Skittleguy
Ring a Bell for me
After seeing t in IMAX I only have three words:
EPIC BLUE PENIS.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: WATCHMEN
- Thread starter DevelopmentArrested
- Start date
- Status
SpeedingUptoStop
will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
If you're ready to pay close attention to details, non-linear story telling, far more drama than action and a mildly depressing 3 hour trip to a dark alternate reality of 1985, i think you'll really enjoy it. Anything otherwise, you'll probably end up rather perturbed by it.viciouskillersquirrel said:
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
Skittleguy said:
i watched it in imax and didnt really notice
thanks for the new input though
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
3 hours? 1985?SpeedingUptoStop said:
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Tobor said:
Its true but there's something about him and his want for total justice no matter what the cost. Its twisted and built off of years of abuse and trauma but I guess he seems to resonate with people who can't stand criminals that bounce around the system. His maiming and killing is too much though (obviously).
Also, the blue penis is totally blown out of proportion (badum pish). A couple of people chuckled when it first came on screen but after it was nothing. People who are actually disgusted by it need to take a step back and take a chill pill.
SpeedingUptoStop
will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
yea, it's about $2.45 or so.viciouskillersquirrel said:
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Saw it this weekend and loved it. Thoughts:
1. I think the movie is a love song written to the readers of the GN. From the beginning scenes, little hints/extras/things-only-readers-would-get were included and made me feel really good. When I saw those, I--and I think most of the GN readers would-- agreed to suspend my disbelief and let Snyder interpret the novel for the rest of the audience. Everything else included was for our benefit.
2. The opening credits with Times They Are a Changin' was very moving. Again, the GN veterans get most of the benefit and had the ability to read between the lines. I liked the additional tidbits (the Kennedy Assassination) and the way they brought the movie audience up to speed (as much as they could) with the GN vets.
3. The music definitely created dissonance, but I believe it was intentional. Being set both in the 80s AND in an alternate universe, Snyder had to observe both the source material and make sense of what that universe may have sounded like if Vietnam had ended properly. The ominous reference to the real outcome of the Vietnam War from the Comedian was especially unsettling. "It would drive us crazy." (or something like that).
4. I think the film captures the most important parts of the GN, namely the reason it won a Hugo: it, unlike so many other media of its time, accurately and unabashedly reflects America's real conflicting emotions towards Nixon, Vietnam, Russia, the Cold War, and the general loss of innocence after WWII. For that, this film stands on its own and is pretty damn good. If you read the GN, and saw the amazing scenes lifted right off the page and put into motion, you saw all of the same references to an America-gone-wrong and this film as nothing less than brilliant.
5. The corollary discussions of gore, sex, dialogue, BP, and ticket sales are interesting but irrelevant. I think the film honors the audience the same as the book--intelligent, deep, and thoughtful, rather than typical comic book-movie crowds filled with 12 year-olds. I came away from the movie being extremely grateful that I was able to participate not only in reading the novel or seeing the film, but in the meta conversation that exists between them.
6. I am absolutely fine with the change in ending, and I think it worked better for film purposes. I agree with an earlier poster that it may change the meta, but it makes for a more digestible movie.
7. I really, really loved this film. I hope that anybody reading this that hasn't already read the GN should go take a couple nights and do so immediately. The film is so much more rewarding.
*****
1. I think the movie is a love song written to the readers of the GN. From the beginning scenes, little hints/extras/things-only-readers-would-get were included and made me feel really good. When I saw those, I--and I think most of the GN readers would-- agreed to suspend my disbelief and let Snyder interpret the novel for the rest of the audience. Everything else included was for our benefit.
2. The opening credits with Times They Are a Changin' was very moving. Again, the GN veterans get most of the benefit and had the ability to read between the lines. I liked the additional tidbits (the Kennedy Assassination) and the way they brought the movie audience up to speed (as much as they could) with the GN vets.
3. The music definitely created dissonance, but I believe it was intentional. Being set both in the 80s AND in an alternate universe, Snyder had to observe both the source material and make sense of what that universe may have sounded like if Vietnam had ended properly. The ominous reference to the real outcome of the Vietnam War from the Comedian was especially unsettling. "It would drive us crazy." (or something like that).
4. I think the film captures the most important parts of the GN, namely the reason it won a Hugo: it, unlike so many other media of its time, accurately and unabashedly reflects America's real conflicting emotions towards Nixon, Vietnam, Russia, the Cold War, and the general loss of innocence after WWII. For that, this film stands on its own and is pretty damn good. If you read the GN, and saw the amazing scenes lifted right off the page and put into motion, you saw all of the same references to an America-gone-wrong and this film as nothing less than brilliant.
5. The corollary discussions of gore, sex, dialogue, BP, and ticket sales are interesting but irrelevant. I think the film honors the audience the same as the book--intelligent, deep, and thoughtful, rather than typical comic book-movie crowds filled with 12 year-olds. I came away from the movie being extremely grateful that I was able to participate not only in reading the novel or seeing the film, but in the meta conversation that exists between them.
6. I am absolutely fine with the change in ending, and I think it worked better for film purposes. I agree with an earlier poster that it may change the meta, but it makes for a more digestible movie.
7. I really, really loved this film. I hope that anybody reading this that hasn't already read the GN should go take a couple nights and do so immediately. The film is so much more rewarding.
*****
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
What's this "GN" you keep talking about?PantherLotus said:
bistromathics said:
I believe that there's a karmic hold over that follows deeds and actors across movies -- a kind of through-line that can tie performances together. Smart directors tap into the movies collective unconscious and wring further juice out of these connections.
For example: Kirk Baltz, the actor who played the tortured Detective Nash in Reservoir Dogs? He's innocent in the movie, but he killed Kevin Costner's wolf in Dances With Wolves, so there's holdover debt that he owes, which he pays in Reservoir dogs.
In the Watchmen there's a sort of lineage to the scene where Rorshach gives the guy the saw. It's what Max does to Johnny at the end of Mad Max, which is cool. Because Max and Rorshach are equivalent kinds of characters. But when you get contemporary the Saw movies enter into the equation. And those movies kind of suck and are a bit lame brained. So I'd understand wanting to distance yourself from that kind of thing -- you don't want to put Rorshach in the same family tree.
In fact, if you look at Adrian's TVs at the end of the movie you can see a scene from The Road Warrior. I'm not going to give Snyder credit for much, but I think he was aware of the history of the saw scene and chose to distance himself (maybe in a not so elegant way) then to connect Rorshach with Jigsaw.
SpeedingUptoStop
will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
G.raphic N.ovelviciouskillersquirrel said:
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
viciouskillersquirrel said:
err graphic novel?
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Skittleguy said:
Was everyone noticing the penis? I thought they did a REALLY good job of NOT making penis the center of attention and it was hardly shown and when it was shown it wasn't covering the whole screen. After a while, it becomes quite obvious that he's a man and penis is part of every man's body. Reminds me of early high school days when people read about reproductive systems and giggled every time the vagina/penis talk came up. Every. Time.
That said, watching it again tomorrow (this time on IMAX!
)viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Oh. I thought the line between comic books and grapic novels was that in one, you have speech bubbles and the other, you have an illustrated novel a la that Gaiman/Amano collaboration about the monk, the fox and the king of all dreams.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
viciouskillersquirrel said:
:lol
Tobor said:
Okay...
First off, Rorshach wasn't a fascist. As a former political science major (lol), I get peeved whenever people throw around terms like fascism without really understanding what they mean. Rorshach was a vigilante and an absolutist, but not a fascist. Rorshach's character would suggest he's quite anti-fascist.
Secondly, I love how your post really accentuates the true joke of it all: there's no room in a society built on lies and millions of innocent deaths for Rorshach's brand of justice that sees nothing less than punishment for the guilty.
That's the genius of Watchmen's moral ambiguity.
Secondly, I love how your post really accentuates the true joke of it all: there's no room in a society built on lies and millions of innocent deaths for Rorshach's brand of justice that sees nothing less than punishment for the guilty.
That's the genius of Watchmen's moral ambiguity.
Damn, the more I reflect on it, the more I love this movie.
As someone that hasn't read the graphic novel but has done some wiki'ing, I thought the movie wasn't that great.
For one, the acting was very hit or miss. Jeffrey Dean Morgan clearly had the most charisma of any of the characters and was also the best actor, IMO. Patrick Wilson was good as well. The Little Children guy that played Rorscach did pretty well, although it's hard to say since he was in full creepo the entire time and underneath a mask most of the time. Can't really say much about Billy Crudup, but, oh boy, Matthew Goode was not good, especially since his british/german/eastern european accent was more distracting than anything else (I understand it's supposed to be vague, but it was pretty awful). I don't know if this is what they were aiming for, but there was a lot less suspense in the movie because it was so clear that Ozy was the villain starting from his introduction. Malin Akerman was just straight-up awful. She was so wooden with her delivery that she just detracted from every scene she was in. Now, this would be fine if the movie as a whole were more tongue in cheek (which it obviously is in some parts), but it falls flat when other characters are more sincere. In fact, Patrick Wilson was notably worse in every scene with Akerman. It just seems like they could have found a much better actress for her role.
Anyways, in regards to the film as a whole, the soundtrack helped the movie in some instances (Along the Watchtower), while they completely overwhelmed other scenes (Sound of Silence most notably). The Rorschach character was weird to me because I felt like I was supposed to despise him more based on what I read.
In terms of the ending,
In regards to the good, the visuals were freaking great. You wound up feeling that the city was as dirty as Rorschach made it sound, although you actually saw very little of it. The ridiculousness of superheroes was exploited pretty effectively, I thought. The choreography for the fight scenes was excellent and varied (as opposed to The Dark Knight's "Meet My Elbow" method to combat) although the super strength was...jarring in a way. Rorschach is a badass, and the dialogue was aloof but very fitting (I'm assuming it was largely word-for-word from the source material).
Overall, I'd probably give it a B+ if I had to rate it. A fun ride but not the "experience" I was made to expect. Then again, I sort of knew that going in considering the "visionary" Zack Snyde/r.
For one, the acting was very hit or miss. Jeffrey Dean Morgan clearly had the most charisma of any of the characters and was also the best actor, IMO. Patrick Wilson was good as well. The Little Children guy that played Rorscach did pretty well, although it's hard to say since he was in full creepo the entire time and underneath a mask most of the time. Can't really say much about Billy Crudup, but, oh boy, Matthew Goode was not good, especially since his british/german/eastern european accent was more distracting than anything else (I understand it's supposed to be vague, but it was pretty awful). I don't know if this is what they were aiming for, but there was a lot less suspense in the movie because it was so clear that Ozy was the villain starting from his introduction. Malin Akerman was just straight-up awful. She was so wooden with her delivery that she just detracted from every scene she was in. Now, this would be fine if the movie as a whole were more tongue in cheek (which it obviously is in some parts), but it falls flat when other characters are more sincere. In fact, Patrick Wilson was notably worse in every scene with Akerman. It just seems like they could have found a much better actress for her role.
Anyways, in regards to the film as a whole, the soundtrack helped the movie in some instances (Along the Watchtower), while they completely overwhelmed other scenes (Sound of Silence most notably). The Rorschach character was weird to me because I felt like I was supposed to despise him more based on what I read.
We got that he was crazy (biting the kid), but we didn't get to see why his ideals were insane. While I gather that we're supposed to respect his "moral fortitude" in a way, I was led to believe that his unrepentant us vs. them worldview was a key character trait, and I don't think that pill scene was convincing enough in that regard.
In terms of the ending,
the graphic novel has it better in regards to the violence. The explosions just felt so sterile, whereas the images of completely and utter bloody destruction worked so well in making the reader (or skimmer in my case) ask if peace was worth the cost of so many lives. They should have explained the cat in some capacity because everyone around me was going "What the fuck?" at that scene. Matthew Goode was again pretty wooden in the end.
In regards to the good, the visuals were freaking great. You wound up feeling that the city was as dirty as Rorschach made it sound, although you actually saw very little of it. The ridiculousness of superheroes was exploited pretty effectively, I thought. The choreography for the fight scenes was excellent and varied (as opposed to The Dark Knight's "Meet My Elbow" method to combat) although the super strength was...jarring in a way. Rorschach is a badass, and the dialogue was aloof but very fitting (I'm assuming it was largely word-for-word from the source material).
Overall, I'd probably give it a B+ if I had to rate it. A fun ride but not the "experience" I was made to expect. Then again, I sort of knew that going in considering the "visionary" Zack Snyde/r.
MisterHero
Super Member
what I don't get is how Rorschach admires Harry Truman (for dropping the bomb) and the Comedian (for "getting it"), and still disagrees with AdrianBlader5489 said:
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Why are you laughing? What is the difference?PantherLotus said:
I honestly thought a graphic novel was just like a normal book, but illustrated.
Skittleguy
Ring a Bell for me
:lolshagg_187 said:
In all honesty, it was pretty good for the most part. There were little, nit-pick things that made me kinda eee (augmented lines and scenes from the GN, some of the line delivery between Laurie and Dan
are they even looking at each other?
"alien invasion" to a bomb attack
Tower of Babel-esque rebuilding of New York?
Also, when they showed Nixon in the War Room, I immediately thought of Dr. Strangelove.
gutter_trash
Banned
just got back...
loved it
my head is all bit fiberglassed after that experience though, I will try to wash it off with some SF4 matches because going to bed right after watching the Watchmen is not a good idea.
All that thinking will keep you up
loved it
my head is all bit fiberglassed after that experience though, I will try to wash it off with some SF4 matches because going to bed right after watching the Watchmen is not a good idea.
All that thinking will keep you up
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Skittleguy said:
That's done on purpose
EDIT: Chichikov, If you didn't like the GN, even if Jesus himself came down from heaven and took you to see Watchmen, you wouldn't like it. Oh wait... I'm using God metaphors..
I thought it was hilariously bad.
The acting was absolutely awful, with only two members of the cast showing anything resembling talent, unfortunately one was mostly CGI and the other was Christian Bale-ing his lines behind a mask.
The dialog was cringe inducing at times.
The direction was patented Snyder crap fast; slo-mo, excessive editing and unnecessary usage of green screen and CGI.
The soundtrack, well, the fucking soundtrack, what can I say? I think it was the worst use of licensed music Ive ever seen in a movie.
It also has one of the worst love scenes ever.
This leaves us with the plot. Now even a fantastic script would have hard time surviving such odds, but in all honesty, the story is just not all that great, deep or insightful. And while Ive always thought that the book had a pretty bad and shallow God metaphor, the movie somehow makes it stupider.
As problematic (and Im being kind here) as the book ending was, the movie ending is stupid on the literal level and nonsensical on the metaphorical one.
Its also fucking long and boring.
Thumbs down.
p.s.
The opening credits were indeed great, which is offseted by the musical crime raping my ears in the closing of the movie.
The acting was absolutely awful, with only two members of the cast showing anything resembling talent, unfortunately one was mostly CGI and the other was Christian Bale-ing his lines behind a mask.
The dialog was cringe inducing at times.
The direction was patented Snyder crap fast; slo-mo, excessive editing and unnecessary usage of green screen and CGI.
The soundtrack, well, the fucking soundtrack, what can I say? I think it was the worst use of licensed music Ive ever seen in a movie.
It also has one of the worst love scenes ever.
This leaves us with the plot. Now even a fantastic script would have hard time surviving such odds, but in all honesty, the story is just not all that great, deep or insightful. And while Ive always thought that the book had a pretty bad and shallow God metaphor, the movie somehow makes it stupider.
As problematic (and Im being kind here) as the book ending was, the movie ending is stupid on the literal level and nonsensical on the metaphorical one.
Its also fucking long and boring.
Thumbs down.
p.s.
The opening credits were indeed great, which is offseted by the musical crime raping my ears in the closing of the movie.
Awesome irony.
The term graphic novel was created to mask shame of comic books. The term makes them feel like they have more import. Then the Internet generation comes and reduces the phrase, once meant to elevate, back down to an abbreviation.
How 'bout we go back to calling them comics. Six characters. That's, like, one twentieth of a tweet.
The term graphic novel was created to mask shame of comic books. The term makes them feel like they have more import. Then the Internet generation comes and reduces the phrase, once meant to elevate, back down to an abbreviation.
How 'bout we go back to calling them comics. Six characters. That's, like, one twentieth of a tweet.
Just got back from watching it. I thought it was fine, although I have to agree with the terribly timed music/soundtrack. It was pretty faithful to the GN, but I'm disappointed they took out most of the interaction between Rorschach and Mal, that was one of the favorite chapters in the book.
Let's see, read the book, thought it was awesome, thought the movie was OK and not great. Like, I can kinda see why Alan Moore hates adaptations so much.
Ozymandias could have been much more of a badass.
The violence was almost pornographic at points. SMH. Like, was that really necessary? The comic was gory, but there's kind of a difference in what violence means in each
.
"All along the Watchtower" was awesome in Anatarctica!
edit: Oh yeah, and Laurie was nice to look at but man... needs more acting chops.
Ozymandias could have been much more of a badass.
That's why he makes such a great villain, it kinda comes out of leftfield. I know there's a little bit of gay innuendo in the graphic novel, but the "Boys" folder is a bit much-- and it reads kind of like gay scapegoating.
The violence was almost pornographic at points. SMH. Like, was that really necessary? The comic was gory, but there's kind of a difference in what violence means in each
ie. Rorschach gives the dude a hacksaw instead of chopping his brains
"All along the Watchtower" was awesome in Anatarctica!
edit: Oh yeah, and Laurie was nice to look at but man... needs more acting chops.
Just saw the movie last night.
- Zack Snyder is an awful director. Zero subtlety and bad pacing.
- The use of licensed music was horrible. Possibly the worst ever. It's not that the music choice was necessarily bad, but the use of it. It's too heavy-handed like an MTV.
- Loved the opening credits, though.
- I liked the casting.
- The movie made me appreciate the graphic novel a whole lot more.
- I didn't like the changed ending.
Overall I'd say it was ok, something like a 7/10.
- Zack Snyder is an awful director. Zero subtlety and bad pacing.
- The use of licensed music was horrible. Possibly the worst ever. It's not that the music choice was necessarily bad, but the use of it. It's too heavy-handed like an MTV.
- Loved the opening credits, though.
- I liked the casting.
- The movie made me appreciate the graphic novel a whole lot more.
- I didn't like the changed ending.
Overall I'd say it was ok, something like a 7/10.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Oh GAF, never change. Apart from 99 luft balloons and Hallelluah the soundtrack was spot fucking on. Dylan's Times are a chanin' was perfect, the use of 'King Cole's 'Unforgettable' to the Comedian's death was fucking great. I can't believe some people hated the use of Hendrix's 'All Along the Watchtower' - it's infitely more powerful than Dylan's rendition and absolutely appropriate for amping up the tension of Rorshach and Dreiberg embarking on what could be a suicidal mission.
On second viewing I realised how much I love the music that was playing when Laurie first starts exploring Achimides like a little kid.
Edit: Has this been posted yet? :lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jeslfkbmcE
On second viewing I realised how much I love the music that was playing when Laurie first starts exploring Achimides like a little kid.
Edit: Has this been posted yet? :lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jeslfkbmcE
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Mason said:
A graphic novel is as valid a form of literature as a novel.
ZephyrFate
Banned
Time Magazine says otherwise. So do literary critics.Mason said:
"Graphic novel" was applied for comics that didn't follow the standard serialized distribution and storytelling model, instead existing as a complete work in book form. There was a different intended audience, too. See Will Eisner's A Contract with God.
Following the release of Watchmen, the term became a buzz word and the publishers started to exploit it by associating it with any sort of trade paperback collection of comic issues.
Alan Moore:
"It's a marketing term ... that I never had any sympathy with. The term 'comic' does just as well for me. ... The problem is that 'graphic novel' just came to mean 'expensive comic book' and so what you'd get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics because 'graphic novels' were getting some attention, they'd stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel...."
Nowadays some people use it instead of "comic" to try to shake the whole Simpsons Comic Book Guy and/or typical spandex superhero vibe that everyone in mainstream circles tends to visualize whenever they hear it, but of course there's not much point since you then just come off as being a shameful nerd instead of a proud one.
Following the release of Watchmen, the term became a buzz word and the publishers started to exploit it by associating it with any sort of trade paperback collection of comic issues.
Alan Moore:
"It's a marketing term ... that I never had any sympathy with. The term 'comic' does just as well for me. ... The problem is that 'graphic novel' just came to mean 'expensive comic book' and so what you'd get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics because 'graphic novels' were getting some attention, they'd stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel...."
Nowadays some people use it instead of "comic" to try to shake the whole Simpsons Comic Book Guy and/or typical spandex superhero vibe that everyone in mainstream circles tends to visualize whenever they hear it, but of course there's not much point since you then just come off as being a shameful nerd instead of a proud one.
With the Watchmen, I agree, with 90% of other GNs, I disagree. I think the problem is that the GN genre has been whored out. So many GNs nowadays can be finished in a half-hour-to an hour. It's obvious that for man, it's just a cheap cash-in.Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
EDIT:
Evilore said:
Bingo.
I saw the movie earlier, some thoughts.
- Zack Snyder is a really, really bad director.
- The violence was grotesque and comical
- The movie is overall creatively hollow and bankrupt. It has no purpose to drive it. It was made seemingly for no other reason than just because. At the end, I'm left wondering...whats the point? Ok its Watchmen...but so what? Its just a creatively hollow husk of the original book.
- Rorshack, Ozymandias and the Comedian, were very well represented. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre were utterly forgettable.
Now one of my biggest gripes about the movie
- Dr. Manhattan. On a superficial level he is well done. The appearance, voice acting is well done. However, going back to the complete lack of creativity driving this film, Snyder makes no use whatsoever of the film medium to truly bring him to life. I can imagine so many ways in which they could have showcased Dr. Manhattans worldview in the film, in a way that the comic never could. But no, all we are treated to is a rapid succession of quickly edited flashbacks. Its embarassing.
Don't really have much else to say. The movie didn't leave any other impressions whatsoever. Just mild disappointment and bewilderment.
- Zack Snyder is a really, really bad director.
- The violence was grotesque and comical
- The movie is overall creatively hollow and bankrupt. It has no purpose to drive it. It was made seemingly for no other reason than just because. At the end, I'm left wondering...whats the point? Ok its Watchmen...but so what? Its just a creatively hollow husk of the original book.
- Rorshack, Ozymandias and the Comedian, were very well represented. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre were utterly forgettable.
Now one of my biggest gripes about the movie
- Dr. Manhattan. On a superficial level he is well done. The appearance, voice acting is well done. However, going back to the complete lack of creativity driving this film, Snyder makes no use whatsoever of the film medium to truly bring him to life. I can imagine so many ways in which they could have showcased Dr. Manhattans worldview in the film, in a way that the comic never could. But no, all we are treated to is a rapid succession of quickly edited flashbacks. Its embarassing.
Don't really have much else to say. The movie didn't leave any other impressions whatsoever. Just mild disappointment and bewilderment.
Dead 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...
rollingstart
Banned
MisterHero said:
I don't think it's so much about how he disagrees with Veidt and more with the need to expose the truth.
Linkzg said:
No, Rorshach is about punishment. He's kneejerk "try him as an adult / send him to the chair" NeoGAF. He's all about Old Testament retribution. The bomb was punishment for pearl harbor.
Adrian's plan was like pre-crime. Punishing the innocent for the sins of humanity. Not meting out justice on a person by person basis.
B!TCH said:
OR maybe some people just have different opinions and actually like the movie. Very few people, fans or not of the gee-en, actually think this movie is perfect. And many people don't like it.
But I don't see why people who have their opinion will deplete credibility of the book.
Fun Factor
Formerly FTWer
There has not been ONE single point of criticism that has been valid anywhere in this thread!
ZOMG movies was too short, where was all the other backstories & missing scenes?
This seems to be the most brought up complaint, the movie is 2 a half hours long! Including everything would have made it over 4 hours. That is just not feasible.
There is also the people bitching about it being too long, go figure.
Over the top stylized fights & acting? It's a fucking superhero in spandex comic book adaption in a alternative history for christ sake!
You either over stylize it or make it a comedy/campy like 70's Batman series!
Not liking the music? You're opinion. If anyone actually thinks 99 Luftballons was was out of place in the movie, they have no clue on anything. One of the most famous anti-nuclear protest songs of the 80's in a movie set in the 80's that has nuclear Armageddon as a main focus of the movie.
ZOMG movies was too short, where was all the other backstories & missing scenes?
This seems to be the most brought up complaint, the movie is 2 a half hours long! Including everything would have made it over 4 hours. That is just not feasible.
There is also the people bitching about it being too long, go figure.
Over the top stylized fights & acting? It's a fucking superhero in spandex comic book adaption in a alternative history for christ sake!
You either over stylize it or make it a comedy/campy like 70's Batman series!
Not liking the music? You're opinion. If anyone actually thinks 99 Luftballons was was out of place in the movie, they have no clue on anything. One of the most famous anti-nuclear protest songs of the 80's in a movie set in the 80's that has nuclear Armageddon as a main focus of the movie.
Randy Lanzarote
Member
I hate the term graphic novel, for reasons that have already been discussed above. The only time I feel its use is somewhat justified is when discussing a one-shot comic book that was never serialised and always intended as a stand-alond piece of work. (Even so, I'd still use the term comic book, cuz thats how i role baby.)
Jonathan Ross reviewed Watchmen on Film 2009 last Friday night, episode is available on the iPlayer (UK Only). Might be of interest to some, given what a giant nerd he is;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hxvhw/Film_2009_with_Jonathan_Ross_Episode_6/
Jonathan Ross reviewed Watchmen on Film 2009 last Friday night, episode is available on the iPlayer (UK Only). Might be of interest to some, given what a giant nerd he is;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hxvhw/Film_2009_with_Jonathan_Ross_Episode_6/
Dead said:
Saw it earlier today and share the exact same thoughts.
What the fuck was it with the fight scenes? I thought Watchmen was about normal people taking the law into their hands? Had I not read the comic I would have assumed they were actually gifted superheroes with the shit they were pulling off.
The exposition in the film was terribly handled. Scenes that were so poignant and integral to characters in the comics felt so forced into the narrative of this movie begging to leave even the hint of the impact they did in the comic. So many scenes just came off painfully awkward and unintentionally funny.
While the characters you mentioned I do feel were better represented than most of the others, I still couldn't find myself caring about any of them like I did for the comic.
The movie really lacked a soul. I went in with low expectations and actually came out even more dissapointed.
RobbieNick
Junior Member
Saw it this morning. Still have mixed feelings.
It really makes you think on whether or not that world would have just been better off without superheros.
I like how every hero seemed to have some psychological issues. (With maybe the exception of Night Owl and Silk Spectre who seemed the most normal.)
Rorsarch. You feel for him, but it's hard to decide whether to root for him or not. He's too one-sided and black and white in his feelings of justice. But it does help make him a very three-dimensional character. He lives in a much darker world than the other heroes. Practically everyone's scum to him.
The Comedian was such an asshole. When you look back, you don't feel the least bit sorry for him. I mean, yea. There were times when he showed his human side, but most of the time, he was just a douchebag.
Manhattan was very interesting as a character. You couldn't quite figure out what he was thinking. What with him being able to see and manipulate every molecule and possibly look out beyond the universe. His nudity was handled very tastefully as it never drew attention to itself. You were always ore focused on the character.
Too much Nixon. It slowed the pace of the movie greatly. The pacing was also killed by being a little too close to the graphic novel IMO.
I dunno, I really like it but I'm just not sure on what level. I need to see it again when it comes to Blu-Ray. It's a real head-scratcher.
It really makes you think on whether or not that world would have just been better off without superheros.
I like how every hero seemed to have some psychological issues. (With maybe the exception of Night Owl and Silk Spectre who seemed the most normal.)
Rorsarch. You feel for him, but it's hard to decide whether to root for him or not. He's too one-sided and black and white in his feelings of justice. But it does help make him a very three-dimensional character. He lives in a much darker world than the other heroes. Practically everyone's scum to him.
The Comedian was such an asshole. When you look back, you don't feel the least bit sorry for him. I mean, yea. There were times when he showed his human side, but most of the time, he was just a douchebag.
Manhattan was very interesting as a character. You couldn't quite figure out what he was thinking. What with him being able to see and manipulate every molecule and possibly look out beyond the universe. His nudity was handled very tastefully as it never drew attention to itself. You were always ore focused on the character.
Too much Nixon. It slowed the pace of the movie greatly. The pacing was also killed by being a little too close to the graphic novel IMO.
It was way too obvious the Ozymadius was the villain. He's like that shifty-eyed dog Homer wanted in a film on that Simpsons episode. When he caught the shooter, I knew he was the one to force the cyanide capsule in him.
I'm still up in the air on whether I like the ending or not. I mean, basically the villain wins. He creates mass genocide of 15 million and makes Dr. Manhattan look like a villain, but brings about world peace. I felt he should have been punished in some way. Perhaps having Dr. Manhattan kill him before he left. It would make him a martyr, but at least he would have died for what he had done. Plus, in the end, it looks like world peace wouldn't last once Rorsach's journal would be printed.
I'm still up in the air on whether I like the ending or not. I mean, basically the villain wins. He creates mass genocide of 15 million and makes Dr. Manhattan look like a villain, but brings about world peace. I felt he should have been punished in some way. Perhaps having Dr. Manhattan kill him before he left. It would make him a martyr, but at least he would have died for what he had done. Plus, in the end, it looks like world peace wouldn't last once Rorsach's journal would be printed.
I dunno, I really like it but I'm just not sure on what level. I need to see it again when it comes to Blu-Ray. It's a real head-scratcher.
RobbieNick 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.
RobbieNick
Junior Member
BTW, anyone else think Night Owl with his glasses on looked like a very young Chevy Chase?
alan moore's watchmen is an elegy on the power and impotence of fantasy. the only thing most of my friends remembered about the movie was a giant blue cock. this is why it fucks everything up when you make little changes without any understanding of their thematic importance.
god i wish terry gilliam had followed through on this one.
god i wish terry gilliam had followed through on this one.
flynn you always deliver. i say we go with komikku, you know, because animu.
- Status