Watchmen

[Usacomp2k3]

We picked up the novel from Goodwill for $2 a few months ago (along with either V for Vendetta or 300, I don't remember) and I finally got down to reading it. All I can say is that I'm really anxious to see the movie. There is alot they can do with the political aspects of it, so I'm curious to see how they handle things considering today's world.

[Common Sensei]

I am wondering if it will be as anti-right wing as the comic books or if they will tone it down. I also will be curious to see how well the conflict between deontological and consequentialist moral and ethical systems plays on the screen. One of the good things about the story was that you could take a break between each comic book to ponder the differences between them for yourself once the theme developed. I've also heard that they changed the ending, which I am curious to see.

[Usacomp2k3]

2 more days... That said, we're going to wait 2 weeks and then use our movie passes to see it for free. Yes, we are that cheap My wife is about 75% the way finished with the novel.

[VaTech Hokie]

I saw the movie last night. Way too much blue penis.

Despite that, movie was still pretty sweet.

[Krogoth]

Watchman movie is summed up in three phrases.

T&A, blue penis and hero deconstruction.

I thought it was a meh hero flick. However, it was fairly faithful to the original source material.

[Faceless Clock]

I saw the movie last night. Way too much blue penis.

Despite that, movie was still pretty sweet.

I'm going to see it tonight. I'm excited, but I'm afraid my wife is going to be making fun of me for months because I made her go see a movie featuring gigantic blue computer-animated junk.

I wonder who got the job of designing that thing?

[Voldenuit]

Watched it last night. Was very faithful to the source, even when it strays from it.

Loved the cinematography and little homages to panels from the comic. Fight scenes were amazingly well done - even better than what he did in 300. Ozymandias was perfect, as was the Comedian.

The weak point in the movie for me was Malin Akerman's hot-and-cold performance as Silk Spectre II. In some scenes, she is absolutely brilliant, but in others, she falls totally flat.

Music choice also ranged from brilliant to shamefully corny.

Watchmen may not have been the superhero movie to end all superhero movies, but it definitely stands head and shoulders above the majority of the genre.

[Corrado]

.

Music choice also ranged from brilliant to shamefully corny.

I agree with this. When they left mars and started playing hendrix, i expected them to go leave and go kick some ass. However... that didn't happen. By the time the ass kicking had started there was 3 different monologues, and some other action.

I also think the 2nd sex scene with Lori and Dan was unnecessary. Especially the ejaculation reference with the fire. Just completely unnecessary.

Overall I really liked it, but thought it definitely could have been shortened a little bit.

[StrangeDay]

I'm going to see it tonight.

[ssidbroadcast]

ssidbroadcast watches the Watchmen. Tonight.


(note: I am not blackinches, that is the only time I will step into 3rd-person)

[StrangeDay]

I'm going to see it tonight.

That was pretty good.

[idchafee]

When the credit hit I said "that was horrible" but in retrospect I think that might have been because I was so...underwhelmed by Dr. Manhattan. I need to see it again and focus more on the others.

[StrangeDay]

When the credit hit I said "that was horrible" but in retrospect I think that might have been because I was so...underwhelmed by Dr. Manhattan. I need to see it again and focus more on the others.

Dr. Manhattan did take up an alarming amount of screen time.

[Nutmeg]

Saw it on friday, thought it was pretty damn good. Rorshach is a complete badass. Dr Manhattan is a bit of a dick though.

[tanker27]

I saw it yesterday and have mixed feelings about it. I would have been perfectly alright if it was still the comic/graphic novel that could never be made into a movie. With that being said, it stayed true for the most part.

I liked the music choices myself. 99 LuftballoonsHEH.

LIke I said mixed emotions......

Although I cannot wait for the Directors Edition on BR to be released in July, yes its been announced already.

[morphine]

Watched it yesterday. Funny...

Although I'm as big a comic/superhero fan as anyone else, I've disliked almost every adaptation to date. Iron Man rocked, the latest Hulk was pretty good. The first Spiderman was average, same with X-Men. 300 and Sin City were awesome, to name a few.

The usual problem in this kind of movies: not treating the comic book adaptations as movies. So what happens? The movie can easily be boiled down to good guy(s) ABC figthing bad guys XYZ, good guys win, end. The characters are completely one-dimensional (oh, there's the ice guy, there's the guy with the claws, etc), nothing else. Usually horribly campy to the point of me cringing in the chair.

In the Watchmen, however, they went quite a lot too far onto the other side of the "deep" end. The movie is almost 3 hours long and 80-90% of that time is spent on dialogues and backstories. Which are good... but not in this amount. So I guess I could say that this time there was too much character development and not nearly enough "movie", so to say. And by "movie" I don't necessarily mean MOAR ACTION, as the action sequences were few but good, I just wanted the damn story to move forward.

Verdict: slow movie, still good. Very serious, "grown-up", hardly any cheese at all. Still, had the potential to be a lot better.

[tanker27]

In the Watchmen, however, they went quite a lot too far onto the other side of the "deep" end. The movie is almost 3 hours long and 80-90% of that time is spent on dialogues and backstories. Which are good... but not in this amount. So I guess I could say that this time there was too much character development and not nearly enough "movie", so to say. And by "movie" I don't necessarily mean MOAR ACTION, as the action sequences were few but good, I just wanted the damn story to move forward.

To be honest the graphic novel had huge amounts of backstory and very little "action". Seriously when people complain about this fact, what did you or they expect? You talk as if you wanted a whole revisionist movie "based" on the watchmen.

[morphine]

To be honest the graphic novel had huge amounts of backstory and very little "action". Seriously when people complain about this fact, what did you or they expect? You talk as if you wanted a whole revisionist movie "based" on the watchmen.

Well, a comic is not a movie. They are different entertainment mediums with different requirements for pacing. Also note that I haven't implied that backstory is bad. Like action, it's good until there's too much of it.

In this particular case, by the midpoint of the movie, basically nothing had yet happened except Comedian's murder, which happened in the first 5 minutes anyway. If the whole movie had been much more balanced like the second half, it would have been absolutely great.

[tanker27]

Well, a comic is not a movie. They are different entertainment mediums with different requirements for pacing. Also note that I haven't implied that backstory is bad. Like action, it's good until there's too much of it.

You are right about the Graphic Novel not being a movie. But you have to realize that this is the movie that everyone said could not (or should not) be made. And I have to agree that in order to do the graphic novel justice they had to stay true to the novel and that means keeping with the flow of it.

In this particular case, by the midpoint of the movie, basically nothing had yet happened except Comedian's murder, which happened in the first 5 minutes anyway. If the whole movie had been much more balanced like the second half, it would have been absolutely great.

So again in the Graphic Novel the first 3 or 4 chapters nothing really happened except for the Comedians Death and tons of backstory.

And this is the problem I have with the movie, Its not for general consumption. It doesnt follow normal movie making rules. And most people will not "get it". Is it going to win awards? Probably not. Does it pay homage to the author and stick to the story? Yes and pretty much.

[ssidbroadcast]

Okay so I watched it. My girlfriend wanted to walk out, she couldn't stand it (though she very much liked the Big Blue ).

My thoughts? The movie was fine by me except for a few things:

-It's hard for me to sympathize with Dr.Manhatten when he cheats on the woman he supposedly loves so much. WTF, you're supposed to be all god-like and virtuous. When he gets all sad about it, to me it comes across as being a self-centered d-bag.

-When Dr.Manhatten and Silk are up on Mars and Silk is supposed to argue on behalf of mankind. The movie just falls apart here. Dr.Manhatten makes some really, really compelling reasons why he should just let mankind ruin itself. Then all-of-the-sudden he is stricken by some sort of humanistic notions of love? Really?

-Furthermore, why should Silk be so sad and heartbroken that Eddy was her father? I just don't get it. Why get all bent out of shape if you find out your real father is someone else? Maybe that's just a personal thing. Or maybe something wasn't translated in the actress' performance.

Anyways. Attached to the movie was a new Terminator 4 trailer. Consider me in the camp of people that believes T3 was a cash-in travesty that should be wiped from canon. As such, I had written Terminator 4 as just another cash-in since T3 totally sullied the plot, and I wasn't interested in seeing Terminator 4 at all.

Well, this trailer is giving me second thoughts. It's that good. Problem? Too many spoilers in the trailer. So if you already are going to see it, don't watch the trailer. But if you're a skeptic-on-the-fence like me, maybe you should give it a look.


I am a sucker for NIN in a trailer.

[VaTech Hokie]

A "cash in travesty", whew, sounds like you are taking things too seriously. Why do people feel like they have to bash movies that weren't made just the way they thought they should. These people come off like they are defending some religious icon. T3 had some sweet scenes in it, and millions of people enjoyed it. Sorry it wasn't made the way you wanted. Giant mobile crane car chase ftw.

[ssidbroadcast]

A "cash in travesty", whew, sounds like you are taking things too seriously. Why do people feel like they have to bash movies that weren't made just the way they thought they should. These people come off like they are defending some religious icon. T3 had some sweet scenes in it, and millions of people enjoyed it. Sorry it wasn't made the way you wanted. Giant mobile crane car chase ftw.

So you're okay with a virus that can be uploaded to an ambulance or police car that enables it to drive itself...

[VaTech Hokie]

A "cash in travesty", whew, sounds like you are taking things too seriously. Why do people feel like they have to bash movies that weren't made just the way they thought they should. These people come off like they are defending some religious icon. T3 had some sweet scenes in it, and millions of people enjoyed it. Sorry it wasn't made the way you wanted. Giant mobile crane car chase ftw.

So you're okay with a virus that can be uploaded to an ambulance or police car that enables it to drive itself...

Sure why not, if it enables crazy stunts to then occur sure. I am a Mech Engineer for a living, what the hell do you want me to do during every movie, analyze whether or not its possible. Then in accordance to your movie going views, I should not be able to enjoy over half of the action flicks out there. You just watched a movie with a giant blue man who can transform himself at will, and you have a problem with the virus put into an ambulance during a chase scene in T3...

You do realize that most things you see in movies are not possible... I take it you took Transformers as a work of non-fictions with its blatant dismissal of most of the laws of physics, namely conservation of mass. I didn't care they through everything out the window, it was a sweet freaking movie!

And why the eye roll? Are you disgusted that most people take works of entertainment for what they really are?

[ssidbroadcast]

Sure why not, if it enables crazy stunts to then occur sure. I am a Mech Engineer for a living, what the hell do you want me to do during every movie, analyze whether or not its possible. Then in accordance to your movie going views, I should not be able to enjoy over half of the action flicks out there. You just watched a movie with a giant blue man who can transform himself at will, and you have a problem with the virus put into an ambulance during a chase scene in T3...
And why the eye roll? Are you disgusted that most people take works of entertainment for what they really are?

You seem to be calling me out, but I'd rather not argue on the internet. I guess we can agree to disagree: you really liked T3. I didn't.

Keeping to the topic of the thread; Yes, the Watchmen (like T3) is a work of sheer fantasy. Prior to watching The Watchment I had watched this brief movie from one of their consultants describing--possibly--how Dr.Manhatten is able to accomplish the feats that he is capable of. Is it any more real? Of course not, but it tends to increase the suspension of my disbelief. I do not know what an "intrinsic field" is, and assuming this alternate-universe has such a thing, I can accept the movie on its own terms (at least in that respect).

The Universe of Terminator has its own rules, of course, that involve time travel. Since I don't know a great deal about time travel, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the movie on those terms. However, I do know that cars need special servo-parts in order to drive themselves, and furthermore that the only computer-like hardware in those cars would be (if anything at all) mere engine-ROMS that measure 02 levels for the fuel injectors. In other words: it doesn't pass the smell test.

And I had all sorts of problems with Transformers, but most of them didn't have to do with the obvious disregard for the conservation of mass. You can read more about that in This Separate Thread.

[ludi]

A "cash in travesty", whew, sounds like you are taking things too seriously. Why do people feel like they have to bash movies that weren't made just the way they thought they should.

For the same reason other people will defend movies they like?

The rule for good movie making is consistency. You can imagine any universe you want and then start placing characters and technology in it, but they do need to be consistent with the rules of that universe. If an element of an imagined universe is earth-norm gravity, then things had better consistently fall back toward the floor or have a very good reason for behaving otherwise.

[Corrado]

To be honest the graphic novel had huge amounts of backstory and very little "action". Seriously when people complain about this fact, what did you or they expect? You talk as if you wanted a whole revisionist movie "based" on the watchmen.

Well, a comic is not a movie. They are different entertainment mediums with different requirements for pacing. Also note that I haven't implied that backstory is bad. Like action, it's good until there's too much of it.

In this particular case, by the midpoint of the movie, basically nothing had yet happened except Comedian's murder, which happened in the first 5 minutes anyway. If the whole movie had been much more balanced like the second half, it would have been absolutely great.

The problem is if it WAS different than the comic or novel, then everyone would have been up in arms at how 'they ruined it' and 'its not even the same story'.

[ssidbroadcast]

The problem is if it WAS different than the comic or novel, then everyone would have been up in arms at how 'they ruined it' and 'its not even the same story'.

Agreed. I take no issue with how the adaptation was handled. IMO, most comic-to-movie adaptations aren't faithful enough. This movie felt very "authentic" ... even if I have other issues with the movie.

BTW, Rorshach's mask was really cool... that's a good example of how cinema can transcend the source.

[VaTech Hokie]

A "cash in travesty", whew, sounds like you are taking things too seriously. Why do people feel like they have to bash movies that weren't made just the way they thought they should.

For the same reason other people will defend movies they like?

The rule for good movie making is consistency. You can imagine any universe you want and then start placing characters and technology in it, but they do need to be consistent with the rules of that universe. If an element of an imagined universe is earth-norm gravity, then things had better consistently fall back toward the floor or have a very good reason for behaving otherwise.

I am not defending either type of person. I am addressing the fact that people take some things way too seriously. I had no idea that was the rule for good movie making. I thought the whole idea was for it to be entertaining. I will leave you guys to it then...

[Convert]

I never looked into the watchmen franchise before seeing the movie but I enjoyed it.

Maybe a half an hour too long, I didn't think it was really that bad length wise and I was even in my seat a whole 45 minutes before the movie started.

Way too much blue penis.

Other than that I can't really think of any complaints. Some things didn't make sense but I didn't have a hard time letting them slide.

[morphine]

The problem is if it WAS different than the comic or novel, then everyone would have been up in arms at how 'they ruined it' and 'its not even the same story'.

Dunno about that, as I never read this particular comic.