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

Rottenwatch: WATCHMEN

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayDubya said:
Some of my favorite bits were truncated, and I wanted more.
Click to expand...
Same here.
Chapter 3 or 4.. whatever the one with Jon going through history wasn't captured that well. It was sorta more just him narrating his backstory instead of existing in all of them at the same time. That's the BEST part of the book and probably my least favorite part of the movie. I wonder if it will be different in the extended cut.
 
Caught the movie this afternoon. Going in, I knew almost nothing about the storyline, and I honestly wasn't all that hyped based on the trailers. I thought it looked great visually, but aside from that, I wasn't overly excited about it.

I ended up really really liking it, and will probably come to love it upon seeing it again. I liked the mature approach to a superhero story, and thought that there was a lot of depth here. So different from anything else out there in the genre. I really dug it.
 
Whoever played Roscharch deserves an Oscar. A really great performance.

Question: This has been bugging me ever since seeing the movie last night.
The scene where Dr. Manhattan was being interviewed and the whole giving cancer situation. The camera zooms out and you see a huge blue explosion from space and then you see him in a desert type environment. Did Dr. Manhattan blow that area up? Or what happened?
They really didn't make it clear.
 
Odrion said:
This movie didn't seem to be faithful to the comic rather than reliant on it while any scene that does deviate from the source stuck out in terms of (bad) quality. Really should of been altered like V for Vendetta. Taking an entire series that, in it's entirety, isn't built on the traditional story arcs that movies have is going to screw up the pacing of any film adaption.

Felt corny, felt like they were trying to rush the story along, a lot of irrelevance.
Click to expand...

Fuck that. The V for Vendetta movie bastardized the source material to the point where it may as well have been called something else (and probably should have).

Anyway, I just got back from the movie about a half hour ago. Pretty cool. I can't imagine what someone who hasn't read the comic must think of the movie, but I enjoyed it. It has its flaws, though. The Nixon was ridiculous to look at and listen to; there are some leftover elements from the old ending that I think Snyder overlooked, and don't make much sense here; the music was mostly awful; and I thought some key sequences weren't as powerful in the film as they were in the comic.

Its flaws aside, this was a damn good adaptation and one of the top 5 comic book movies ever. Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan were by far the standouts. Seeing Rorshach in live action cemented him as one of the greatest badasses ever in my mind.

There wasn't a whole lot of reaction from my crowd, but there was a lot of laughter and applause at Rorshach's
"I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me"
line. :lol
 
Spirit of Jazz said:
My only major issues with the film are these where Snyder's taken liberties with the source material rather than having to include everything.
Rorschach's origin was a fucking stupid move, he made it look like Ror was getting off over the killing which was never what the character was about. The second Mars scene "The comedian's your father..." and everything that happened in the Antarctic was terrible. Also you're never told Ozy's a paragon of human perfection, I couldn't help but ask myself how the hell this lanky tall kid throwing 250 pound men out of windows and beating the hell out of two men who can each take on 20 people at once, breaking bones instinctively during the process. On a personal level this made the whole bullet catching thing really pointless, not only that but he didn't boast about it with an awesome smirk, Ozy as a whole was nowhere near arrogant enough.

Though with all that said it was a far better adaptation than I could of hoped for.
Click to expand...

Really? I had the exact opposite opinion of Ozy...
I felt they showed him arrogant enough but since they never really explained his background or even gave him much screen time the end did not come off as shocking. Like when I read the GN I was shocked it was him. In fact I read that chapter over thinking I just missed something. In the movie the whole time he comes across as a dick so its never that shocking. When he drugs the scientists its not that shocking.

Agreed about the fighting though.
 
PSGames said:
Whoever played Roscharch deserves an Oscar. A really great performance.

Question: This has been bugging me ever since seeing the movie last night.
The scene where Dr. Manhattan was being interviewed and the whole giving cancer situation. The camera zooms out and you see a huge blue explosion from space and then you see him in a desert type environment. Did Dr. Manhattan blow that area up? Or what happened?
They really didn't make it clear.
Click to expand...

He teleported himself to Mars.
 
PSGames said:
Whoever played Roscharch deserves an Oscar. A really great performance.

Question: This has been bugging me ever since seeing the movie last night.
The scene where Dr. Manhattan was being interviewed and the whole giving cancer situation. The camera zooms out and you see a huge blue explosion from space and then you see him in a desert type environment. Did Dr. Manhattan blow that area up? Or what happened?
They really didn't make it clear.
Click to expand...

It was very, very, very zoomed out, so you could see it from a planetary perspective, and that planet was very red.

(In the book, Manhattan goes back to the abandoned Gila Flats base before going planet hopping. In the film, he hops directly.)


Edit: One niggling complaint.

Nixon's nose. I can believe a whole lot of crazy things and I can suspend disbelief quite a bit, but Nixon's nose took me out every time.
 
PSGames said:
Whoever played Roscharch deserves an Oscar. A really great performance.

Question: This has been bugging me ever since seeing the movie last night.
The scene where Dr. Manhattan was being interviewed and the whole giving cancer situation. The camera zooms out and you see a huge blue explosion from space and then you see him in a desert type environment. Did Dr. Manhattan blow that area up? Or what happened?
They really didn't make it clear.
Click to expand...

he zapped himself to mars
 
I really enjoyed this. I haven't read the graphic novel, but I intend to now...

Not a perfect movie by any measure, but definitely worth seeing I think.
 
JayDubya said:
Nixon's nose. I can believe a whole lot of crazy things and I can suspend disbelief quite a bit, but Nixon's nose took me out every time.
Click to expand...

They should have gotten Frank Langella.
 
Flynn said:
They should have gotten Frank Langella.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they even tried.




Anyway, was 99 Red Balloons referenced in the GN or is it just a strange addition? It's not in the official soundtrack.
 
YYZ said:
Anyway, was 99 Red Balloons referenced in the GN or is it just a strange addition? It's not in the official soundtrack.
Click to expand...

Only reason I can figure out is because the song talks about nuclear war/WWIII.
 
YYZ said:
I wonder if they even tried.
Click to expand...
I doubt when they filmed they had any idea how iconic he would become.

I didn't have any problems with the Nixon actor/makeup, but it is pretty hilarious on the heels of F/N.
 
Jtwo said:
I doubt when they filmed they had any idea how iconic he would become.

I didn't have any problems with the Nixon actor/makeup, but it is pretty hilarious on the heels of F/N.
Click to expand...

He looks pretty ridiculous in the comic, but if they wanted to stay true to the book in that instance, Nite Owl's costume was probably a better place to start.
 
Saw it earlier today, I was pleased. Some of the differences made me slightly irritated (not enough Rorshach backstory, little to no Ozy backstory...), but it was still enjoyable. I think I would've like it more if I never read the comics.
 
Langella is a great actor but I wasn't crazy about his Nixon, but then again I feel that way about most characters portrayed by actors who don't look like them

the nose in Watchmen though was bogus.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
He looks pretty ridiculous in the comic, but if they wanted to stay true to the book in that instance, Nite Owl's costume was probably a better place to start.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, he wasn't fat enough, etc etc. You're getting a little played out.
 
Blader5489 said:
Fuck that. The V for Vendetta movie bastardized the source material to the point where it may as well have been called something else (and probably should have).
Click to expand...
V for Vendetta is also a much more watchable film than Watchmen.
 
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...

using sound of science in any new movie is pretty bad, but over a poorly shot pan out from a cemetery, me and ms swoon started laughing pretty loudly at that.
 
swoon said:
using sound of science in any new movie is pretty bad, but over a poorly shot pan out from a cemetery, me and ms swoon started laughing pretty loudly at that.
Click to expand...

They didn't really use that song did they? The Beastie Boys were barely a group in 1985.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
I was talking about his costume, and yes, we all know how you feel about me, Blader.
Click to expand...

Just a little annoyed at your constant trolling is all.

BenjaminBirdie said:
They didn't really use that song did they? The Beastie Boys were barely a group in 1985.
Click to expand...

Sound of Silence, not Science.
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
if they wanted to stay true to the book in that instance, Nite Owl's costume was probably a better place to start.
Click to expand...
Other than Rorschach, I thought Nite Owl looked closest to how he did in the book.
It was so great to see him with mask on and look kind of badass and then when he takes it off you're like "oh right.... he's totally not." The actor's face was uncannily like the character in the comic too. Especially with glasses on.

Tthe best thing about this movie was the casting.
 
Blader5489 said:
Just a little annoyed at your constant trolling is all.



Sound of Silence, not Science.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've been trolling the movie, dude. I've had opinions about what I've seen of it, and I've also made some hilarious japes about it, but I never said people had no cause to enjoy it. I always considered trolling the direct insinuation that no one could possibly ever like it. I'm just discussing the reasons I'm not particularly interested in it.

And yeah, I know. Jeepers. It was a joke. (Although I'd like to see a funeral scene with that playing.)
 
I just got back from them movie and was pretty disappointed. The song selections were fucking terrible. The actual songs are good but the songs placed inside the movie pretty much destroyed the mood and tone of the movie everytime they popped up. I also hated how they made Adrian look like the bad guy from like the second time he appeared on film. I understand that they had to change the ending and I was alright with that but I hated the fact that Nite Owl comes back in and beats the shit out of Adrian out of anger. Oh well. It was alright but I felt bad for anyone who actually has not read the source material and didn't like wikipedia the story or anything because they probably would've been horribly lost/confused.
 
Saw it on Friday, I though the film was great I really enjoyed it. I knew it couldn't be like the GN but oh well. I'm so glad that they remained true to it, something I was worried about. While I can bitch and complain about missing things and stupid shit like a lot of people, I'm just really glad that this film was made, and it came out the way it did. Will look forwards to it when it comes out on BD
 
pelicansurf said:
I just got back from them movie and was pretty disappointed. The song selections were fucking terrible. The actual songs are good but the songs placed inside the movie pretty much destroyed the mood and tone of the movie everytime they popped up. I also hated how they made Adrian look like the bad guy from like the second time he appeared on film. I understand that they had to change the ending and I was alright with that but I hated the fact that Nite Owl comes back in and beats the shit out of Adrian out of anger. Oh well. It was alright but I felt bad for anyone who actually has not read the source material and didn't like wikipedia the story or anything because they probably would've been horribly lost/confused.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought that was perfectly in tune with his character: trying to play the hero, but realizing he can't change anything. I actually like it more than the comic's ending, where he just flat out gives up.

And I know I've said this before, but I always thought it was obvious in the comic that
Ozy was the "bad guy."
He was the one focused on the least, and the assassination attempt seemed shady to me when I first read it.

My only complaints with how the film handled
Ozy would be after he executes his plan. In the film, he seems pretty sure of himself, whereas in the comic he's overjoyed that he succeeded but left wondering if it'll last at the end.
 
movie was decent, wasn't nearly as blown away as I expected to be


not to read the graphic novel that I've been purposely not reading since i got it in december (because I knew it would ruin my enjoyment of the movie)
 
Just got back. Thought it was fantastic. But I have to see it again and digest it before I can say I loved it. I may. It's too dense though, need time. Bits and pieces though:

The use of "popular" music and the many artistic moments (such as the snapshots of history intro) did not bother me in the slightest; I thought it was bold and brave, precisely because so many people who are priggish about these things would be offended and find it all ridiculous.

Actually, the entire movie felt partially like some kind of pop rock opera to me. It is larger than life, metaphysical, and not meant to be realistic even though much of it is presented in terms of extreme realism.

The super humanish fighting did not bug me. It depends on what aspects of Watchmen are important to you - is the /physical/ humanness of the characters important? Is it their emotional or psychological humanity? I think Synder's adaption (and possibly Hayter's own idea) was to examine Watchmen not as an allegory for how ridiculous and impotent super heroes would be in the real world, therefore, there was no need to emphasis that these people are purely human beings dressed up in silly costumes. Rather, it comes across as these people being exceptional human beings each in their own way (even Rorschach) who in spite of their power are also human beings and as complex and conflicted.

Oddly, it seems to me that the impotence of those who would be heroes is not validated by the new ending. For instance, Dan does not cleanly resign himself to Ozy's claims that such childish heroics do no good and while he hatefully compromises to keep the secret, he also rages against Ozy and clearly disagrees with the ethics of what he did, and the ultimate "goodness" of the result. There's a lot here to think about; why I need to see it again.

Also, I'm not seeing on my first pass, the deal with Rorschach's altered origin. if anything, Rorschach comes off as a more sympathetic character in the movie than in the book, and his final fate and death is heartbreaking. In the book, it seems just like a cold and nihilistic result of the situation. In the movie, it's a genuine tragedy; for all his insanity, Rorschach seems to be the one who gets some things the most.
 
MisterHero said:
Langella is a great actor but I wasn't crazy about his Nixon, but then again I feel that way about most characters portrayed by actors who don't look like them

the nose in Watchmen though was bogus.
Click to expand...

Okay, how about Nixon's head-in-a-jar? A-rrrooooooooo!

But, really, I think the point would be to make Watchmen feel a bit more metatextual. That was what the comic was doing. Exploding and reassembling the form, mixing it with other forms. Making it something different.

A more imaginative filmmaker would have re-interpreted. Instead of the Black Freighter comic, create a film within the film that tells a parallel story with a similar subtext.

In that way I still think Jackson/Walsh are the superior adapters. They approach the original material with reverence and find ways to make in work on screen. Snyder duplicated without doing any of the taxing work of digesting and re-interpreting.
 
Odrion said:
V for Vendetta is also a much more watchable film than Watchmen.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.. but then again I found the V for Vendetta comic to be highly overrated. I didn't have nearly the same passion for it that I do Watchmen.
 
being that i read the GN so soon before the movie was released, one thing that struck me is after listening for years and years to people saying a Watchmen movie could work and should never even be attempted, the movie and the GN both showed me that they were way off. I think a Watchmen miniseries on HBO could have been done excellently and incredibly faithful to the story if given the right amount of money and effort (the budget probably would have been the biggest obstacle). Kind of wish they could have gone in that direction. Would be awesome now if this opens the way to a Kingdom Come movie/miniseries too.

I've heard that a movie version has been thrown around for years, anybody have any backstories on this? People involved and scripts and that sort of thing.

I also remember reading somewhere that originally Moore wanted to use the actual DC universe characters in the Watchmen storyline but was turned down so he had to create his own. Is there any info on this?
 
GodfatherX said:
movie was decent, wasn't nearly as blown away as I expected to be


not to read the graphic novel that I've been purposely not reading since i got it in december (because I knew it would ruin my enjoyment of the movie)
Click to expand...

probably the complete opposite imo
 
Ninja Scooter said:
I also remember reading somewhere that originally Moore wanted to use the actual DC universe characters in the Watchmen storyline but was turned down so he had to create his own. Is there any info on this?
Click to expand...
Watchmen is where Moore wanted to use the Charlton comics characters.

He wanted to use DC characters for a seperate story (Twilight of the Superheroes), but after I read a supposed summary, it's better it wasn't made. :lol
 
Ninja Scooter said:
being that i read the GN so soon before the movie was released, one thing that struck me is after listening for years and years to people saying a Watchmen movie could work and should never even be attempted, the movie and the GN both showed me that they were way off. I think a Watchmen miniseries on HBO could have been done excellently and incredibly faithful to the story if given the right amount of money and effort (the budget probably would have been the biggest obstacle). Kind of wish they could have gone in that direction. Would be awesome now if this opens the way to a Kingdom Come movie/miniseries too.

I've heard that a movie version has been thrown around for years, anybody have any backstories on this? People involved and scripts and that sort of thing.

I also remember reading somewhere that originally Moore wanted to use the actual DC universe characters in the Watchmen storyline but was turned down so he had to create his own. Is there any info on this?
Click to expand...

It doesn't even need to be a mini-series with live actors; I don't see why an animated feature couldn't suffice. There is the motion comic, but I'm taking about something with high production values and that.

It seems like ever since Sin City more studios are trying to directly adapt a book into a live action movie and I keep wondering "why?" I did enjoy the Watchmen movie for what it was, and I can't comment as someone who didn't read the book before it, but to me it just felt like a cliff notes version of the story. It's a good addition or advertisement for the book, but I don't know if that really would constitute as a good, or good idea, for a movie.
 
JayDubya said:
Nixon's nose. I can believe a whole lot of crazy things and I can suspend disbelief quite a bit, but Nixon's nose took me out every time.
Click to expand...
Ha, I noticed it each time too.

Just came in from the showing.
It's quite good, not great. Certainly a good adaptation, but the one think I continued to be bothered by in the movie was the music. All the pop culture songs, Flight of the Valkyries, it really didn't sit with me. Didn't seem to suit the mood at all.

Nice reminder of how awesome the graphic novel is.
 
Ninja Scooter said:
I've heard that a movie version has been thrown around for years, anybody have any backstories on this? People involved and scripts and that sort of thing.

I also remember reading somewhere that originally Moore wanted to use the actual DC universe characters in the Watchmen storyline but was turned down so he had to create his own. Is there any info on this?
Click to expand...

The Sam Hamm script was leaked. I never read it, but read some impressions. Notable is that the ending was Ozy finding a way to change history to make Doc Manhattan never happen, and in the end the world = our world. Interesting, but not Watchmen.

As far as characters go-- Alan Moore, fairly newish writer, was toying with reinventing/reimagining characters and originally conceived it for the MLJ/Archie heroes (the Fly, the Shield, etc) and it starts with the Shield washing up dead on shore. Then Moore heard DC was acquiring the Charlton characters, Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, Question, Peacemaker, Thunderbolt, Nightshade and proposed using them. DC, who paid good money for these rights, decided they didn't want them killed/maimed/messed up and suggested new characters. Moore thought this would not work, as nobody would have any attachment to the characters, but then decided that if he gave the world/characters enough depth, people would care. Ta da, Watchmen was born.

The parallels are:
Doctor Manhattan - Captain Atom
Rorschach - Question (and another similar hero, Mr A)
Nite Owl - Blue Beetle (complete with ship and golden-age mentor/predecessor)
Silk Spectre - Nightshade (the most tenuous one)
Ozy - Thunderbolt
Comedian - Peacemaker
 
Ninja Scooter said:
I've heard that a movie version has been thrown around for years, anybody have any backstories on this? People involved and scripts and that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

AFAIK David Hayter did a script for it too.
 
I watched the movie and it's good in my view as I haven't read the novel..

My question is, does the dvd/bluray release of the Motion Comic's audio have the same people voicing their characters as they do in the movie itself?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rottenwatch: The Bride!
37
926
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