see Watchmen again tonight in your honor and enjoy every bit of it.
 
RubxQub said:
I'd be curious to know how old everyone is when they are giving their opinion, and how long ago did they read the Watchmen GN.

I'm 23 and just read the GN a few days before I saw the movie, and I loved them both a ton.

...from some of the comments I get a feeling like some people have read the GN 10+ years ago and have some grand idea of what Watchmen is.

Like how kids nowadays thing the newer Star Wars are all good, people who grew with the source material have built up the franchise to a point where no one can be happy with any attempt to recreate or continue the material.
Click to expand...

I'm 24. Read the Novel about 5 years ago and re-read it about 2 months ago. I really enjoyed the film. A couple of little grievences about some of the characters build up and the end change but all in all i enjoyed it.
 
B!TCH said:
Thank you. You are the first person who read the source material to admit this was a terrible movie. It's really too bad because I feel that by defending the movie the fans are depleting any credibility the source material may have left. Oh well...
Click to expand...
Wait, what?:lol
 
B!TCH said:
Because the movie is terrible on it's own and a disservice to the source material. If you like the movie you are condoning the way it handled the source material.
Click to expand...
Yea, you're a real reasonable guy!
 
Gowans007 said:
Saw this last night, so glad I read the book before watching it. I had a big grin on all the word for word lines.

I even noticed the differences and the bits cut which I geekly explained to my girlfriend.

Really enjoyed it.
Click to expand...


I read the novel a long, LONG time ago, so I knew what to expect, but I forgot the fine details. I picked up the novel again last night, I couldn't believe how much they kept in the movie. Right from the first 2 chapters of the novel they basically stayed true to it in the movie frame for frame. One strange thing I noticed though was the Comedian's age. Why change it? In the novel he works out to be 61, but in the movie they say he's 67. Seems odd to change something like that.
 
Manics said:
I read the novel a long, LONG time ago, so I knew what to expect, but I forgot the fine details. I picked up the novel again last night, I couldn't believe how much they kept in the movie. Right from the first 2 chapters of the novel they basically stayed true to it in the movie frame for frame. One strange thing I noticed though was the Comedian's age. Why change it? In the novel he works out to be 61, but in the movie they say he's 67. Seems odd to change something like that.
Click to expand...

Isn't the Comedian 15 when the Minutemen pic was taken in the comic? It'd be hard for Jeffrey Dean Morgan to pull that off.
 
birdman said:
Isn't the Comedian 15 when the Minutemen pic was taken in the comic? It'd be hard for Jeffrey Dean Morgan to pull that off.
Click to expand...
Yeah they change some of the years based on the actor's age for the part. They did the same thing with the midget, he says Rorschach put him in prison 15 years ago in the movie vs. 20 years in the comic.
 
Hitman said:
Wow people are actually saying to add more scenes to this movie!? If any thing it needs some editing and some proper rewrites.
Click to expand...
I thought this too. I was disappointed with it from the start, but found myself warming to it in the second half of the movie.

I think it actually stuck a little too close to the comic and maybe needed a scene or two more where the whole gang was together so we got to see them a little more before, not just after their glory days, because a lot of the stuff with Ozymandius just felt separate from the rest of it.
 
I read somewhere that he's 16, probably in the GN itself. I forget. Close enough anyway. Very young. Not surprising though. Would be great to get a backstory on Eddie Blake.
 
Valkyr Junkie said:
He was supposed to be 15 when he went for the FHUTA?!
Click to expand...


Supposed to be 16. He was born in 1924 and the pic was taken in 1940. Ok, so he could be 15 and whatever months depending on what month the pic was taken.

Also I believe the chick was supposed to be 19 at the time, cause she said she was 64 when talking to her daughter. That's another thing, when talking about the Comedian she said "Eddy was the youngest", when they change his age he's suddenly older than her.
 
Gryphter said:
there was another gaffer here who explained his opinion on the movie, and as I was watching it I started to agree with him 100%.

He said that the movie felt like a collection of the best scenes from the GN played one after another, rather than a movie that combined them all and made them flow together. The movie was very disjointed, as if they shaved the edges off of each scene to fit the alotted time, but shaved too much.
Click to expand...

Pretty accurate. Walking out of the theater, my first words were that it felt more like a "Best Of" than an actual film. Kinda like a 2½ hour NOW commercial but with Watchmen scenes. :/

Gryphter said:
It was an OK movie but they failed at many things. I'm still hopeful for the director's cut, but I was let down by the theatrical version. It really needed to be multiple movies, like Kill Bill parts 1 & 2, or like how Matrix and Back to the Future parts 2 and 3 were filmed at the same time, but released a few months apart.
Click to expand...

It did need to be multiple movies, but seeing how this is hollywood, that'd never happen. Especially not in this post-Grindhouse world.
 
GreyMatter said:
It did need to be multiple movies, but seeing how this is hollywood, that'd never happen. Especially not in this post-Grindhouse world.
Click to expand...


I'll agree with this. I always maintained it would have worked way better as a mini-series, probably on HBO. 12 parts, each 1 hour...or at the very least 6 parts, so each comic gets at least 30 minutes of screentime. I think a 6-hour treatment could have made the movie a classic.
 
Manics said:
Also I believe the chick was supposed to be 19 at the time, cause she said she was 64 when talking to her daughter. That's another thing, when talking about the Comedian she said "Eddy was the youngest", when they change his age he's suddenly older than her.
Click to expand...

Are you sure they didn't change her age either?
 
Considering how Hollywood loves sequels and franchise's, I think it would have been possible to get a two or three part Watchmen story. But it's not nearly as bankable as the more well known superheroes and not as easily broken up into parts for multiple films so that it could be sold well to an audience not familiar with the story.

Lets hope the Director's Cut DVD fills in the blanks nicely.
 
birdman said:
Are you sure they didn't change her age either?
Click to expand...


Nope I'm not sure. I don't think they ever referenced in the movie whether the comedian was the youngest of all the original minutemen. I only saw it once but I don't remember that type of conversation.
 
Did anyone else think that the soundtrack was shit in this movie? It seemed like every song that was playing has been used over and over in other movies.
 
Zabka said:
I'm a fan and I enjoyed it.

I understand a lot of the criticisms people are throwing at it, but I'm a little surprised by the little old lady syndrome going on with the sex and violence. I also find it funny that people think Dan needs to be superhuman to break an arm, but don't have a problem with Ozzy
catching a bullet with his bare hands in the graphic novel
. The weird thing is that the movie tries to give a more plausible explanation for the latter (
he had gloves with some kind of bullet-resistant material in them that the bullet stuck in
), but also
has Ozzy do a crazy Beast-style leap. I think the movie was trying to imply that he had either some kind of super-suit or genetically modified himself. Neither of them would be too bizarre considering the circumstances.
Click to expand...

It's funny, but you mention the one thing I wish got mentioned that didn't they didn't mention
Ozymandias' book about how to become a superior human and how he didn't KNOW if he could catch a bullet he just did it based on a hypothesis or theory. Although earlier in the film Rorschach mentions how he wouldn't be surprised if Ozymandias were fast enough to catch one in his hands.
My memory might be a little off on the exact details, but I felt the movie was a little fuzzy about what Ozymandias had become.
 
BigGreenMat said:
It's funny, but you mention the one thing I wish got mentioned that didn't they didn't mention
Ozymandias' book about how to become a superior human and how he didn't KNOW if he could catch a bullet he just did it based on a hypothesis or theory. Although earlier in the film Rorschach mentions how he wouldn't be surprised if Ozymandias were fast enough to catch one in his hands.
Click to expand...

In the comic Ozzy looked pretty sure about himself when he mentioned having to dodge a bullet.
 
karasu said:
Why do people hate Slow motion? Slow motion is awesome. Much better than jump cuts and run and gun stuff.
Click to expand...
In general, it makes things melodramatic when they should sometimes be plain-stated. I'm a fairly strong opponent of slow-motion, but comics are stylized to begin with (even Watchmen), and I don't feel that the slow-mo was abused in the movie.
 
birdman said:
In the comic Ozzy looked pretty sure about himself when he mentioned having to dodge a bullet.
Click to expand...

response is an ending spoiler, sort of:
I love the part when Laurie questions him about it, "Wait, you couldn't really... could you?" And his response is a smirk, raised eyebrow and, "Could I?" Sooo awesome
 
karasu said:
Why do people hate Slow motion? Slow motion is awesome. Much better than jump cuts and run and gun stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone hates slow motion in and of itself. I think the hate comes from the over-use of slow motion.
 
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