Prime crotch
Banned
Watchmen's adaptation does a bit more than simple aesthetic changes.polyh3dron said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: WATCHMEN
- Thread starter DevelopmentArrested
- Start date
- Status
BenjaminBirdie said:
No no. You are confusing that scene with something else (from the comic)
The doc screams and leaves for Mars after the interview where he is told that he is the cause of the cancer amongst his old friends and his old girlfriend Janine. Hence he shouts "LEAVE ME ALONE!".
The Vietnam scene is played out almost exactly as in the comic books
The Vietnam scene is played out almost exactly as in the comic books
If there is one great thing about the film, that would be some of the casting choices. Billy Crudup does complete justice as the Doc. He is other-worldly, yet restrainted and subtle.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
dmshaposv said:
I figured they pulled some shady editing shit in the commercials.
Just saw it...well, I had more fun watching "My Bloody Valentine 3D" (sorry, this is not meant to be an insult. I really did enjoy that schlock film) and I didn't have any expectation going into either movie. I never read the comic, never heard about it until the whole Warner vs. Fox thing. Oh, and I think it's been said by some comic fans that "Heroes" ripped off the whole destroying NY plot from this story. I can definitely see the similarities.
Regardless, I feel that the plot is all over the place and most of the characters are hard to like. I don't require the characters to be good to like them, hell, some of my favorite characters are villains. But both the good guys and the bad guys are just boring. They feel like caricatures and have little to no interesting personality of their own. And I am still not sure which ones are the "new-gen" Watchmen and which ones are the old ones. The costumes look stupid. I don't require them to wear all black latex but some of those costumes just look ridiculous.
Not to mention the whole twisting history/alternate reality thing is just...weird. US never lost in Vietnam war (feels like wishful thinking) and USSR was a major enemy then ally towards the end. Worst of all, the story is just boring. It got some interesting ideas but it goes on round and round them before getting to the main point. I saw many people leaving the cinemas halfway through the film and I was seriously tempted to leave as well (felt the same way during "The Spirit") but I was glad I stayed til the end or else I'd missed the point of the film. Acting is passable.
Overall, it was an unusual movie but I didn't get much enjoyment or food for thoughts out of it.
5/10
Regardless, I feel that the plot is all over the place and most of the characters are hard to like. I don't require the characters to be good to like them, hell, some of my favorite characters are villains. But both the good guys and the bad guys are just boring. They feel like caricatures and have little to no interesting personality of their own. And I am still not sure which ones are the "new-gen" Watchmen and which ones are the old ones. The costumes look stupid. I don't require them to wear all black latex but some of those costumes just look ridiculous.
Not to mention the whole twisting history/alternate reality thing is just...weird. US never lost in Vietnam war (feels like wishful thinking) and USSR was a major enemy then ally towards the end. Worst of all, the story is just boring. It got some interesting ideas but it goes on round and round them before getting to the main point. I saw many people leaving the cinemas halfway through the film and I was seriously tempted to leave as well (felt the same way during "The Spirit") but I was glad I stayed til the end or else I'd missed the point of the film. Acting is passable.
Overall, it was an unusual movie but I didn't get much enjoyment or food for thoughts out of it.
5/10
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
The fact that he was wearing a suit should have given it away.BenjaminBirdie said:
...but after just finishing watching all the motion comics I'm actually pretty bummed by the trailers.
GN spoilers:
I never put two and two together, but the movie trailers already set up who the villain is. You see Ozymandias standing in front of his billions of TVs in a villainous pose in the trailers which led me to believe that whomever was on screen was a bad guy. Luckily I didnt even think about the trailers until after I saw all of the motion comics, but if I went into the movie without having watched the motion comics, I would have automatically assumed Veidt was the bad guy. Bad trailer spoilers that Im glad I didnt pick up on until after the fact.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
RubxQub said:
Huh. I didn't even notice that.
Rabid Wolverine
Member
Just came back from the IMAX session.
Started off a little slow then picked up nicely. Movie rocked, will have to watch it again as I missed some of the reveals as the screen was too fucking big to read in time before they cut away :lol
Lol! the first time the blue penis was revealed. Im sure only the back row could see it. Just!
Started off a little slow then picked up nicely. Movie rocked, will have to watch it again as I missed some of the reveals as the screen was too fucking big to read in time before they cut away :lol
Lol! the first time the blue penis was revealed. Im sure only the back row could see it. Just!
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
I'm assuming now thatBuckethead said:
the director is a closeted homosexual???
Randy Lanzarote
Member
I've never been in a cinema where people leave whilst voicing their disgust.... either British cinema goers are just far too polite, or I've never been to see a movie that would encourage such behaviour...
I mean, Godzilla was pretty bad, but I fell asleep during it anyway. Maybe I missed the stampede to the door.
I mean, Godzilla was pretty bad, but I fell asleep during it anyway. Maybe I missed the stampede to the door.
Some people (who have never heard of watchmen before) went into this expecting this as a Hero/X-men/avengers type superhero flick where good defeats evil and some joker like villan playing them off.
Trust me, a lot of people in my university who were going for it thought it was DC's answer to "X-men".
Instead they found an asshole (and subsequently awesome) character like the Comedian, psycopaths like Rorschach and Doc Manhattan glorious blue penis.
Trust me, a lot of people in my university who were going for it thought it was DC's answer to "X-men".
Instead they found an asshole (and subsequently awesome) character like the Comedian, psycopaths like Rorschach and Doc Manhattan glorious blue penis.
After a bit of digestion,
I think it was a good movie. I'm moving it up to an A-.
I think the charachter development was good, but too truncated. I think this was out of necessity. About 90% of the GN is charachter development with some story sprinkled in. The movie cuts some charachters almost completely, cuts way back on others and the plot makes up a bigger chunk of the film than it did in the GN.
My friends who have not read the book had a pretty good understanding of the charachters. Not to the level of someone who read the GN, but they understood the basic shortcomings of all of them.
The only charachter that no one really understood was the Comedian. I don't think they did a good enough job explaining that the comedian saw the world for what it was and made a concious decision to play along with it.
The plot progression itself was pretty good. They did a good job of keeping the solving of the mystery the same. The only thing I didn't like was
The movie is a solid retelling of the GN, which remains a vastly superior way to experience the story.
I have to say, I enjoyed the motion comic more than the movie.
I think it was a good movie. I'm moving it up to an A-.
I think the charachter development was good, but too truncated. I think this was out of necessity. About 90% of the GN is charachter development with some story sprinkled in. The movie cuts some charachters almost completely, cuts way back on others and the plot makes up a bigger chunk of the film than it did in the GN.
My friends who have not read the book had a pretty good understanding of the charachters. Not to the level of someone who read the GN, but they understood the basic shortcomings of all of them.
The only charachter that no one really understood was the Comedian. I don't think they did a good enough job explaining that the comedian saw the world for what it was and made a concious decision to play along with it.
The plot progression itself was pretty good. They did a good job of keeping the solving of the mystery the same. The only thing I didn't like was
Rorshach going back to Molochs. In the GN, a note is left by Mulloch telling Ror. to meet him. In the movie, Rorshach goes back because he works for the same delivery company as Veidt's would be killer.. not as strong a set up. How could anyone know that Ror. would make that connection to call the cops?
The movie is a solid retelling of the GN, which remains a vastly superior way to experience the story.
I have to say, I enjoyed the motion comic more than the movie.
TheHeretic
Banned
Didn't like it very much at all. The plot was very very sporadic, moving onto origin stories half way into the film and beyond.
But the biggest problem I had was in looking for a villain. They certainly tried to place the Cold War as the real threat but I kept expecting a super villain to emerge. When you have a character than can teleport anywhere and do anything what real threat do nuclear weapons hold?
So I spent most of the film waiting for the plot to truly "begin", which never happened. Of course it all makes more sense now, but in my opinion a character like Doctor Manhattan presents too many problems.
But the biggest problem I had was in looking for a villain. They certainly tried to place the Cold War as the real threat but I kept expecting a super villain to emerge. When you have a character than can teleport anywhere and do anything what real threat do nuclear weapons hold?
So I spent most of the film waiting for the plot to truly "begin", which never happened. Of course it all makes more sense now, but in my opinion a character like Doctor Manhattan presents too many problems.
TheHeretic said:
In the GN, Doctor M's existance had basically driven the Russians to desperation, which they failed to get across in the movie. In a way, Dr. M made the Russians less stable because the playing field was not even during the cold war.
In the GN, they find some work that Ozzy did that predicted the world would end in the early 90s due to nuclear war even with Doctor M. Which is why he did what he did. In the movie, they do a poorer job explaining the percieved threat that Ozzy sees. It is one of the films short comings. The scene where Ozzy says "even if 1% of the bombs get through it will destroy the world" was the best they could do.
In the GN, they find some work that Ozzy did that predicted the world would end in the early 90s due to nuclear war even with Doctor M. Which is why he did what he did. In the movie, they do a poorer job explaining the percieved threat that Ozzy sees. It is one of the films short comings. The scene where Ozzy says "even if 1% of the bombs get through it will destroy the world" was the best they could do.
Another problem is they cut out the guys at the news stand. They were the only "non superhero charachters in the book. They gave you an idea of just how terrified regular people were of nuclear war with the Russians. The movie cut them, and as a result the looming doom that is present in the book is missing from the movie.
ToyMachine228
Member
TheHeretic said:
Yeah, it seems like you missed several plot points.
Ozy is the villain. He killed the Comedian, and he kills millions of people with his plan to "unite humanity". Yes he claims it's for humanities own good, but does that make it right? No, he's still the villain.
Also, that's the whole point of Dr. Manhattan.
While he's there and on America's side, he is the ultimate nuclear war deterrent because he can prevent a large number of strikes on America, and then reek havoc on Russia. When he leaves Earth, he isn't there to stop the war from happening, and that's the problem. He left, and the US and USSR are free to destroy each other as tensions escalate.
StoOgE said:
I have to disagree... the sense of doom is quite clear. Its just that there's no identifiable person/plot point which makes you care about the citizenry. Throughout the film people (non watchmen) were potrayed as:
rioters
criminals
vietnamese hos + enemies
criminals
vietnamese hos + enemies
the persons this threat goes against is not clearly defined - thus negating whatever concern the viewer has for the crisis - even then, that wasn't clearly defined til the end... and it was all really poorly executed
ToyMachine228 said:
I actually think you missed some stuff.
calling Ozzy the "villian" is a little simplistic. He may have saved the world as well. The Comedian was someone who probably deserved to die for everything, killing millions to save billions is not an act of pure evil. Ozzy was the closest thing to a villian, but part of the point of the story is that there are no heroes and villians. Just shades of gray.
Also, Ozzy caused John to leave Earth. Ozzy thought the world was doomed even with Dr. M on Earth. So, Ozzy didn't launch his plan because Dr. M went to Mars. Ozzy made Dr. M go to Mars so he could launch his plan
Also, Ozzy caused John to leave Earth. Ozzy thought the world was doomed even with Dr. M on Earth. So, Ozzy didn't launch his plan because Dr. M went to Mars. Ozzy made Dr. M go to Mars so he could launch his plan
Jax said:
Which is why the news stand guys in the graphic novel should not have been cut as much as they were. They were likable every day guys just trying to survive in the world. They were people you could care about in the GN.
They show the kid reading the comic and the owner of the stand hug at the end before Veidt kills them, but it is their first scene in the movie, so why would the audience care about two random guys?
the Directors cut might be better when they reinsert those guys.
What I'm seeing here, and everywhere, it seems, is that people keep looking for archetypal character identities in a book that balks at that exact sort of stereotypical characterization, and then complaining that the characterization is vague when it fails to fit their preconceived expectations.
Wooosh.
Wooosh.
StoOgE said:
good grief.
That last sequence was all so dull. Masked "heroes" in a giant set and they kungfu fight with less impact/interest than the prison break fight. And a lame ass bullet catch. There is no change in his acting/mannerisms between when we first see him at Veidtech and then at the end after/during the reveal.
Bad ass? :lol :lol The actor playing Ozzy was bleh. Deadpan acting. Weirdish accent. Bland.
Honestly, I'm sure part of it has to do very much with the current economic climate, and the post-election facade of moral polarization.
The GN is timeless, but the film might have been ill-timed - in a recession, nobody wants to admit that evil must sometimes be done to accomplish good, and, moreover, nobody wants to admit that the accomplished good might not be permanent.
The GN is timeless, but the film might have been ill-timed - in a recession, nobody wants to admit that evil must sometimes be done to accomplish good, and, moreover, nobody wants to admit that the accomplished good might not be permanent.
unifin said:
exactly, but the question is..if you are going to adapt such a complex novel into a movie, is staying too close to the source material alienating new audiences, and giving fans too much (but not enough) of what made the book appealing in the first place?
the book just may not work as a movie.
rhino4evr said:
I hate reading comments like this. its an adaption, in a different medium. The film could have been more interesting, more kinetic... but it wasn't. It was flawed in delivery and somehow, this is alright? Saying, that the book is 'this way' doesn't absolve that as a movie, editorial/directorial/casting choices imo has negatively impacted this.
it has major issues and not all of it is in what they delivered/not delivered on screen with regards to the story. The acting in a lot of it IS bad.
silk specter II was mostly terrible
silk specter I was unwatchable with all that fake age muck
nite owl II / patrick wilson was BORING.
and because the movie is very ssII+NOII centric, the two actors brought the film down.
TheHeretic
Banned
ToyMachine228 said:
I understand who the "Villian" turns out to be (even if the plan is bittersweet) but Dr. Manhattan is essentially a God. Whats to stop him from teleporting over to Russia and disarming all their nukes? The Cold War would be over then and there.
Either way they didn't do nearly a good job enough of developing the looming threat of war, and making that the central theme of the film/
Jax said:
Well, the thing is none of those guys could match Ozzy physically. Ror., Nite Owl and Silk Spectre were all childs play to Ozzy. So that part of the fight was basically him throwing them around.
The scene with Manhattan was the opposite. Once Ozzy figured out he couldn't kill manhattan he more or less stopped fighting.
The scene was not suppose to be a Matrix lobby scene sort of bad ass showdown. It was never a fair fight, and it was treated as such.
And I thought Veidt was spot on in his portrayal of the charachter. He had an air of supperiority that he should have to think he should play god. He looked down on humanity and the actor carried himself as such
The scene with Manhattan was the opposite. Once Ozzy figured out he couldn't kill manhattan he more or less stopped fighting.
The scene was not suppose to be a Matrix lobby scene sort of bad ass showdown. It was never a fair fight, and it was treated as such.
And I thought Veidt was spot on in his portrayal of the charachter. He had an air of supperiority that he should have to think he should play god. He looked down on humanity and the actor carried himself as such
bggrthnjsus
Member
hopefully i can see it on saturday...i don't really want to go tonight, i need to wake up really early tomorrow
TheHeretic said:
Dr. M doesn't know everything. He sees his entire life at the same time (well, until Veidt blocked him seeing the future). He can't see all time for everyone. The movie mentioned that in passing, but did a poor job of explaining the limits of his power
rhino4evr said:
I think that compromising that principle, that central deconstruction, in order to appeal to a lower level of thought and thus a broader audience is artistic prostitution, and on a level of principle, I'd never want it to be done. You'd be throwing away exactly what makes the source material so special.
If you take away Watchmen's momentum as a narrative that weakens superheroes as symbols, none of the characters would have any potency - the movie would have to make up for the appropriate shifts in characterization with additional superpowers or flashy gadgetry, in which case you'd end up eviscerating the drawn forms of the characters from the text and slapping them on a typical Hollywood plotline.
MisterHero
Super Member
They say that Russia might have 10s of thousands of nukes, and Manhattan says that even if he could get 99% of them, the 1% would be enough to start the war/end the world.TheHeretic said:
Did you mean he should have stopped them before they began stockpiling?
I guess one problem with a superpowered being on Manhattan's level is the allowance of plot holes? :lol
I guess you could say he knew nothing outside of his own past/future experiences and the government didn't tell him.
I'm not able to articulate very clearly my thoughts on the movie. I agree with Stooge. The guy knows his stuff.
I went with 5 other guys. 4 of us had read the graphic novel and the other 2 hadn't. As far as I know, everyone enjoyed it.
Everyone in our screen remained composed throughout the film. I was pleasantly surprised.
Overall, good movie.
I went with 5 other guys. 4 of us had read the graphic novel and the other 2 hadn't. As far as I know, everyone enjoyed it.
Everyone in our screen remained composed throughout the film. I was pleasantly surprised.
Overall, good movie.
TheHeretic said:
If I remember correctly, in the graphic novel, Manhattan himself estimates he could stop about 60% of the missiles in-flight. That's not nearly enough. I presume the Russians plan to launch immediately if they discover Manhattan pre-emptively attacking their nuclear installations, leading to the 60% problem again. It's a risk no one is willing to take.
MisterHero said:
We also have to keep in mind that Manhattan's political activities aren't fueled by his own motivations, but more just out of obeying orders. As he says in the GN, "the morality of my actions escapes me." That, at least, I hope they kept for the movie.
He doesn't go to Russia and single-handedly dismantle the nation simply because his new frame of mind can no longer realize the concept of ambition, since ambition is tied to hope, which is tied to ignorance of the future, which Manhattan transcends in his godlike state.
He sees the outcome of all events simultaneously - "We are all puppets. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings."
Moreover, you kind of argue your own point when you point out that if so directed Doc Manhattan could just fly over to Moscow and dismantle their nation himself. It's his pure OPness that drives Russia to call the US's bluff.
unifin said:
Wow, wat? You don't seriously believe that what
Ozymandias tried to achieve was a good thing. I mean, I don't know how to stop an imminent nuclear war but looking for a bigger threat or making up a bigger threat to deal with it is not really the answer. Moreover, that involves the death of thousands of innocent people. A better solution could be as simple as removing the two biggest douches who were in control of politics at that moment (ie. the two presidents of the countries).
Also, most of the characters are not that well-written. There are attempts to make them look complex but they're not really that complex. There's not much layering even in Ozymandia. Or rather, we don't know much what motivated them to do what they do.
People don't just snap and develop a God complex like Ozy. Knowing what lead him to his present self would have made the film more interesting. Ditto with Comedian, Silk Spectre II, Nite Owl II. The only one whose motivation I can understand is strangely Dr.Manhattan. I think they did a pretty good job of explaining that he suffers from a sense of disattachment from other human beings and don't really give a damn about their plight. After years of being ignored by them, why should he care for them?
Inflammable Slinky
Member
Another thing to point out is that Doc M
Doc M is basically Alan Moore's way of saying Jesus does not love you, and God is incapable of caring.
really doesn't care about what happens to humanity (despite everything he says). The way he views everything fatalisticly shows that he's pretty much incapably of empathizing with normal humans
Doc M is basically Alan Moore's way of saying Jesus does not love you, and God is incapable of caring.
Replicant said:
It's not about what I believe, it's about the questions the film raises. Certainly, in history atrocities have been committed to prevent even greater atrocities.
Moreover, that kind of political unrest rarely stems from the leader of each nation alone. Besides which, how do you remove two popular/feared leaders from office (The Kremlin/Nixon) from office without inciting backlash from a sterilized public?
If you haven't read the GN, since I haven't seen the film, it's possible we're operating from two immiscible planes of experience, but Ozymandias didn't just snap - his ambition stemmed from his frustration at the Comedian's dismantling of the Crimebusters and his persistent egoism, that only he had the mental capacity and financial resources to save the world.
It sounds like you haven't read the comic, in which case I should just see the movie and then come back to this thread - it's worrying that people seem to be missing such basic textual questions after seeing the film.
- Status