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

Rottenwatch: WATCHMEN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ignatz Mouse said:
Lotlita's not much of an adaptation, though- more of "a movie that happens to have the same characters and plot."
Click to expand...
Merely changing Lolita's age created an entirely different plot. I'd say that change is far bigger than altering Watchmen's denouement. You think we'd be discussing a "classic" movie where James Mason fucks a 12-year-old?
 
adamsappel said:
Merely changing Lolita's age created an entirely different plot. I'd say that change is far bigger than altering Watchmen's denouement. You think we'd be discussing a "classic" movie where James Mason fucks a 12-year-old?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have read Lotita (three times in fact, more than any other novel for me)-- and my point wasn't that the book and movie were the same, but rather, they were fundamentally different, which you seem to agree with. And apart from the taboo of age, I don't see how Lolita's age affects the plot much. It certainly affects the tone, which is radically different in book and movie.
 
Bluemercury said:
i dont remember what scene are you talking?
Click to expand...
The one where Rorschach finds a guy who he thinks killed the missing girl and he handcuffs his wrist to something inside his dwelling, sets the place on fire, gives him a hacksaw and tells him that he probably doesn't have enough time to cut through the handcuff.

(that's how it goes in the GN anyways)
 
JayDubya said:
I think you'll find that there were plenty of shit films churned out prior to what these darn kids today are watching.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But look at the way that movies were consumed at home from 1950 to 1979 -- there were a handful of TV channels booking the best stuff (and the really cheap, crappy stuff as well. But the best of that crap). My argument is that there was two or three decade period before the explosion of media and access that almost guaranteed that you'd see some of cinema's greatest English language works. I don't think you can say that about today.
 
The only things that deserve attention from this film are The Comedian and Rorschach as the performances by Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley were great.

My advice: If you've never read the graphic novel and have intentions on watching the film... DON'T! This movie is total garbage compared to it's graphic novel counterpart. Either read the graphic novel and skip over the film as it'll only make you angry, or watch the film and skip the novel to become total oblivious of how Zack Snyder has screwed up The Watchmen as he did with 300.

If the film never had the graphic novel as a source, the film would've been a better viewing -- but alas, Snyder hasn't an unique body in his body.
 
Caspel said:
My advice: If you've never read the graphic novel and have intentions on watching the film... DON'T! This movie is total garbage compared to it's graphic novel counterpart. Either read the graphic novel and skip over the film as it'll only make you angry, or watch the film and skip the novel to become total oblivious of how Zack Snyder has screwed up The Watchmen as he did with 300.
Click to expand...

:lol
Folks need to decide what they are going to hate on with this movie. We've got 'it follows the book verbatim and that doesn't work' and we've got stuff like this.
 
Do the people who didn't like the movie or whatever at least agree that Billy Crudup is absolutely amazing as Dr. Manhattan? The monologue/origin sequence was about as perfect as it could of been.
 
Bluemercury said:
so what's the consensus, is it good? where can one get the full book collection?
Click to expand...
It's worth watching for the story and some of the performances and it's plenty satisfying if you want a spectacle. If you're asking where you can find the Watchmen graphic novel it should be piled high in any mainstream bookstore in North America.
 
fistfulofmetal said:
Do the people who didn't like the movie or whatever at least agree that Billy Crudup is absolutely amazing as Dr. Manhattan? The monologue/origin sequence was about as perfect as it could of been.
Click to expand...
I thought he was fantastic, but the origin was out of whack, with the movie having him leave his own watch in the chamber, whereas the book had him fixing janie's. It was just small things like that that annoyed me about the movie.
 
ok so i saw this, having never read watchmen or even know what it was really about.

i was confused. i feel stupid

ok so the ozzy guy brought peace to the world or something by uniting all against a common enemy... but how would that even work for more than like a month?

why couldn't the blue guy wear shorts or something instead of being naked the whole time?

what was the point of the movie? like some deep message or something... anybody?

other than the fact that it was confusing and obviously not the best film in the world by some film critic people it was pretty awesome. but my standards are low.
 
Vyer said:
:lol
Folks need to decide what they are going to hate on with this movie. We've got 'it follows the book verbatim and that doesn't work' and we've got stuff like this.
Click to expand...
I think it did both. In parts it followed the book shot for shot and line for line but because it would have had to have about about 10 times longer to do that for the whole book, the other parts designed to knit it together didn't feel as cohesive. The movie doesn't give enough time to develop each character and especially the smaller characters and that makes it a far lesser experience in my opinion. I thought the movie was good, but parts like the changed ending and even some of the changed dialogue, Dr M not talking to Adrian at the end, really came off poorly.
 
fistfulofmetal said:
Do the people who didn't like the movie or whatever at least agree that Billy Crudup is absolutely amazing as Dr. Manhattan? The monologue/origin sequence was about as perfect as it could of been.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Best actor by far in the film for me. Like i said, his voice was a little surprising to hear the first time around, but it really instilled such an ostensibly indifferent character with so much softness and humanity that I couldn't help but love it.

And yeah, his montage was probably my favorite part of the film - even moreso than the intro.
 
sixthsubset said:
ok so i saw this, having never read watchmen or even know what it was really about.

i was confused. i feel stupid

ok so the ozzy guy brought peace to the world or something by uniting all against a common enemy... but how would that even work for more than like a month?
Click to expand...
this is one of my bugbears about the movie, the book had a much better ending which would have united mankind for a much longer period of time
sixthsubset said:
why couldn't the blue guy wear shorts or something instead of being naked the whole time?
Click to expand...
this is also better laid out in the book. Dr M starts off wearing a full outfit but slowly starts wearing smaller and smaller outfits until he's naked. Its a sign of his detachment from humanity, as he loses his ability to relate to humans.
sixthsubset said:
what was the point of the movie? like some deep message or something... anybody?
Click to expand...
for me the book was an interesting deconstruction of the general super hero mythos. The hero's in Watchmen are just normal people, with the same limitations and threats imposed upon them as all of us. Stuff like Dollar Bill getting killed because his cape got stuck in the revolving door or mothman going insane highlight this. Then there is also the moral ambiguity of Ozy's actions. Sure he united the world but at what cost, and was that cost worth it. Then it also highlights, and time and again I draw the comparison with star trek, that humanity will only put aside differences when its confronted with a threat from a much larger and more powerful enemy.
 
sixthsubset said:
ok so the ozzy guy brought peace to the world or something by uniting all against a common enemy... but how would that even work for more than like a month?
Click to expand...

Clearly Ozzy thinks it would last longer or thinks he can keep up the charade with more examples of the unifying threat if neccessary.

why couldn't the blue guy wear shorts or something instead of being naked the whole time?
Click to expand...

Well, the point of that was that Jon just flat-out doesn't care about things like that anymore. It's to show just how detached he is from everyone else and our cultural norms.

what was the point of the movie? like some deep message or something... anybody?
Click to expand...

Good question. I think it's up to you to draw your own conclusions. Personally? I think it's a great example of the Trolley Problem and it's challenging the audience to wrap their head around a "hero" that wants justice no matter what the consequences vs. a "villain" that will do anything to save the world.
 
sixthsubset said:
ok so the ozzy guy brought peace to the world or something by uniting all against a common enemy... but how would that even work for more than like a month?
Click to expand...
Constant fear of the blue God. With presumably Ozzy's hand on the nuke button if anyone acts up. The whole "World coming together" thing isn't really believable, especially because Jon was completely labeled American and it was America who ostracized him into abandoning Earth.

what was the point of the movie? like some deep message or something... anybody?
Click to expand...
You probably won't find much of one.
 
santouras said:
I think it did both. In parts it followed the book shot for shot and line for line but because it would have had to have about about 10 times longer to do that for the whole book, the other parts designed to knit it together didn't feel as cohesive. The movie doesn't give enough time to develop each character and especially the smaller characters and that makes it a far lesser experience in my opinion. I thought the movie was good, but parts like the changed ending and even some of the changed dialogue, Dr M not talking to Adrian at the end, really came off poorly.
Click to expand...

But the different mediums require that. can't go line for line, as you said.

As an adaptation, this is 'closer' to the source material than the vast majority of the rest of them. So, essentially, this movie is one of the closest adaptations you will ever see.

I've always maintained that the 'it's not like the book!' criticisms of a movie is one of the most inane in existence. I think Watchmen proves that point.
 
Caspel said:
The only things that deserve attention from this film are The Comedian and Rorschach as the performances by Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley were great.

My advice: If you've never read the graphic novel and have intentions on watching the film... DON'T! This movie is total garbage compared to it's graphic novel counterpart. Either read the graphic novel and skip over the film as it'll only make you angry, or watch the film and skip the novel to become total oblivious of how Zack Snyder has screwed up The Watchmen as he did with 300.

If the film never had the graphic novel as a source, the film would've been a better viewing -- but alas, Snyder hasn't an unique body in his body.
Click to expand...

UGH
 
adamsappel said:
Merely changing Lolita's age created an entirely different plot. I'd say that change is far bigger than altering Watchmen's denouement. You think we'd be discussing a "classic" movie where James Mason fucks a 12-year-old?
Click to expand...

Didn't Nabakov adapt the book himself?
 
sixthsubset said:
ok if im going to buy this comic book/graphic novel thing, is it pornographic in nature like the movie? as in open it up and, bam, nudity
Click to expand...
Yea, people do get naked in it. Just like real life, you know.
 
My problems with the ending of both is the same. Unite against a common enemy? That worked so well in WW2.

I actually have other issues with the film. It had a liberal slant while the book was more politically ambiguous.
 
JCX9 said:
My problems with the ending of both is the same. Unite against a common enemy? That worked so well in WW2.

I actually have other issues with the film. It had a liberal slant while the book was more politically ambiguous.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, I think uniting against
giant squid aliens
is a little more bonding than a known enemy.
 
sixthsubset said:
ok if im going to buy this comic book/graphic novel thing, is it pornographic in nature like the movie? as in open it up and, bam, nudity
Click to expand...

What are you, 12?

Boy have I got a surprise for you! Check out this stack of National Geographics!!
 
Son of Godzilla said:
You probably won't find much of one.
Click to expand...
JayDubya said:
I think it's a great example of the Trolley Problem and it's challenging the audience to wrap their head around a "hero" that wants justice no matter what the consequences vs. a "villain" that will do anything to save the world.
Click to expand...
.
 
Caspel said:
The only things that deserve attention from this film are The Comedian and Rorschach as the performances by Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley were great.

My advice: If you've never read the graphic novel and have intentions on watching the film... DON'T! This movie is total garbage compared to it's graphic novel counterpart. Either read the graphic novel and skip over the film as it'll only make you angry, or watch the film and skip the novel to become total oblivious of how Zack Snyder has screwed up The Watchmen as he did with 300.
Click to expand...
lol what
snyder did fine with 300. not like there was much there anyways.
but 300 sucks, graphic novel and film. :(

Caspel said:
If the film never had the graphic novel as a source, the film would've been a better viewing -- but alas, Snyder hasn't an unique body in his body.
Click to expand...
i don't have a body in my body either :(
 
Caspel said:
If the film never had the graphic novel as a source, the film would've been a better viewing -- but alas, Snyder hasn't an unique body in his body.
Click to expand...
xzibit1.jpg
 
Stabby McSter said:
i don't have a body in my body either :(
Click to expand...

lol, yeah. it must be the g/f watching Lindsay Lohan's "I Know who Killed Me" or whatever bullcrap that inspired my grammar errors.

meant to say "Bone in his body." but it's true, he doesn't have a body in his body... unlike the whore in Neil Gaiman's American Gods who ate a whole body with her vagina.
 
JCX9 said:
My problems with the ending of both is the same. Unite against a common enemy? That worked so well in WW2.

I actually have other issues with the film. It had a liberal slant while the book was more politically ambiguous.
Click to expand...

Liberal slant where?
 
Caspel said:
The only things that deserve attention from this film are The Comedian and Rorschach as the performances by Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley were great.

My advice: If you've never read the graphic novel and have intentions on watching the film... DON'T! This movie is total garbage compared to it's graphic novel counterpart. Either read the graphic novel and skip over the film as it'll only make you angry, or watch the film and skip the novel to become total oblivious of how Zack Snyder has screwed up The Watchmen as he did with 300.

If the film never had the graphic novel as a source, the film would've been a better viewing -- but alas, Snyder hasn't an unique body in his body.
Click to expand...


santouras said:
I thought he was fantastic, but the origin was out of whack, with the movie having him leave his own watch in the chamber, whereas the book had him fixing janie's. It was just small things like that that annoyed me about the movie.
Click to expand...



this is exactly the type of crap i was talking about. nitpicking small and insignificant crap and stating the movie would be good if the comicbook didnt exist is absolutely ridiculous.
 
quadriplegicjon said:
this is exactly the type of crap i was talking about. nitpicking small and insignificant crap and stating the movie would be good if the comicbook didnt exist is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Nah, you are wrong on your assumption -- I don't even mention "small and insignificant crap." Unless you are correlating it to the other user.

The film would've been much more acceptable if the graphic novel wasn't so godly complicated in the way it tells its story. Too many characters, not enough time. So without the graphic novel to compare to, the film would've been able to stand out more. But alas, this isn't the case and the film suffers the consequences. Alan Moore was right that the film wouldn't make a great transition to the big screen.
 
Saw it tonight and enjoyed it...but I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't have made a better movie (not adaptation) if he trimmed some of the non-action bits down. Particularly at the beginning, there were long stretches w/o any action or anything to really dig your teeth into.

Not so hyped about the director's cut anymore.
 
Decado said:
Saw it tonight and enjoyed it...but I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't have made a better movie (not adaptation) if he trimmed some of the non-action bits down. Particularly at the beginning, there were long stretches w/o any action or anything to really dig your teeth into.

Not so hyped about the director's cut anymore.
Click to expand...
The opening scene is like a five minute beat down.
 
Just saw the movie again with 4 friends that have not read the comic...and they thought it was awesome. I was really hoping they weren't gonna come out disappointed, and I got my wish.

Decado said:
Saw it tonight and enjoyed it...but I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't have made a better movie (not adaptation) if he trimmed some of the non-action bits down. Particularly at the beginning, there were long stretches w/o any action or anything to really dig your teeth into.

Not so hyped about the director's cut anymore.
Click to expand...

Only problem is most of the comic is non-action bits.
 
Not sure if this has been reported (can't really look back a few pages since my PC is running slow due to uploading files to a FTP server) but the film made an estimate $55 million this weekend. Projections had it in the $70 million range from analysts... :(. Sad to see that the massive marketing campaign didn't work out as great as they wanted it to.

Analysts project Race to Witch Mountain to overtake it next week with Watchmen losing half its audience next week.

If I am to assume that it won't have long legs, then DC Comics won't be making its money back with its theatre run and Alan Moore will be saying "I told you so" all day long.
 
i just got back from seeing it, and i can't decide if i was sort of pleasantly surprised, or i absolutely hated it. every perspective i approach it from yields a different response...which is probably why this movie seems so damn divisive in the first place.

the soundtrack was definitely the most inappropriate thing to be synced up with moving pictures in the history of everything.
 
Caspel said:
If I am to assume that it won't have long legs, then DC Comics won't be making its money back with its theatre run and Alan Moore will be saying "I told you so" all day long.
Click to expand...

i don't think Alan Moore ever gave a shit about how much money it was going to make. I don't think his problem with the movie was ever "Don't make it cause it won't make money!"
 
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