Watchmen

[Tallgeese]

I'm gonna see The Watchmen on Friday. Anyone else gonna see it?! Right now, I think word of mouth will either make or break this movie. Some people have unreasonably high expectations for this movie. Others don't know WTH it is. I'm going in with an open mind. I'm familiar with the comic but not gushing over it as the best thing since sliced bread. I could really care less if it's faithful to the comic book. Instead, I'll focus on whether it's a good movie or not.

[Windy-chan]

I'll definitely be going to a midnight showing of Watchmen tonight. <img src='http://mm-bbs.org/public/style_emoticon ... #>/wub.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':XD:' /> It looks great, judging by the trailers. People need to understand that an adaptation will always require changes, but they won't, so there will be bitching. I'll probably enjoy it either way.



The cast looks fantastic, at least. Everything from the trailer was amazing. =D I don't know if they can ACT the parts, but... it appears they've worked very hard to get many important details right and please the fans.



I can't believe the director's cut is over three hours long, though. <img src='http://mm-bbs.org/public/style_emoticon ... nfused.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> They removed THIRTY MINUTES of film for the theatrical version.

[Gypchan]

The husband and I plan on going to a 7pm showing of Watchmen tomorrow night (and get a babysitter for Anya! OMG! First time in nearly forever!).

I have one friend who got to see the movie a few days ago due to her boyfriend's connections, like a press showing or something, and she liked it a lot. She said (without spoiling anything) that it was well-made, the cast did an excellent job, and that it seems to be a movie that one has to see repeatedly because there is so much to absorb from it.

That is enough for me to go see it.

I've read the graphic novel and think it is good in that "ahead of its time" way, but I am more into the eye candy stuff (special effects, costuming, etc.) for the movie more than anything.

[Ap2000]

My flat mate asked me about it and we're most probably going to watch this or next week.



I've never heard of the comic before, so I'm just going to enjoy the visual ride !

[neshcom]

I probably may see it over break, but I could do without? I never read the comics or have heard anything about it and I haven't had my interest piqued regardless of the many advertising campaigns going on. Superhero/comicbook movies aren't really my preference.

[Tsuki]

I am going to see it tomorrow, I'm pretty excited about seeing it, it looks awesome. And I've never read the comics, so I doubt I'll be disappointed from that standpoint anyway. It doesn't take much for me to like a movie, usually. Usually.



(arr, I was gonna split this once more people posted to it, beaten to the punch)

[Sabaku Ika]

I will Watch eventually, but I don't think it's playing here yet. I just read the comics recently and really liked them, so I expect to be underwhelmed.

[Tallgeese]

I just saw it, and while it was good, it wasn't anything to rave about.

[darkzero]

I watched it today as well. It was a really good show of visual effects and the movie was good, but not great.

[Gypchan]

So, I have to agree that while the special effects were great and the parts were well-cast, it was just a plain enjoyable film.

In other words, it was not an OMG AWESOME feel like a lot of people seemed to have after seeing The Dark Knight and the like, but satisfactory for those who did read the graphic novel and a good ride for those who did not.

As someone who did read the graphic novel, it was a bit of a downer knowing what was going to happen and such so I would love to hear/read a review from anyone who saw the movie without reading the graphic novel just to know if they figured it all out before the main characters did as well as how they reacted to the different characters' reasons for doing what they did.



For those people unsure about seeing the film because of it being another comic book movie, I can tell you that it is not a typical comic book movie. There is much more going on in this story than the regular ol' good guy versus bad guy thing. There are political and environmental questions that come up as well as the questioning of human nature itself. If you saw V For Vendetta (same guy wrote it) and liked it because of the questions raised, you would enjoy this one too.



Spoiler-y bits:

I was not bothered or fixated on Captain Naked... err... I mean, Dr. Manhattan's blue bits n' pieces even though there were many scenes that showed him with the "no clothes" look. Actually, his lack of emotion kept my eyes focused on his face for the most part, really.

I think Rorshach was portrayed the best out of all the characters. I enjoyed the prison break scene the most.

The opening credits sequence was beautifully done.

The soundtrack had a lot of songs that I know and like, but it was giving the film a weird Forrest Gump feel (like: This scene is in blah-blah year, so it needs *thisspecific* song to convey it) because of that.

[Red Raccoon]

Saw the Watchmen this weekend, and absolutely loved it. I was a big fan of the comic, and the move is a very faithful adaptation, both in story and in imagery.



I see that it's been getting mixed reviews, and it seems like quite a few people completely hated it. I'm not really surprised, this sort of movie isn't for everyone. Compared to Batman or Spiderman, Watchmen is much more story driven than action driven, so people expecting a more typical superhero movie experience are likely to be disappointed. Some of the complaints I've heard ("boring," "too long," "too much dialogue," "not enough action") would seem to attest to that. I personally love a good action movie, but I think a more introspective movie like this, if well done, can also be a great experience and a nice change of pace when applied to a familiar genre.



Kind of a spoiler:

I was wondering how they were going to handle's Dr Manhattan's nudity, and I repsect that they followed suit with the comic in that they did not shy away from it. But I'm a bit surprised by how much negative reaction it appears to have generated. I heard the movie being discussed on the radio this morning, and Dr Manhattan's junk was all they could talk about. There were comments like "It was constantly in your face," (a huge exaggeration, if you're not looking for it you hardly notice it), and "only a gay man could possibly like this film." Seriously, is the sight of a penis really so traumatic for so many hetero guys out there? Apparrently so.



Definitely a spoiler:

There was only one major deviation from the original story, and I have to admit I approved of it. In the comic, Ozymadius' master stroke involved bioengineering a huge alien-like monster with vast psionic powers and teleporting it into the middle of New York. For a story intended to give a more realistic take on the superhero genre, this seemed especially far-fetched and implausible, equal to anything you might find in the cheesiest mainstream superhero comic. I like how they rewrote Ozymandius' plot such that it had the same effect storywise but actually made a whole lot more sense and fit better with everything that came before. Usually, tampering with an established story to "improve upon the orignal" is pure arrogance on the part of script writers, but in this case I think it was the right move. I wonder if hardcore Alan Moore fans had a problem with that change, though?

[peachgirldb]

I heard it was full of gratuitous sex, violence, and blue wang.

[Tsuki]

I saw it opening night and enjoyed it. I didn't have any real expectations going in, hadn't read the comics, and didn't really know anything about the story. It wasn't spectacular from my standpoint, but I did enjoy it. It felt a little long, but I guess I knew enough about the fact that it was adapted from a widely regarded comic book (graphic novel, whichever) that it would have to be pretty long to encompass all the important points.



The audience you go with might also have something to with the way some people dealt with the movie. My group had a pretty difficult time with the Dr. Manhattan nudity (the girls giggled every single time he was shown naked), and it was pretty (read: very) distracting. And so the first thing that really comes to mind when I think about the movie, is, unfortunately the blue wang. Some of the guys were also off-put by it "there was entirely too many mancheeks in that movie, and only two tits", et cetera.



I probably would have enjoyed it more with a better, more mature audience but there wasn't much I could have done about it.



I enjoyed the storylines mostly and felt the ending was oddly satisfactory, even if it was very antithetical to most superhero movies. "Is New York really getting blown up" or "Is Dr. Manhattan going to go back in time and fix everything" ran through my mind, but then once I realized that what was happening was "real" and the characters were mostly in favor of it, I just accepted it. The weaving in and out of flashbacks felt a little clunky and was sometimes hard to keep everything together. However, at the same time, nothing was unpredictable. A lot of the plot was pretty evident. (I suppose it didn't help that I was sitting next to a huge fan of the comics who was constantly commenting on stuff. Like "God, he's (Ozymandias) such a dick")



Rorschach was great, but I think he suffered a little from what everyone else did in the movie, dialogue that tried a little too hard. I knew a lot of it was directly from the comics, but sometimes it just didn't work very well on screen, in real life. It FELT like they were directly from the comics, even to me.



Overall, I liked it and would probably watch it again to pick out more details, but there were some things I felt didn't translate well to an uninformed general audience.

[AEUGNewtype]

This movie was fantastic. I went in with somewhat high expecations, but I hadn't read the book at all, and I came out really satisfied, which is a pretty big feat for new Hollywood movies for me. Everything about the movie was great. I loved the narrative structure being so disjointed, the alternate history route they took in driving the story forward, the visual effects were mostly gorgeous, the look was just overall really good. As a credit to not so much the movie, but the book itself, all of the social and political commentary underlying this story really made it stand out for me and make it so much more powerful. Even though it was in a somewhat fictional light, the constant anchoring back to the reality that we all live in and the situation of the time it was taking place was really important in making this movie what it was. Unfortunately, I'd guess that this went WAY over around 90% of the people who went to see it over the weekend's heads, and they were just there to see the new "hot" movie this week.



As yet another experience at the theater that reminds me of how stupid people are, were the people bringing their (no more than 10 years old) kids to see this movie. This was one of the strongest R-rated movies I've seen in quite a long time, with a TON of extreme violence and gore, one of the darkest, most complex stories ever, and a couple sex scenes, and here in the theater walks AT LEAST 10 different kids easily under the age of 10. Then the parents freak out and tell the kids to leave the theater when the "bad" scenes come up. Its like, why don't you just fucking leave and do us a favor? And grown people giggling like children at the fact that a penis and male ass are shown in the movie? Honest to god.

[Gypchan]

AEUG's post sums up for me exactly how I felt about the movie, but as I stated before I found it to be a satisfying movie yet not OMG AWESOME.



The thing is that I just don't see Watchmen as a superhero story even though it is wearing superhero clothing. This is why I guess a lot of people went in expecting some simple superhero film like X-Men or Superman. They saw the commericals and advertisements of costumed people and did not think much past that.

What did people expect from a film rated R, really? That rating was given because of the sex and violence.



In response to RR's spoiler-y bits:

I agree about the slight change in story from Ozymandias' original alien idea. The change made it less corny-comic book plot-like and I liked that.

I completely understand what you mean by writers usually changing things just because their arrogance drives them to do so, but it was definitely a good thing in this situation.

[mizer_unmei]

I just watched it. UGH. Seriously some of the changes they did don't even make sense.



1. The first 2 hours of the movie were straight from the comic book. But then with the rest of the movie they decided to completely change it all up.

2. Laurie was able to figure out on her own that the Comedian was her father, she didn't need to be shown anything by Dr. Manhattan. And in the movie apparently Dr. Manhattan loves Laurie because she's the product of a completely screwed up relationship? Alright. Where did this come from exactly? I always got the impression that he liked her for herself not what she was the product of.

3. The squid makes more sense. I never thought that possible, but it's TRUE. With the ending being about the world coming together against a common enemy, it still has that aspect of enemies in the world. With the squid it's a catastrophe that happens and the world gets brought together by the massiveness of the disaster. The world got together to help each other, not to go up against some looming evil Dr. Manhattan. Plus, it also helps explain Ozy's habit of playing with and creating new animals.

4. Nite Owl's presence at Rorschach's death and his subsequent "NOOOOOO" gave me too many Revenge of the Sith flashbacks. Ughh.



This was made during the writers strike, so all the actors were scabs. But seriously, they could've gotten someone to play Laurie that could actually ACT. And if they cut out the gratuitous sex scenes and annoying slow motion they they could cut the time by sooo much. x.x;

[AEUGNewtype]

[quote name='mizer_unmei' post='62220' date='Mar 14 2009, 12:44 AM']This was made during the writers strike, so all the actors were scabs.[/quote]

This is what makes the movie good, on many accounts. Not having fucking BRAD PITT AND ANGELINA JOLIE WITH GEORGE CLOONEY AND CHRISTIAN BALE as the stars of the movie is what gave it a unique character and it let the movie focus more on the film itself instead of the pretty faces that everyone's familiar with on the screen. This is also what makes Zack Snyder's other movies much better than then would've been if Hollywood would've just stuffed a bunch of rich faggots into them. God, I hate Hollywood.

[mizer_unmei]

[quote name='The☆AEUGNewtype' post='62230' date='Mar 14 2009, 08:20 AM']This is what makes the movie good, on many accounts. Not having fucking BRAD PITT AND ANGELINA JOLIE WITH GEORGE CLOONEY AND CHRISTIAN BALE as the stars of the movie is what gave it a unique character and it let the movie focus more on the film itself instead of the pretty faces that everyone's familiar with on the screen. This is also what makes Zack Snyder's other movies much better than then would've been if Hollywood would've just stuffed a bunch of rich faggots into them. God, I hate Hollywood.[/quote]I have no problem with casting "unknowns". It just helps explain why any part with Laurie or Nite Owl was absolutely unbearable. Either all the quality actors weren't going for jobs or the casting director is shit.



But seriously, I still knew 3 of the people pretty well. Dr. Manhattan is Bully Crudup. All I could think is how he's a douchebag for leaving pregnant Mary-Louise Parker for Claire Danes. Rorschach's Jackie Earle Haley was this fallen child star who a couple of year ago was nominated for a best supporting actor in "Little Children" and was all happy for having a second chance. And Malin Åkerman was fuckin Freakshow's wife in Harold and Kumar. It's really no different from having big action stars, just as long as they're convincing in the part. Like with Gerard Butler when 300 came out, all I could think was "He's the one who butchered the Phantom's parts, get him off the screen", but I turned to like both Butler and 300 a LOT.

[AEUGNewtype]

[quote name='mizer_unmei' post='62233' date='Mar 14 2009, 09:14 AM']But seriously, I still knew 3 of the people pretty well. Dr. Manhattan is Bully Crudup. All I could think is how he's a douchebag for leaving pregnant Mary-Louise Parker for Claire Danes.[/quote]

Wow, that is such a completely absurd notion to me. I can't even think about how ridiculous the idea of letting celebrities' personal lives impact how I see a movie. I guess that's what you'd get from following tabloids and caring way too much about people who you'll never know's lives.

[mizer_unmei]

[quote name='The☆AEUGNewtype' post='62234' date='Mar 14 2009, 09:33 AM'][quote name='mizer_unmei' post='62233' date='Mar 14 2009, 09:14 AM']But seriously, I still knew 3 of the people pretty well. Dr. Manhattan is Bully Crudup. All I could think is how he's a douchebag for leaving pregnant Mary-Louise Parker for Claire Danes.[/quote]

Wow, that is such a completely absurd notion to me. I can't even think about how ridiculous the idea of letting celebrities' personal lives impact how I see a movie. I guess that's what you'd get from following tabloids and caring way too much about people who ou'll never know's lives.[/quote]

I'm absurd for knowing about celebrity's lives? You do the same thing following H!P. You also said the same thing about the bigger actors "BRAD PITT AND ANGELINA JOLIE WITH GEORGE CLOONEY AND CHRISTIAN BALE" and how their presence detracts from the film. He's just another one of "the pretty faces that everyone's familiar with". It's not like I'm emotionally invested in them, it's no different from reading a Jane Austen novel or Suetonius "De Vita Caesarum" and knowing the social relations of the characters. Willoughby and Nero are douchebags. So is Billy Crudup. I didn't say that I couldn't watch the movie because of it. My brain can multitask and watch the movie, get into the characters and film while acknowledging the people playing the parts.



It's like what I just learned in my Roman Civilization class. In ancient Rome the only actors were slaves. And one of the main motifs in the plays put on then was a smart clever slave who would do what he needed to for his master. (see: Pseudolus) Are we supposed to get completely immersed in the production bring put on for us? Or do we recognize the irony of the people playing the part of the slave is a slave itself?



I just do that but on a much less sophisticated level. I know actors and I have a vast cornucopia of knowledge in my head with which to connect and laugh at. Danny Kaye and Laurence Olivier had a fun affair while the latter was married to Vivian Leigh. Clark Gable and Loretta Young had a kid out of an affair and the kid thought she was adopted by Loretta Young until her wedding day. Olivia De Havilland and Joan Fontaine are sisters and absolutely HATE each other, and it spawned so many funny quotes from them including something on the lines of "I got married before Olivia, I won an Oscar before her and if I die before her she'll be livid." Norma Shearer went apeshit mad at the end of her life and then started to call her husband for 40+ years "Irving", by Irving Thalberg her first husband who died some 10 years after they were married.



All of those people I know and have watched many movies by so it makes the stories THAT more interesting. And that's just the most interesting things I know about classic movie stars. It's no different from following the music industry and remembering the name for all the members in H!P.

[BeForJess]

I thought it was good, but I think they would have been wiser to have included less... um, detail.. in the blue wang. I mean, it jiggled and shook, which is a lot more distracting in a movie than in a still frame comic. I don't think they should have changed it so he wore a loincloth the whole movie, but making it less in-your-face-BLUE-PENIS would have made the movie more accessible, certainly.



Some of the actors I really liked, but some of them sucked. Overall though, aside from Laurie, whose actress I disliked a lot, I had few problems with the cast.



I wouldn't say it was the best thing I'll watch this year (unless I get severely disappointed with the summer releases), but it was worth seeing and I enjoyed it.

[Falcon]

Did someone say blue dongs?

[Red Raccoon]

[quote name='mizer_unmei' post='62220' date='Mar 13 2009, 09:44 PM']I just watched it. UGH. Seriously some of the changes they did don't even make sense.



1. The first 2 hours of the movie were straight from the comic book. But then with the rest of the movie they decided to completely change it all up.

2. Laurie was able to figure out on her own that the Comedian was her father, she didn't need to be shown anything by Dr. Manhattan. And in the movie apparently Dr. Manhattan loves Laurie because she's the product of a completely screwed up relationship? Alright. Where did this come from exactly? I always got the impression that he liked her for herself not what she was the product of.

3. The squid makes more sense. I never thought that possible, but it's TRUE. With the ending being about the world coming together against a common enemy, it still has that aspect of enemies in the world. With the squid it's a catastrophe that happens and the world gets brought together by the massiveness of the disaster. The world got together to help each other, not to go up against some looming evil Dr. Manhattan. Plus, it also helps explain Ozy's habit of playing with and creating new animals.

4. Nite Owl's presence at Rorschach's death and his subsequent "NOOOOOO" gave me too many Revenge of the Sith flashbacks. Ughh.



This was made during the writers strike, so all the actors were scabs. But seriously, they could've gotten someone to play Laurie that could actually ACT. And if they cut out the gratuitous sex scenes and annoying slow motion they they could cut the time by sooo much. x.x;[/quote]



to respond to some of the spoiler comments:



In the comic, Laurie figured out the truth by remembering details which were presented to the reader via flashback panels. Much of the story was told non-chronologically, which must have posed a real challenge to the movie scripters, but in general I feel they handled it quite nicely. I think presenting the Laura/Comedian revelation via Dr. Manhattan, who in fact experiences time in a completely non-linear fashion (not unlike the manner in which the story was originally written) was a clever and appropriate way to work the flashback material into the scene. To me, the change is a small one; Laurie still figures out the truth by reexamining the same episodes of her life we saw in the book, Dr Manhattan is merely the vehicle by which those memories are revisited.



I know some people are bound to resent the cutting of the squid, but I still can't understand how. This is what I hated about Alan Moore's ending: In order to give the world a common enemy, Ozymandius felt he had to create a creature that didn't previously exist, and what's more, give it powers that didn't previously exist either (really, psychic powers vast enough to kill half the population of the world's biggest city? Was there ever, at any point in the entire series, any indication that such powers existed or even had the potential to exist in the world of the Watchmen?) And the whole psychic back-lash that killed thousands was a result of his creation dying -- it seemed like an accident, not an act of malice. If something like that honestly happened, I would be asking: "Are there more of these creatures? Are any more coming? Do they really mean us harm?" It just seemed so ambiguous, I don't see how anyone could reliably predict how the world would react to that. An unimaginably difficult and complicated scheme that could not possibly guarantee the desired results--that's the best the "world's smartest man" could come up with?



Now compare to the movie ending: instead of inventing an incredible new organism and amazing new paranormal powers, he merely invents a falsehood centered around a powerful being with abilities of world-threatening magnitude whom the whole world already knows to exist. Instead of creating a "what the hell just happened?" catastrophe, he manufactures a scenario in which the "enemy" appears to actually have a plausible motive for lashing out at the world. I don't know, this somehow just seems like a smarter course of action. Certainly more believable. I think in this instance, the movie is a much better piece of story telling. Sorry, Mr. Moore.



I agree that Nite Owl's reaction, both to witnessing Rorschach's death (I don't believe he ever actually knew of it in the comic), and his smack-down of Ozymadius was an unnecessary addition. I think the reasoning here was "he is such a sympathetic character, we can't show him being complacent about these terrible things." I think in the comic, he was more willing to go for the moral compromise, which was interesting. I don't hate the alteration, but I don't feel it was for the better, either.



The sex scenes were pretty much straight out of the book. I didn't mind that they were included, although had they been left out to get a PG rating, I would have understood.



Yes, there were some changes and omissions, which I think was unavoidable. Certainly to be expected. But only very, very rarely have I seen a movie adaptation that was as true to the original as this.

[fpd]

[quote name='The☆AEUGNewtype' post='62230' date='Mar 14 2009, 09:20 AM'][quote name='mizer_unmei' post='62220' date='Mar 14 2009, 12:44 AM']This was made during the writers strike, so all the actors were scabs.[/quote]

This is what makes the movie good, on many accounts. Not having fucking BRAD PITT AND ANGELINA JOLIE WITH GEORGE CLOONEY AND CHRISTIAN BALE as the stars of the movie is what gave it a unique character and it let the movie focus more on the film itself instead of the pretty faces that everyone's familiar with on the screen. This is also what makes Zack Snyder's other movies much better than then would've been if Hollywood would've just stuffed a bunch of rich faggots into them. God, I hate Hollywood.

[/quote]

Yeah I LOVE when they use "no name" actors/actresses in movies that are big blockbusters. It makes it so much more enjoyable for me to not be familiar wiht the actor, because it's a lot easier to get really into the character that way.

[mizer_unmei]

[quote name='Red Raccoon' post='62389' date='Mar 16 2009, 05:00 PM']to respond to some of the spoiler comments:



In the comic, Laurie figured out the truth by remembering details which were presented to the reader via flashback panels. Much of the story was told non-chronologically, which must have posed a real challenge to the movie scripters, but in general I feel they handled it quite nicely. I think presenting the Laura/Comedian revelation via Dr. Manhattan, who in fact experiences time in a completely non-linear fashion (not unlike the manner in which the story was originally written) was a clever and appropriate way to work the flashback material into the scene. To me, the change is a small one; Laurie still figures out the truth by reexamining the same episodes of her life we saw in the book, Dr Manhattan is merely the vehicle by which those memories are revisited.



I know some people are bound to resent the cutting of the squid, but I still can't understand how. This is what I hated about Alan Moore's ending: In order to give the world a common enemy, Ozymandius felt he had to create a creature that didn't previously exist, and what's more, give it powers that didn't previously exist either (really, psychic powers vast enough to kill half the population of the world's biggest city? Was there ever, at any point in the entire series, any indication that such powers existed or even had the potential to exist in the world of the Watchmen?) And the whole psychic back-lash that killed thousands was a result of his creation dying -- it seemed like an accident, not an act of malice. If something like that honestly happened, I would be asking: "Are there more of these creatures? Are any more coming? Do they really mean us harm?" It just seemed so ambiguous, I don't see how anyone could reliably predict how the world would react to that. An unimaginably difficult and complicated scheme that could not possibly guarantee the desired results--that's the best the "world's smartest man" could come up with?



Now compare to the movie ending: instead of inventing an incredible new organism and amazing new paranormal powers, he merely invents a falsehood centered around a powerful being with abilities of world-threatening magnitude whom the whole world already knows to exist. Instead of creating a "what the hell just happened?" catastrophe, he manufactures a scenario in which the "enemy" appears to actually have a plausible motive for lashing out at the world. I don't know, this somehow just seems like a smarter course of action. Certainly more believable. I think in this instance, the movie is a much better piece of story telling. Sorry, Mr. Moore.



I agree that Nite Owl's reaction, both to witnessing Rorschach's death (I don't believe he ever actually knew of it in the comic), and his smack-down of Ozymadius was an unnecessary addition. I think the reasoning here was "he is such a sympathetic character, we can't show him being complacent about these terrible things." I think in the comic, he was more willing to go for the moral compromise, which was interesting. I don't hate the alteration, but I don't feel it was for the better, either.



The sex scenes were pretty much straight out of the book. I didn't mind that they were included, although had they been left out to get a PG rating, I would have understood.



Yes, there were some changes and omissions, which I think was unavoidable. Certainly to be expected. But only very, very rarely have I seen a movie adaptation that was as true to the original as this.[/quote]



The main qualm I have with Dr. Manhattan showing Laurie about the Comedian, while it makes sense how he has the ability to do it, it doesn't make sense why he does it. Sure later on he realizes that life is actually interesting, but at the time of her realization he was going on about something completely unrelated. He couldn't care less if she knew or not. He's got that higher knowledge of time but while he knows about the future he still does things int he moment. (ie: when he was surprised and offended when Laurie told him she was sleeping with Nite Owl. Even though he told her before that she'd tell him about that.)



And about the squid, I never thought he purposely made the squid to have super psychic powers. That was just an effect from the massiveness of the creature and it's brain. I took it as he just made it in order to drop it on New York so that he would cause such a catastrophe. The psychic explosion was just an extra additive. He just wanted something so random and so catastrophic that would force people to forget about the smaller conflicts they had. It's idealized and unrealistic when you think about the details, but especially at the time of the cold war it seems like a nice world to live in.



The bad thing about the movie is that, to me, the book wasn't about an all encompassing plot. It was more about showing the different ways comics could be used -- The juxtaposition of the everyday life of NYC and the kid reading the comic book couldn't be in the film. The way the flashbacks were handled and the way you got a first hand article between each chapter was fantastic and added so much more to the book.



Alan Moore's storytelling abilities do leave much to be desired. The end comes out of almost nowhere with Ozymadius becoming the bad guy, which in turn made Rorschach's theory moot moot and the mystery we went through the whole book useless. But the main enjoyment I got out of reading Watchmen was the connection of the characters and how it tied into the past. And also the side stories were integral to the plot because before they were killed they stopped their fighting and found they needed each other instead of superheroes.



I know a big part of people loving the comic was how they made superheroes regular old douchebags like you and me, but having watched The Incredibles before reading it and having grown up in a comic book world already affected by this comic, I can't really say I find it that new and different in that sense. But I do appreciate it for it's presentation of social interactions and relations. I love the way you can spend 400+ pages with a character and get to know all about them, their past and really connect with them is what I really liked. With the movie I feel like that part was missing from it, which just makes it a disjointed action film.



When Terry Gilliam, the king of complex crazy movies (like Baron Munchausen, Brazil, and f'ing Tideland) says that the comic was unfilmable, I'd kinda take his advice...



And about the sex scenes... they were okay in the book because they were 5-some frames long. Without sound effects. The extent of that in the movie was a bit unnecessary. :X

[Red Raccoon]

[quote name='mizer_unmei' post='62400' date='Mar 16 2009, 06:23 PM']Lots of text masked for spoilers[/quote]



I believe the psychic shock-wave that accompanied the creature's death was an integral part of Ozymandias' plan. It was the psychic explosion that caused so many deaths--otherwise, there would have been no catastrophe, it would have just been a giant dead squid appearing suddenly in New York. Extremely bizarre, to say the least, but not a tragedy (except for the poor squid). I really don't see how that would have brought the world together and ended the Cold War.



As for Dr Manhattan, he did still care about Laurie, even if he was often uncertain about how to address her needs. I didn't think it was out of character for him to want to help her understand the truth.



I think it was pretty much a given that the part about the kid reading the Black Freighter comic, as well as most of the textual parts of the orignal series, were not going to make it into the film. However, you may be glad to know that they are going to include the Black Freighter as a separate (possibly animated?) short included in the DVD version.

[mizer_unmei]

About the Ozymandias psychic squid thing.. I always assumed that he was simply experimenting with creating hybrid and super beings. (ie: his lynx thing) I never thought he started with a plan to create exactly that squid with exactly those powers. It just eventually ended up that way and he was able to use it to his advantage. Which is why he needed to make use of all the "disappeared" artists, and for so long.



And Dr. Manhattan certainly cared for Laurie. That's obvious in his narrated back story. And maybe if there was more build up in the film about her frustration about her past and her origins I would have understood him showing her that. But the way the film pulled it off, having no build up and not having it come solely from Laurie's side (which would've made more sense because she grew up with all of the clues of that information.), it didn't make sense for Dr. Manhattan to specifically show her that bit of knowledge. Especially when they're arguing about the fate of humans. (and Dr. Manhattan's one line sum up "Yes The Comedian was your father." or whatever, after watching the flashback twice was absolutely unneeded and unnatural. Both the audience and Laurie figured it out by then.)



Yeah the pirate comic is gonna be an anime-styled short narrated by Gerard Butler. But honestly I never really liked those parts. It always seemed to drag. But I do recognize that it did bring a lot to showing how comics can be different from films. (When I was reading that part I literally said to myself that such a juxtaposition of stories was impossible in film.) And it filled out the plot. Because the main story is really lacking if you don't have the side stories and the extensive backstories. It's not something for extras on a DVD, it's something to get you immersed into the world you're watching.



I do think the movie could've worked if they actually gave themselves room to work with. Instead of following the book word by word until the very last minute they could have fleshed out the storyline to one more suited to the film medium. Like actually working on the character development you lose from the book format and not forcing the entire comic into one long (but obviously not long enough) film. But with the way they approached it, they ended up with a disjointed plot that they had to messily finish.

[AEUGNewtype]

Dr. Manhattan's one line sum up "Yes The Comedian was your father." or whatever, after watching the flashback twice was absolutely unneeded and unnatural. Both the audience and Laurie figured it out by then.)

You're way over-estimating the average movie-goer.

I do think the movie could've worked if they actually gave themselves room to work with. Instead of following the book word by word until the very last minute they could have fleshed out the storyline to one more suited to the film medium. Like actually working on the character development you lose from the book format and not forcing the entire comic into one long (but obviously not long enough) film. But with the way they approached it, they ended up with a disjointed plot that they had to messily finish.

Uh, they did already make the storyline fit the medium of film. Remember that this is no independent upstart film here, this is an extremely high-budget Hollywood production and this entails everything that goes with the label. The studios were already about to not even release the film at all a few months before it came out solely because there was way too much story and not enough action/special effects. The studio made Zack Snyder re-edit the film a number of times and threatened to make him pay a huge chunk of the production costs back to the studio if he didn't do what they wanted and get it released. Film is an entirely different medium than books, especially when its going through the Hollywood tunnels, since then the studios have 90% control over what happens and their main concern is to make it make money, and therefore cater to as mass of an audience as it possibly can, and the average moviegoer nowadays wants as dumbed-down of an experience as they can possibly get, story-wise. They want to be assaulted on all 5 of their senses, but they want to use as little of their brain as possible. There's way too much going on in Watchmen's story even in the book to appeal to a truly wide audience, but since it had some big names attached to the film project, they went ahead and made it anyway, bearing the changes they wanted to make so more than a niche audience would go see it. I really don't see many inexcusable changes they made from the comic to the film.

[Shoujo Q]

I saw the movie yesterday, I go every once and awhile to the movies with my father and I went and picked Watchmen. I've never read the Watchman comic, and pretty much had no clue what I was going in for. It was either that or Race to Witch Mountain. But I've seen previous Witch Mountain movies and didn't care for them so it was Watchmen.



So here's a Watchman Virgin's point of view.



-I loved the music to bits, but hated it when it was played over certain scenes. Really, did it need that much music? I wouldn't mind getting a movie soundtrack though. <img src='http://mm-bbs.org/public/style_emoticon ... iggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':eekrun:' />

-Dr. M's blue bits didn't bother me. I actually never noticed them. I think it's all those years of figure drawing class, you just kinda except things as they are. I mean, it wasn't like it was big and in your face. D:

-The sex scene bothered me, mainly because I was alone in a movie theater with my father. I just about fell over and died. I wasn't excepting that. >.<

-Night Owl came off as a total wet blanket to me. I just didn't like him at all, he looked like a poor mans Clark Kent with the body of a wet noodle. And yeah at the end of the movie, total Revenge of the Sith flashbacks. I think it mainly had to do with the fact that there wasn't much back story to him so there was no reason for me to feel anything but hate for the man and his dorky costume.

-Could Nixon's nose be ANY bigger? I swear it kept growing throughout the film. xD

-Plot was jumpy. You could kinda tell where they were starting a new chapter in the movie. It was like start movie-go-go-go-stop-start new story go-go-go-stop...etc

-I liked the opening credits, it gave backstory which was good. Took me a few moments to realize what was going on though, but I got it.

-So what I basically took away from this whole thing is, they are regular people (minus Dr.M) that just so happen to wear superhero outfits, but they don't have any special powers or anything like that?

-If so, they got a pretty high tolerance for pain with half the action sequences they pulled off in the film.



Now some questions I have! <img src='http://mm-bbs.org/public/style_emoticon ... iggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

-At the end of the movie, when they cut to the newspaper office and Rorshach's journal. I feel like I've seen that used in another movie somewhere. Or am I just going crazy?

-During the film there are some other superhero's mentioned, but Rorshach only touches upon them briefly, except for the noose guy, at least I don't remember him mentioning him. He was in the original group in the purple get-up who stopped the Comedian from raping Spector. Who was he?

-What exactly was Dr.M building on Mars?

[Fina]

[quote name='PQ' post='62512' date='Mar 19 2009, 02:39 PM']-During the film there are some other superhero's mentioned, but Rorshach only touches upon them briefly, except for the noose guy, at least I don't remember him mentioning him. He was in the original group in the purple get-up who stopped the Comedian from raping Spector. Who was he?

-What exactly was Dr.M building on Mars?[/quote]



His name is The Hooded Justice. You don't find out much about him, if I remember correctly he's one of the only guys that no one knew anything about it, but he just disappears. It's implied that he died as this wrestler (I think he was Russian? Or something.) with the same body build died around the same time he disappeared.



It's also implied that he was gay and dated The Silk Spectre to keep his sexual orientation as a secret.



Also I'm pretty sure what he's building is just a little castle for himself. I thought I remember reading it's supposed to be similar to a watch?



I saw Watchmen opening night but I just haven't thought of anything to say. Basically I agree with everyone. I, too, read the comic, and I thought they did a good job at translating it, at least with the time constraints. There were a couple things I would have liked to see, but like others, I actually preferred the ending they went with. I felt it flowed better.



I did hate Laurie's acting, though. And the extremely awkward sex scene, although I expected that being that it's a Zack Snyder film.



Also, funny tidbit, I didn't notice this but a friend of mine did, apparently in Ozy's files is a folder titled "Boys". I don't remember any specific references to him being gay in the comic except for Rorschach mentioning he should look that up. Where did that suspicion come from? Plus there's these rumors about Rorschach being gay but I didn't pick up on that at all.