Watchmen

[Nighthawk 0]

It never inspired any reverence or sorrow in me, so I personally wouldn't have seen reason to tip toe around it in any movie, but I acknowledge that's the exception.

[SuperJerk 0]

SJ, everyone in this thread was having a perfectly fine time agreeing and disagreeing on the merits of this film. You know, having a conversation on a topic. Something you apparently can't do without making broad generalizations and blanket statements and failing to back them up. The only thing people can agree on is that you have shit for brains. Is everyone else in the thread wrong or just you?

 

You don't know what irony is. You seem to think that ironic means 'apt' or 'fitting'. It kind of means the exact opposite. Do you misuse the word 'literally' a lot too? You further compound this by seeming to think sharing that you think something is kind of apt or fitting (or in your world 'ironic') is making a joke. It is not. You cannot present a cogent argument. Everything you say is a non sequiter.

 

State specifically what you did or did not like, or share an observation. Do not start screaming about how everyone takes the movie way to seriously. We don't. We just think you are incredibly fucking stupid. Stop derailing the thread. Stop making terrible non-jokes. You are awful.

 

Excuse me while I shed a tear.

 

Probably about half the people on this thread are just making lists of percieved differences between the book and the movie. There's no denying this. My opinion was that the quality of the movie and its faithfullness to the book are two separate issues that people are confusing. A movie doesn't need to be 100% to a book in order to be good. If this thread got sidetracked at all, it was by people who couldn't shut up about the book. Get off the "I hate SuperJerk" bandwagon for a minute and you'll realize I've got a point.

 

Also, for all of you who said I didn't use irony correctly in my joke, fuck off. I was right. An actor playing Nixon wearing too much make-up is ironic because it goes against the expectation people have (at least educated people who actually know something about history) about Nixon. What really happened was NOBODY GOT THE REFERENCE until I explained it, but nobody wanted to look dumb so I got incorrectly attacked by 4 different people (and you think I'm obsessed?) for a mistake I made that wasn't really a mistake. I'm sure if four people in a row told you that grass was purple, you'd be a little annoyed too.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

SuperJerk, it isn't uncommon to misunderstand and misuse the concept of irony. People make mistakes. Alanis Morissette made a mistake. You made a mistake. Rather than own up to it, you chose to pass it off as a joke that people were too stupid to understand. Now you're claiming that you used it correctly all along and that we are too stupid to understand that.

 

You are an embarassment. No one's buying into this garbage other than yourself, so, if you believe continuing this charade helps you save face, rest assured it isn't working.

[DarKnight 0]

SuperJerk may have went off the line a little bit, but I kinda get what he's saying. People are too obsessed with comparing the movie to the book, and while its great to be faithful to source material, there can still be a good movie otherwise with changes made. A book is a book, and a movie is a movie, and they both should be judged on the quality of their own format. In my opinion, Watchmen made one hell of a good book, and one hell of a good movie.

[luke-o 0]

Saw the film last Sunday.

 

I think Alan was right, the book is unfilmable.

 

That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, it was the book on screen. What's not to enjoy? But it works better as a book then it does as a film.

 

I'll wait until the Directors Cut.

[dubq 0]

I always wondered how Veidt, the smartest man in the world, couldn't figure out that any peace he achieved via his plan would be short lived. I mean, how many years will it take before the world figures out that there isn't

an impending invasion when more aliens fail to show up (or Manhattan for the movie)

? How long before countries start arguing amongst themselves again and you're back in the same boat? "Nothing ever ends."

 

* Are we still supposed to be spoiler tagging things in this thread?

[godthedog 0]

SJ, everyone in this thread was having a perfectly fine time agreeing and disagreeing on the merits of this film. You know, having a conversation on a topic. Something you apparently can't do without making broad generalizations and blanket statements and failing to back them up. The only thing people can agree on is that you have shit for brains. Is everyone else in the thread wrong or just you?

 

You don't know what irony is. You seem to think that ironic means 'apt' or 'fitting'. It kind of means the exact opposite. Do you misuse the word 'literally' a lot too? You further compound this by seeming to think sharing that you think something is kind of apt or fitting (or in your world 'ironic') is making a joke. It is not. You cannot present a cogent argument. Everything you say is a non sequiter.

 

State specifically what you did or did not like, or share an observation. Do not start screaming about how everyone takes the movie way to seriously. We don't. We just think you are incredibly fucking stupid. Stop derailing the thread. Stop making terrible non-jokes. You are awful.

 

Excuse me while I shed a tear.

 

Probably about half the people on this thread are just making lists of percieved differences between the book and the movie. There's no denying this. My opinion was that the quality of the movie and its faithfullness to the book are two separate issues that people are confusing. A movie doesn't need to be 100% to a book in order to be good. If this thread got sidetracked at all, it was by people who couldn't shut up about the book. Get off the "I hate SuperJerk" bandwagon for a minute and you'll realize I've got a point.

 

Also, for all of you who said I didn't use irony correctly in my joke, fuck off. I was right. An actor playing Nixon wearing too much make-up is ironic because it goes against the expectation people have (at least educated people who actually know something about history) about Nixon. What really happened was NOBODY GOT THE REFERENCE until I explained it, but nobody wanted to look dumb so I got incorrectly attacked by 4 different people (and you think I'm obsessed?) for a mistake I made that wasn't really a mistake. I'm sure if four people in a row told you that grass was purple, you'd be a little annoyed too.

 

'watchmen' is the 'campaign 2008' of 2009. let's see how long we can keep this rolling. i'll do my part:

 

first, your dumbass inflated rhetoric and predilection for going off on attack-and-defend tangents having nothing to do with the topic at hand is horribly out of place. it's the damn movies folder.

 

second, rather than respond to the content edwin posted in answering your question, you decided to say, to no one in particular, "you're overanalyzing the movie." who was this directed to? VX? me? cabbageboy? it looks like you're talking to everybody that's been posting so far, since you made no effort to specify.

 

third, you're taking shortcuts by arguing with straw men instead of arguing with people. it's much easier, and much less correct, to argue with an amorphous "i hate superjerk" bandwagon. this is connected with the first point as well.

 

fourth, i dropped a load of my creamy sperm into your mom's mouth last night. she likes mine best and calls it the "phlegm of the gods." the way her pupils get big and her lips get blushed when she says it is pretty sexy. apparently she's allergic to shellfish though, cause i'd eaten lobster earlier and her mouth started to get puffy and her eyes were watering. she started wailing and just would not shut the fuck up. so i decided to give her something to cry about and smacked her in the face with my cock so hard i broke her jaw.

[Guest Smues]

Alright that's enough. Talk about the movie, or take it to NHB.

[Gary Floyd 0]

fourth, i dropped a load of my creamy sperm into your mom's mouth last night. she likes mine best and calls it the "phlegm of the gods." the way her pupils get big and her lips get blushed when she says it is pretty sexy. apparently she's allergic to shellfish though, cause i'd eaten lobster earlier and her mouth started to get puffy and her eyes were watering. she started wailing and just would not shut the fuck up. so i decided to give her something to cry about and smacked her in the face with my cock so hard i broke her jaw.

Oh boy, wait until his wife hears about this.

 

Alright that's enough. Talk about the movie, or take it to NHB.

Done.

[Nighthawk 0]

I always wondered how Veidt, the smartest man in the world, couldn't figure out that any peace he achieved via his plan would be short lived. I mean, how many years will it take before the world figures out that there isn't

an impending invasion when more aliens fail to show up (or Manhattan for the movie)

? How long before countries start arguing amongst themselves again and you're back in the same boat? "Nothing ever ends."

 

* Are we still supposed to be spoiler tagging things in this thread?

 

Fuck it (spoiler tagging).

 

But yeah, that's why he had to kill millions of people, presumably. In any case, this was a more urgent situation, signified by the doomsday clock... nuclear war was metaphorically right around the corner. Averting that was the primary function.

 

PS: fuck Smues.

[Boner Kawanger 0]

I really think spoiler tags are irrelevant since they insisted on detailing the changed ending for promotional matters.

 

Oh, yeah, dubq reminded me of my least least least favorite part: giving the "Nothing ever ends" line to Laurie and making it positively upbeat in comparison to the book. And would anyone else agree that preserving the ending with the journal was completely pointless since no one outside of a comic reader would recognize the New Frontiersman staffer in the smiley shirt?

[Nighthawk 0]

Well, since a comic read would recognize that, wouldn't that make it not completely pointless?

 

TSM posters and their adjectives... do you ever consider what they mean?

[Boner Kawanger 0]

What are you even talking about?

[SuperJerk 0]

And would anyone else agree that preserving the ending with the journal was completely pointless since no one outside of a comic reader would recognize the New Frontiersman staffer in the smiley shirt?

 

I agree.

 

I cringed during that part, especially the way the lines were delivered in a cutesy "wink at the audience" sitcom kind of way. I could totally buy the ending except for Dan lecturing Adrian and that part.

[Nighthawk 0]

What are you even talking about?

 

You idiot. If a small portion of the audience got it, it would have a small point. Completely pointless would mean that it had no point at all.

[Simple Jack 0]

I just got back from seeing it, and I honestly wish I hadn't read the book first. Not because the movie is worse, I actually thought it was really well done (with a couple odd song choices) it's just tough to watch that long of a movie that is so faithful to the book, since you know exactly what's going to happen and are just looking for the differences from one to the other.

 

I think if i had watched the movie first I would definitely had liked it better than the book. I thought the ending was way better the way they did it, I always thought the giant squid just seemed stupid and random in the book.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think everyone gets something different out of the book, or at least like it for different reasons. My high opinion of the movie is probably because it stayed faithful to the things I liked best about the book. Other people who had other themes resonate with them that weren't handled as well by the movie probably didn't like it as much.

[dubq 0]

I think if i had watched the movie first I would definitely had liked it better than the book. I thought the ending was way better the way they did it, I always thought the giant squid just seemed stupid and random in the book.

 

The only thing I didn't like about the movie's ending was Jon becoming the scapegoat for all of the chaos and death.

[daileyxplanet 0]

I really think spoiler tags are irrelevant since they insisted on detailing the changed ending for promotional matters.

 

Oh, yeah, dubq reminded me of my least least least favorite part: giving the "Nothing ever ends" line to Laurie and making it positively upbeat in comparison to the book. And would anyone else agree that preserving the ending with the journal was completely pointless since no one outside of a comic reader would recognize the New Frontiersman staffer in the smiley shirt?

 

I have to totally disagree with you. Showing the New Frontiersman still puts over the fact that the whole conspiracy will become unraveled in an unseen portion of the story. Rorschach died for no reason because his story still gets told.

[Boner Kawanger 0]

Not necessarily though. What I love about the ending is how it's a fill-in-the-blank, John Carpenter-esque open ending. Sure, the journal could set things in motion. However, it's noted in the book that Rorscach's handwriting is nearly illegible, resembling either a secret cypher or a jumbled mess of letters. And who is to say his ramblings wouldn't be dismissed due to his jail time and reputation? I always thought it was a great bit of irony (yes I'm certain I'm using it correctly) that Rorschach, a character defined by his uncompromising black and white viewpoint, is in reality an ambiguity to those who don't know his backstory.

[Nightwing 0]

Alright, I broke down and watched it because a friend wanted me to give an honest opinion, so here's mine:

 

1) This might be the "most faithful adaptation of a comic book story ever", but that's only because there are so few individual stories that are redone. Also, I'd stress the "might", because I think comic book movies like Superman and Spider-Man capture the characters and their overall story much, much better than this movie did.

 

2) Did anyone else cringe every time an action scene came up? This was supposed to be a gritty, realistic story; the characters (outside of Manhattan and Ozymandias) are supposed to be regular people who are set apart not by "SUPERHUMAN SKILLZ" but by their personalities (and/or personality disorders). For example, I was okay with how Rorschach fought off the SWAT guys initially. Not a lot of big changes, and for the most part it's actually feasible for who he was. But when he jumps out the window, it lost me: the fucking break-dance-fight took me out of the illusion completely. In the book, he hurts himself and gets beat-up by the police, which completely makes sense for someone who is no different from a regular person outside of his extreme personality.

 

Same thing with the opening fight: Okay, I could see the Comedian fighting a little bit... but it just got ridiculous. Bullet-dodging, wall-smashing, knife-catching stupidity. It doesn't help that he makes everyone use the same, ultra-fast ultra-stiff martial arts style. It all looked choreographed, and didn't feel natural at all. This goes for just about every fight scene.

 

3) Stemming from the fight scenes, the stuff Synder added was really horrible. Fight scenes which did nothing but waste time and set these people up as superhuman (which they're not supposed to be). The baffling Lee Iaccoca scene which makes no sense if you take into account that Synder showed the "Obsolete Models A Specialty" sign at Hollis' shop. Synder's weird obsession with Richard Nixon (As Left as Moore gets, he portrayed Nixon a heckuva lot better than Synder did), and stupid mistake on saying Ronald Reagan instead of Robert Redford. Hell, Reagan would be HOW old in 88? And the sex scene was easily one of the most embarrassing things known to man. I have no clue why it needed to be filmed, and I'm pretty sure I'd have been better off not seeing it.

 

The things he changed came off as baffling, really. I thought having Ozy conducting the "Crimebusters" meeting made it way too obvious it was him as the villain. I always liked Captain Metropolis' map and how he wanted to go back to the old days without realizing how things had passed him by and how things had changed. Not really showing Rorschach's origin was also weird; I'm sure if he had taken out most of that horrible sex scene and pulled back some of the action scenes, you could have fit most of it in. His story doesn't make as much sense when you don't realize that he wasn't always this fucked up, and that he had been somewhat normal (look at how he talks at the Crimebusters meeting in the book) before this happened.

 

Plus, no burning the guy alive? We show guys getting their arms cut off, bones poking out through the skin, show a guy in the prison riot being set on fire... but you change it to him just hacking him with a meat cleaver? What a weird change. Also: When did the original Silk Spectre stop being a Polish city girl and turn into a Southern Belle? Her portrayal seemed all wrong...

 

4) Holy Christ, the acting. Talk about a mixed bag.

 

Jack Earl Halley did an excellent performance capturing the intensity of Rorschach (My favorite scene is watching him almost freak out when he realizes that he's been trapped by the police. It didn't come off as "He's acting", but it looked like he was really panicking...), and I liked his delivery of Rorschach's final moments. Bill Crudup was okay as Osterman, but I thought he could have been a little louder or deeper with his voice. He was just too soft-spoken at times, and it didn't fit the scenes. Morgan was good as the Comedian, and I really can't say much more on that. Same with Wilson, who got the awkwardness of Dan Dreiberg down well enough as the script permitted (You know, when he's not using his super-action Kung Fu).

 

On the other end, Veidt was horrible. Goode was completely miscast: the way he plays Adrian, he makes the character completely devoid of charisma. I always felt that Veidt might have been distant, but always civil and trying to be nice in the book throughout his appearances. Sure, he makes a few funny remarks ("blotting out reality"), but he never came off as the condescending piece of shit that Goode played him as. With Goode, I felt I was always looking at the villain, and not just because I already knew he was; it was because Synder and Goode were completely telegraphing it to me. Really, Jude Law should have been Veidt, and it's sad that he didn't get it; the movie certainly suffered for it.

 

Malin Åkerman really can't act. I didn't like her in any scene, and she always came off as stilted. I totally didn't buy her in anything.

 

5) It felt way too much like 300. The painted feel of things didn't work at all. Yes, it's a comic book, but Moore wasn't trying to make it actively feel like a comic book. I thought if they had gone for a more gritty and realistic feel it would have come off better.

 

Overall, I'd say a 1.5 out of 5. This isn't Watchmen as much as it's how Zack Synder remembers Watchmen, which is similar to how Frank Miller remembers The 300 Spartans. It misses the subtle points and plots of Moore's original and chooses to focus on how awesome he thought superheroes were. Avoid it and spend the money on picking up the graphic novel.

[Nighthawk 0]

Man, I still don't like how Adrian always gets called the "villain". He was totally in the right. The story has no villain. If it's anyone, it's Comedian, and he, as a government agent, was also in the right, in a more direct sense. This is a lot of the key dynamic, the way I interpret the story.

[Nightwing 0]

Man, I still don't like how Adrian always gets called the "villain". He was totally in the right. The story has no villain. If it's anyone, it's Comedian, and he, as a government agent, was also in the right, in a more direct sense. This is a lot of the key dynamic, the way I interpret the story.

Eh, he wasn't right, though. He didn't create a lasting peace, just one built on a lie that could be destroyed just as easily. In the end, after what Jon says you can see the doubt on his face. Heck, the Black Freighter practically confirms that he's wrong, and that for all his sacrifices, he failed in his original goal and only succeeded in damning himself. Sure, I wouldn't normally call him a "villain" (Though he certainly comes off as such in the movie), but I can't say he's right.

[Nighthawk 0]

That's true, I often don't extrapolate as to where the story goes after it ends, just his one time aversion of nuclear war.

[Smartly Pretty 0]

I just saw this. I liked it. Coupla questions for you guys who read the comic.

 

What the hell is the squid ending? At what point in the movie does it deviate from the book? Just out of curiosity.

 

Actually, that's the only question. I don't understand why anyone would give this movie a "1.5/5" though. Having never read the comic, I think a lot of you guys have to understand that film adaptations aren't live action comic books. They're movies, and should be critiqued on their own merit. "this movie sucked because rorschach didn't do this or that" is no way to evaluate how entertaining a movie is.

[SuperJerk 0]

I just saw this. I liked it. Coupla questions for you guys who read the comic.

 

What the hell is the squid ending? At what point in the movie does it deviate from the book? Just out of curiosity.

 

Instead of pinning the destruction of New York and other cities on Dr. Manhattan, Veidt genetically engineers a big squid-like creature using the DNA of a telepathic human and teleports it to New York, creating the impression the Big Apple was the victim of an alien attack, thus giving the governments of the world a bigger threat to band together against, instead of fighting each other.

 

Also, in the book instead of trying to stop Jon from killing Rorsarch then lecturing Veidt on his immorality, Nite Owl just goes to another room of the compound and fucks Silk Spectre while Jon blows up Rorsarch and then Veidt and Jon have their conversation, Jon finds Dan and Laurie asleep after they had sex, then leaves Earth.

 

In context of the book, it actually makes more sense than it sounds.

[Nightwing 0]

I just saw this. I liked it. Coupla questions for you guys who read the comic.

 

What the hell is the squid ending? At what point in the movie does it deviate from the book? Just out of curiosity.

 

Actually, that's the only question. I don't understand why anyone would give this movie a "1.5/5" though. Having never read the comic, I think a lot of you guys have to understand that film adaptations aren't live action comic books. They're movies, and should be critiqued on their own merit. "this movie sucked because rorschach didn't do this or that" is no way to evaluate how entertaining a movie is.

 

My problem isn't that it wasn't a live action comic book. Hardly. It's that Zack Snyder completely missed the true focus of what Watchmen was about, and it showed. I came in expecting something much grittier, focusing on the characters and their motivations. Instead, Snyder threw away time on a bunch of fancy Kung Fu fighting that goes everything he tried establishing with these characters. I'll point to the best example: When Rorschach jumped out of the window in the book, he injured himself and was just shit-kicked by the police. It made sense because he's only a regular guy: he's not a god-like fighter, he's simply a sociopath with some street-fighting skill. In the movie, he goes off and starts break-dance fighting and shit. Same thing with the Nite Owl and Silk Spectre in the prison, the Comedian/Ozymandias fight, and a bunch of other things.

 

Did we really need a horrible sex scene in Archie when Moore dedicated all of maybe two panels to it? Could it have been better used to flesh out a character's background? Probably, and that's why I didn't like it. The focus is shifted from the characters to something which really isn't important in the long run (And is incredibly awkward on the big scene) when it could have been used elsewhere. People have also noted the inappropriate cinematography ("Why does Zach Snyder film an Alan Moore action scene like a Frank Miller one?"), and I completely agree with that.

 

Even outside of it being an adaptation, I still probably wouldn't like it. After getting spoiled with such solid efforts like Iron Man and The Dark Knight, this comes off as pretty bad in comparison.

[2GOLD 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't the world still HAVE a great "villain" in Adrian after it's revealed what he has done? Regardless they remain with a "villain".

 

I just found the ending off the mark since there would have still been serious act towards the USA for giving Dr Manhattan popularity and power from the start instead of working to destroy or at the least understand him in the event he turns. The rest of the world would have still hated the US and the peace wouldn't have survived long with the threat of Manhattan.

 

From the story standpoint

The US created Manhattan through their research (accident or not)

The US citizens pissed him off with the accusation he caused them cancer

The US gave super heroes positions of powers and then stripped them away, possibly creating resentment among them

 

I find it highly unlikely the rest of the world would be willing to have peace with the US anyway considering they are as much to blame for the chaos as Manhattan. And I still don't have a CLUE what the Comedian saw that caused him to break down and lose it. He thought the world was heading for the fire anyway, so why would it even matter to him if someone was building a bomb?

 

ETA: I tagged it all and I don't know why I did.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

I'm not going to bother tagging crap. In the comic, Veidt's plan is a bit different...it involved using artists, special effects people, scientists, etc to create this alien monster. So Comedian saw the monster being made, found out Veidt's (absurd) plan, and then lost it.

[2GOLD 0]

I'm not going to bother tagging crap. In the comic, Veidt's plan is a bit different...it involved using artists, special effects people, scientists, etc to create this alien monster. So Comedian saw the monster being made, found out Veidt's (absurd) plan, and then lost it.

 

Oh I know. But I'm asking, in the context of the movie, what the hell did he see?