Support NeoGAF

[Battersea Power Station]

I thought you were talking about how people subjectively perceive the movie based on what's in their heads already.

I didn't think you were talking about objective standards.

EDIT -- There's a mistake in what I wanted to say though. This is what it should've been:

Im just saying that I do feel a lot of you might have a very different outlook on the movie had you not read the GN first.

But the reverse might be true for people who have read the book and dislike the movie.

 

[Solo]

I thought you were talking about how people subjectively perceive the movie based on what's in their heads already.

Ok, if this is what you meant (and my apologies for misunderstanding your point), I'm still not sure how it fits for the demo of people who havent read the book. Having not read the GN, I really had no preconceptions for the movie, aside from expecting a healthy dash of Zach Snyder's style, and some great characterization (because you so often hear Watchmen being praised).

EDIT: just saw your edit :lol fair enough, I can see where you're coming from

EDIT 2: While Ive been quite negative on the movie, I didnt hate it, and Im willing to give the Director's Cut a chance. Hopefully the character development and exploration of the themes that I felt was missing in the theatrical cut will fit into the extended cut.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Ok, if this is what you meant (and my apologies for misunderstanding your point), I'm still not sure how it fits for the demo of people who havent read the book. Having not read the GN, I really had no preconceptions for the movie, aside from expecting a healthy dash of Zach Snyder's style, and some great characterization (because you so often hear Watchmen being praised).

Yeah, I said something different from what I was intending. I think I got it ironed out in the post above, but I'm already confused.

 

[mrkgoo]

Well, the positive reviews I've read in the mainstream that come from reviewers that *haven't* read the book seem to think it is. For the people who do like it, that seems to be a major reason.

From people I know who never really read the book, they all got the idea that the theme from the movie was 'peace, but at what cost?'.

On top of that it makes you think again about what a superhero is when they don't have powers - what drives them to protect people (and in Rorschach's case, how far can you got o 'be' a hero). It makes you think about a superpowered being such as Manhattan - what can you lose if you are no longer human and don't see things as a human does - which is the essence of the book - a story about humanity.

There are some other things that aren't treated as well in the movie, so I can see how you missed them, but these themes are totally obvious, and for people who haven't been exposed to them, they do make you think.

 

[black_13]

You know I finally really understand why Alan Moore didn't want a Watchmen movie.
It's such a complex story with so many background info adding to the story that trying to fit it all in to a 160 minute film is just impossible. I think Snyder did a fair job and the best he could but I don't think anyone could do the novel justice.
That's one of the reasons Paul Greengrass wanted to change the story when he was on board but when you go changing the story all kinds of other shit could go wrong.

And the songs were completely out of place. For me that was Snyder's biggest mistake. I could forgive him for the rest cause he the best anyone could but the songs were god awful and took you out of the movie.

 

[mrkgoo]

You know I finally really understand why Alan Moore didn't want a Watchmen movie.
It's such a complex story with so many background info adding to the story that trying to fit it all in to a 160 minute film is just impossible. I think Snyder did a fair job and the best he could but I don't think anyone could do the novel justice.
That's one of the reasons Paul Greengrass wanted to change the story when he was on board but when you go changing the story all kinds of other shit could go wrong.

And the songs were completely out of place. For me that was Snyder's biggest mistake. I could forgive him for the rest cause he the best anyone could but the songs were god awful and took you out of the movie.

You know, maybe they should've made two back to back movies and released them at the same time. It would at least be novel, and people would go to see both. Maybe.

 

[wRATH2x]

Well I've just seen it,and I have to say I thought it was great,but I think those who haven't read the GN wouldn't enjoy it as much,which is a big flaw IMO.

Anyway time for spoilers:

Spoiler

I really didn't like what they did to Ozy,I felt like he wasn't portrayed like the novel,he seemed like the bad guy from his first scene,the way he talks and moves just feels wrong,my third favorite character getting treated like this really didn't sit well with me. He really seemed somewhat concerned when hearing the news about blake,even though he did it. He had a great back story which was sadly omitted from the movie,and he really didn't seem close to any of them. The actor was actually good,but the problem was he wasn't Adrien.

Spoiler

I also hated that some of Rorshachs and SS II back story wasn't in the movie,it didn't seem right. and many scenes were changed with the ending sticking out like a sore thumb. I don't know why the final conversation with Adrien and Manhattan wasn't in their.

Anyway loved the film and can't wait for the final cut!,whens that supposed to be out?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

How so though? Its not my fault if I haven't read the book and don't think the movie adequately tells its story, but rather the movie's fault for not being adapted successfully. Probably a good 40-50% of the movies out there are adapted from a book Ive never read, and that doesnt stop many of them from being great films.

Heres the way I see it: I've never read a Spider-Man, Superman, or Batman comic (well, that last one is a lie, as Ive read Year One and TDKR, but you get the point) either, yet those respective movies stood just fine on their own, and I never felt as though I was missing half the background information. They were self contained adaptations that introduced and built up the characters, set up a conflict, and followed thru on that. I didnt think Watchmen really succeeded at all in doing this for me.

solo, I am not dissing your opinion or experience.... I am saying that those non-readers who like the movie (and that seems to be about half of them) are basing thir like on the thmes ans ideas, or on the novelty of the film. Roughly, it seems to be a craft-vs-content divide regardless of familiarity with the GN. Like all generalizations, this won't fit for everybody

 

[Doubledex]

Slow-mo > shakey cam

This! Shakey cam is the biggst piece of shit Hollywood has ever done.
Unbeliveble! You can't see shit in a action-scene

 

[Solo]

Truth that, Ignatz. Watchmen is the most divisive release of the year so far, without a doubt.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

That said, you shoudl no go read the book. I've read it dozens of times, and I still find new things.

It was only recently pointed out to me that Doc M's color and forehead mark make him a stand-in for Shiva, god of destruction. Can't believe I missed that.

 

[Solo]

I think I will give the GN a read now. Also, whats this about an animated sequence for the DC? I dont know how well something like that would fit into this movie. It worked in Kill Bill, but I cant see it sliding seamlessly into Watchmen.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

when Adrien wailed on that guy with the lampshade it was rad.

Also,

Spoiler

the culprit

was pretty damn obvious from all the scenes.

I thought it was amazingly true to the book though, almost as much as it could be. Rorschach just NAILED his performance.

 

[AlexMogil]

I think I will give the GN a read now. Also, whats this about an animated sequence for the DC? I dont know how well something like that would fit into this movie. It worked in Kill Bill, but I cant see it sliding seamlessly into Watchmen.

Read the GN and I bet you'll piece it together. It might work.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I think I will give the GN a read now. Also, whats this about an animated sequence for the DC? I dont know how well something like that would fit into this movie. It worked in Kill Bill, but I cant see it sliding seamlessly into Watchmen.

Mild spoilers.

Spoiler

In the graphic novel, there's two important recurring characters: a newsstand owner and a kid reading a comic. The GN often cuts to the comic that the kid is reading, called Tales of the Black Freighter, and there's supposed to be a sort of parallelism with what's happening in the comic and what happens in the 'real world' of the graphic novel. In the end, the whole comic serves as an allegory to what happens in the actual story. An animated version of Tales of the Black Freighter was made, and Snyder hopes to someday incorporate it into the Director's Cut that's coming out this summer, meaning that there would actually be a third cut of the film that would be brought into existence.

 

[Solo]

Ahhh. In that context, something like that could actually work. Thanks!

 

[AndresON777]

Why did Snyder make the dong bigger in the movie than in the comic?

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Why did Snyder make the dong bigger in the movie than in the comic?

When you just know audiences will gravitate towards the blue dong anyway, just make it impressive.

 

[mrkgoo]

When you just know audiences will gravitate towards the blue dong anyway, just make it impressive.

It's interesting. I understand Gibbons made it deliberately understated in the comic to not draw attention.

I think in the real world, had he had a 'normal' sized member, people would point and laugh at it being small, thus attracting attention. Then again, I don't know what normal is for a muscular blue man, and I can't say I have seen enough to make a judgement for myself.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

Why did Snyder make the dong bigger in the movie than in the comic?

People are gonna be immature, so you might as well make'em :O

 

[ezekial45]

Open Letter from David Hayter:

So it has been five months since I saw my first rough cut of WATCHMEN, and eight days since the premiere of the film I've been working on since late in the year 2000.

The reviews are out -- Some outstanding, others rankly dismissive, which can be frustrating for the people involved, (though I can only speak for myself,) because I firmly believe that WATCHMEN, the novel, must be read through more than once to even have the faintest grip on it. And I believe the film is the same.

I've seen it twice now, and despite having run the movie in my head thousands of times, my two viewings still don’t allow me to view the film with the proper distance or objectivity. Is it Apocalypse Now? Is it Blade Runner? Is it Kubrick, or Starship Troopers? I don’t know yet.

All I know is that I had a pretty amazing experience the two times I've seen it. And both viewings produced remarkably different experiences. The point is, I have listened for years, to complaints from true comic book fans, that "not enough movies take the source material seriously." "Too many movies puss out," or "They change great stories, just to be commercial." Well, I f***ing dare you to say any one of those things about this movie.

This is a movie made by fans, for fans. Hundreds of people put in years of their lives to make this movie happen, and every one of them was insanely committed to retaining the integrity of this amazing, epic tale. This is a rare success story, bordering on the impossible, and every studio in town is watching to see if it will work. Hell, most of them own a piece of the movie.

So look, this is a note to the fanboys and fangirls. The true believers. Dedicated for life.

If the film made you think. Or argue with your friends. If it inspired a debate about the nature of man, or vigilante justice, or the horror of Nixon abolishing term limits. If you laughed at Bowie hanging with Adrian at Studio 54, or the Silhouette kissing that nurse.

Please go see the movie again next weekend.

You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me also point out that I do not profit one cent from an increase in box office, although an increase in box office can add to the value of the writers' eventual residual profits from dvd and tv sales.

But I'm not saying it for money. I'm saying it for people like me. I'm saying it for people who love smart, dark entertainment, on a grand, operatic scale. I'm talking to the Snake fans, the Rorschach fans, the people of the Dark Knight.

And hey, if you hated the film, if you think we committed atrocities, or literary mistakes of a massive, cephalopodic nature. If the movie made you a little sick to your stomach, or made you feel bad about your life. If you hated it for whatever reason, that's cool too. I'm not suggesting you risk gastro-intestinal distress just for the sake of risky filmmaking.

But if you haven't seen it yet? Well, I'll just say this...

It may upset you. And it probably will upset you.

And all along, we really meant it to.

Because face it. All this time...You there, with the Smiley-face pin. Admit it.

All this time, you’ve been waiting for a director who was going to hit you in the face with this story. To just crack you in the jaw, and then bend you over the pool table with this story. With its utterly raw view of the darkest sides of human nature, expressed through its masks of action and beauty and twisted good intentions. Like a fry-basket full of hot grease in the face. Like the Comedian on the Grassy Knoll. I know, I know...

You say you don't like it. You say you've got issues. I get it.

And yet... You'll be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you. How it was rough and beautiful. How it went where it wanted to go, and you just hung on. How it was thoughtful and hateful and bleak and hilarious. And for Jackie Earle Haley.

Trust me. You'll come back, eventually. Just like Sally.

Might as well make it count for something.

David Hayter

 

[Solo]

Hayter is begging people to go see it? Thats kind of sad.

 

[LCfiner]

Trust me. You'll come back, eventually. Just like Sally.

Is David Hayter suggesting that we've just been raped by this movie?

 

[mrkgoo]

Hayter is begging people to go see it? Thats kind of sad.

No he's begging people to go see it again.

Anyway, he is right about it being for the fans. It's as close as you will ever see a comic adaption. It's practically frame for frame style. I want to support it for that alone, even though I agree with a lot of the criticisms. I still had a good time.

Is it Apocalypse Now? Is it Blade Runner? Is it Kubrick, or Starship Troopers? I don’t know yet.

Can't it just be Watchmen?

 

[JayDubya]

Sure thing, Snake.

 

[Solo]

No he's begging people to go see it again.

I know, but most if not all the things hes saying that make Watchmen so great in his eyes (dark, ballsy, unflinching, etc) can be applied to The Dark Knight, and that movie made $530M. The bottom line isnt that uncomfortable/edgy content will push people away, but rather if the movie is great, regardless of what issues its tackling, people will flock to it.

 

[birdman]

notmyproblem.gif

Already saw it twice Hayter.

I know, but most if not all the things hes saying that make Watchmen so great in his eyes (dark, ballsy, unflinching, etc) can be applied to The Dark Knight, and that movie made $530M. The bottom line isnt that uncomfortable/edgy content will push people away, but rather if the movie is great, regardless of what issues its tackling, people will flock to it.

If anything Watchmen did dark waaay more than Dark Knight, which probably won't help it.

 

[mrkgoo]

I know, but most if not all the things hes saying that make Watchmen so great in his eyes (dark, ballsy, unflinching, etc) can be applied to The Dark Knight, and that movie made $530M. The bottom line isnt that uncomfortable/edgy content will push people away, but rather if the movie is great, regardless of what issues its tackling, people will flock to it.

I'm not sure that was his point. His point, I think , was that people should go see it again to support more movies of its type, as well as the fact you might appreciate it a bit more the second time.

On the former point, I understand your concern that a movie should stand on its own and not just be seen because of what it represents.

On the latter, many movies are watched 'properly' the first time, since everything is unravelling. Many moves are fully appreciated on multiple viewings. Is Watchmen one of these? I don't know, because I have only seen it once.

 

[Solo]

Didnt Sin City also perform quite well (magnified even moreso because Robert Rodriguez shoots for dirt cheap)?

 

[ezekial45]

How did Batman Begins track when it first came out? IIRC, it did around the same numbers for opening weekend.

 

[Struct09]

I do want to see it again, but I spent quite a bit on my IMAX ticket and I plan on buying the Blu-ray. Sorry Hayter

 

[Cheebs]

Didnt Sin City also perform quite well (magnified even moreso because Robert Rodriguez shoots for dirt cheap)?

Yeah, thanks to his shooting style Sin City made a healthy profit.

WB on the other hand is going to in the red on Watchmen till it's on dvd.

 

[jett]

I've seen it twice now, and despite having run the movie in my head thousands of times, my two viewings still don’t allow me to view the film with the proper distance or objectivity. Is it Apocalypse Now? Is it Blade Runner? Is it Kubrick, or Starship Troopers? I don’t know yet.

OMFG :lol. The letter in general was pretty pathetic.

 

[Solo]

How did Batman Begins track when it first came out? IIRC, it did around the same numbers for opening weekend.

It did similar numbers, but the big difference is that BB has fantastic word of mouth compared to Watchmens love-it-or-hate-it WOM, and BB had really incredible legs.

Probably the biggest failure of Watchmen from a dollars and cents persective is the budget. How in the hell did WB give the OK on a $150M budget for a total wildcard of a property? Had they shot this for even half that, say $70M-$80M, then it would turn a tidy profit at the box office.

 

[jett]

How did Batman Begins track when it first came out? IIRC, it did around the same numbers for opening weekend.

It did around 20 million more, due to opening on a Wednesday, which makes it not really comparable, as far as opening weekends go. Begins had the added baggage of the ill-recieved previous movies, too. In the end it had the legs to crawl its way to over 200 million in the USA, a feat I seriously don't see Watchmen repeating.

 

[YYZ]

The numbers for worldwide and DVD+Blu-ray should net them a profit, even including the cost of marketing and publicity.

 

[Gary Whitta]

It did around 20 million more, due to opening on a Wednesday, which makes it not really comparable, as far as opening weekends go. Begins had the added baggage of the ill-recieved previous movies, too. In the end it had the legs to crawl its way to over 200 million in the USA, a feat I seriously don't see Watchmen repeating.

I don't think it's fair to expect it to, given the longer running time, less well-known source material, lack of any major stars (Batman was nothing BUT star names) and R-rating.

 

[Solo]

Its kind of surprising that if WB decided to go balls out on the budget that they didnt force a bit of star power into the cast.

WB really seems to stand back and let their filmmakers make their movies (unlike say FOX, who meddles at every level of production). While that is incredibly admirable from a creative perspective, its probably not always a good policy from a financial one.

 

[jett]

If *anything*, that letter from Hayter should be pretty indicative on how the studio and the people that worked on the film feel about the current box office gross of Watchmen.

 

[ezekial45]

It did around 20 million more, due to opening on a Wednesday, which makes it not really comparable, as far as opening weekends go. Begins had the added baggage of the ill-recieved previous movies, too. In the end it had the legs to crawl its way to over 200 million in the USA, a feat I seriously don't see Watchmen repeating.

Oh, right. I forgot it opened on Wednesday. Thats the day i saw it too. :lol

Anyway, i don't expect it to do 200+ either. But i hope it'll have good enough legs to make some profit.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I saw it twice already, and I may see it again. I certainly got more out of it the second time through.

 

[Dabanton]

If *anything*, that letter from Hayter should be pretty indicative on how the studio and the people that worked on the film feel about the current box office gross of Watchmen.

And is that a reason to celebrate?

imo the film delivered i won't say it was perfect by any stretch of the imagination but if it has made studios look at how they treat comic book movies in the future especially the more dense ones like Watchmen then all the better.

Or do you want to have a lifetime of comic films like Fantastic Four and that incoming cinematic masterpiece Wolverine where Fox basically takes a dump over anything and everything to do with the source material.

 

[Auron_Kale]

Have my free ticket voucher printed out, just need to go redeem it at the movie theater. I was actually thinking of watching it again tonight.

Amazon/UPS just dropped off my 'Nite Owl' coffee. Since we don't have a grinder here at work, one of my co-workers will be bringing one in so that we can grind the beans. Personally, I'm not much of a coffee drinker, but my co-workers are so at least the coffee will be put to good use.

 

[joey_z]

Haven't read the entire thread but I don't think many people expressed disappointment in the computer generated scenes. Manhattan's structure on Mars looked like shit, as did many other back drops that did not have to be computer generated. A lot of the sets felt like sets and the movie didn't really feel like it should have cost $150 million at all.

In regards to the letter, it's almost like Hayter is saying "if the movie was shit at least it created debate. So we did that on purpose and every decision was so meticulous to inspire split views so we could recreate the level of discussion that followed the release of the graphic novel". I really really want to know why

Spoiler

the scene where Manhattan talks to Veidt at the end was cut out and instead replaced by Laurie speaking those words.

It's almost like they did it on purpose to piss people off but I really wouldn't give them that much credit.

 

[Wrestlemania]

And is that a reason to celebrate?

imo the film delivered i won't say it was perfect by any stretch of the imagination but if it has made studios look at how they treat comic book movies in the future especially the more dense ones like Watchmen then all the better.

Or do you want to have a lifetime of comic films like Fantastic Four and that incoming cinematic masterpiece Wolverine where Fox basically takes a dump over anything and everything to do with the source material.

You say that as if Dark Knight doesn't exist. If Watchmen fails to take a significant amount at the box office then with a bit of luck the studios will compare that to the success of the Dark Knight and see that the way to go is with smart adaptations of the source material that play to the strengths of film instead of desperately trying to make something as slavish to the source as possible.
Unlikely, but that's what I'd hope for.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Trust me. You'll come back, eventually. Just like Sally.

Unbelievable.

 

[jett]

And is that a reason to celebrate?

imo the film delivered i won't say it was perfect by any stretch of the imagination but if it has made studios look at how they treat comic book movies in the future especially the more dense ones like Watchmen then all the better.

Or do you want to have a lifetime of comic films like Fantastic Four and that incoming cinematic masterpiece Wolverine where Fox basically takes a dump over anything and everything to do with the source material.

I'm not celebrating, and I find it quite upsetting that people forget about The Dark Knight so soon. THAT is a film that has shown what is possible to do with comic book-based movies, THAT has shown the insane box office potential that this genre has when you treat the subject matter with respect and intelligence.

Spoiler

TDK has also shown that you don't need to nearly 100% lift the content from the page, rip off the frames and "adapt" it verbatim.

What I want is a lifetime of TDK-quality movies, not a lifetime of snyderfests.

 

[Blader]

Spoiler

TDK has also shown that you don't need to nearly 100% lift the content from the page, rip off the frames and "adapt" it verbatim.

That's exactly what something like Watchmen should be. With Batman and Spider-Man, there's room for artistic license because there have been hundreds of stories over decades. But when you have a comic like Watchmen, which is just one 12-issue story, there's no reason to make significant changes a la V for Vendetta.

 

[Wrestlemania]

That's exactly what something like Watchmen should be. With Batman and Spider-Man, there's room for artistic license because there have been hundreds of stories over decades. But when you have a comic like Watchmen, which is just one 12-issue story, there's no reason to make significant changes a la V for Vendetta.

Reason: compressing a 12-issue story into even a reasonably long film results in a simple retelling of the story with all the major events and scenes ticked off but completely suffering as a result of compression.
A verbatim retelling story would have worked as a series perhaps, but to really make Watchmen work as a film it should have been heavily adapted.

 

[DMczaf]

Its kind of surprising that if WB decided to go balls out on the budget that they didnt force a bit of star power into the cast.

WB really seems to stand back and let their filmmakers make their movies (unlike say FOX, who meddles at every level of production). While that is incredibly admirable from a creative perspective, its probably not always a good policy from a financial one.

Kevin Smith on the /filmcast tonight said he decided to make his next movie with WB because of The Dark Knight, Watchmen and Speed Racer where WB just backed filmmakers financially and let them make their movie. Put aside what you think of him, but that's probably what most of Hollywood feels right now.