WATCHMEN - TOMORROW - JIZZ PANTS

[thirdkind]

With all due respect to "the business," I could care less about the problems that one faces with porting something from one medium to another. These things can be good or they can be bad, and if I, as a viewer, am disappointed with the film for the same reason that a million fanboys can be happy or ten million regular-moviegoers can be happy, then I'm still disappointed. Business be damned. There's no excuse for making a bad film or simplifying something to the point where it becomes necessary to give excuses. If it's too hard to port it over, then don't port it over in the first place!

If you think business doesn't matter, you're naive. There wouldn't be a movie business without the "business" part.

And, again, many people seem to think the Watchmen film is a great adaptation.

Don't be angry nerd guy. Go see the fucking movie.

 

[Ajax]

It's comments like this that have me thinking twice before seeing this movie. Of course, given the hype attached to its release, there was always a chance that it wouldn't live-up to high-set expectations, but given the nature of Hollywood in-general, the terms "dumbed it down" and "generic" don't seem too far out-of-reach, really. I thought from one of the few trailers I bothered myself to watch that Watchmen might have sort of an "art house" feel to it, but now I'm not so sure because if it turned-out just being another capitalisation upon a famous property...screw it.

It certainly doesn't have an art house feel. This thing is Hollywood, through and through.

It is faithful enough, visually and (mostly) in terms of story, until the end which is needlessly altered. That's not my problem with it, though. It doesn't capture the desperation and severity of the comic. It doesn't feel like Watchmen.

I seem to be in the minority on this one, though, so don't take my word for it. I have often championed projects that were guaranteed to be maligned upon their release (Contra 4, SFIV, Metroid Prime, etc.) but this... I can't get behind this one.

 

[Zero Satori]

If you think business doesn't matter, you're naive. There wouldn't be a movie business without the "business" part.

It has nothing to do with being naive, sir. It's simply that, for my hard-earned money, I want to see something exceptional. When "exceptional" is transformed into "excellent" or even "pretty good" for the sake of appealing to a wider base of people, my money goes back to my pocket. That being said, I'm not biased against seeing this movie, but it just doesn't sound at this point like the movie I was hoping it would shape-up to be.

It certainly doesn't have an art house feel. This thing is Hollywood, through and through...I seem to be in the minority on this one, though, so don't take my word for it.

Well, I'm just weighing your scathing reviews alongside the others in this thread. To be honest, I haven't read more than thirty pages of Watchmen, so I'm not (potentially) going into this film expecting anything more than an enjoyable film. Nevertheless, there's plenty of other stuff out there (books, comics, music, theatre, etc.) that is competing for the same dollar and is often a whole lot cheaper than seeing a film. So if Watchmen wants to get me in to see it, it's gonna have to do a lot more than just hype-itself-up for months beforehand. I'll check the reviews elsewhere and make my own decision, but to put it shortly: Seeing this movie is not an automatic.

 

[Ajax]

Try to understand how things need to work from a business perspective. Movies are a business, after all. Also try to understand it from the filmmakers' perspective. To paraphrase Stanely Kubrick, a novel gives you several hundred pages to tell a story in as detailed a fashion as you care to, but a two-hour film gives you 60 two-minute scenes. Imagine the difficulty in paring a book down to something that will fit a film format. Then imagine doing it with a lengthy graphic novel while trying to keep a bunch of angry nerds happy.

Haha, you shouldn't have to take that shit into account to enjoy a movie, or anything for that matter. If you do have to think about stuff like that to enjoy something, well, maybe it wasn't meant to be enjoyed.

 

[thirdkind]

It has nothing to do with being naive, sir. It's simply that, for my hard-earned money, I want to see something exceptional. When "exceptional" is transformed into "excellent" or even "pretty good" for the sake of appealing to a wider base of people, my money goes back to my pocket.[/i]

That's your right, of course. But don't be angry with a movie studio because they expect a return on their investment.

You don't spend $100 million on a movie so 10,000 angry nerds won't say nasty things on a forum two hours after its midnight release.

 

[thirdkind]

Haha, you shouldn't have to take that shit into account to enjoy a movie, or anything for that matter. If you do have to think about stuff like that to enjoy something, well, maybe it wasn't meant to be enjoyed.

I'm not saying you should have to take that into account while you're watching it. I'm just saying consider it before you get all high and mighty with your silly nerd expectations.

I certainly wasn't focusing on any possible shortcomings while watching the film. I enjoyed it.

Nerds are no different than anyone else, apparently. They're selfish and assume that their needs are the ones that should be met--just like the guys next to me who sighed because they thought Watchmen was too long.

I mean the creators came right out and said that a director's cut is forthcoming. They told everyone ahead of time so they'd have the option of not paying one cent to support the theatrical cut. What else do you guys want?

This is all hilarious to me because 20 years ago nerds were bitching about comic books not getting representation in film form. Now we're getting smart, well-made film adaptations of some great works, and the same nerds are shitting their pants because those adaptations don't take the exact form that they envisioned.

Sounds pretty much like ALL book-to-film adaptations.

 

[SouthtownKid]

Sounds pretty much like ALL book-to-film adaptations.

That's what I spent a page trying to say. Don't expect them to listen; they don't want to hear it.

 

[Hot Chocolate]

Love the comic, love the movie. Sure the whole Doc Manhatten thing in the end was a ? but I took it for what it was. Everyone pretty much pegged all the characters right with the exception of the chick playing Silk Specter II

 

[genjiglove]

Love the comic, love the movie. Sure the whole Doc Manhatten thing in the end was a ? but I took it for what it was. Everyone pretty much pegged all the characters right with the exception of the chick playing Silk Specter II

Yeah, I think the guy who played the Nite Owl was born for the role. He looks just like him.

 

[rarehero]

lollercoaster.
i've probably said enough in this thread already, but my last bit is that
this is probably the best adapted work from any written source I've seen on a scale
similar to the exorcist. i think it's kind of interesting that so many of you are
so critical of minor changes or ommissions. something that even follows this closely
to the original is pretty impressive.
in hollywood most directors follow storyboards religiously or some of them
loosly follow them. but there's always room for interpretation and creativity
and methods to tell the story coming from the actors or the crew that are
integrated into the movie.
the movie was a great adaption to the comics and for the people who haven't read the
comics and see the movie, then great; you'll get a chance to see a pretty deep movie
and then get to nitpick differences like the rest of these guys.
but anyways,
if you guys want something exactly like the comics then pull the stick from out of your ass
and just read the comics.
Love,

Uncle rare.

 

[thirdkind]

That's what I spent a page trying to say. Don't expect them to listen; they don't want to hear it.

Would you have a problem with a film adaptation of your comics?

Live action or animated, I'll let you choose.

 

[aria]

Saw it this afternoon.

This movie was a 7/10 if you've read the original comics (which I highly recommend before going in) and a 5/10 if you haven't.

I would probably score it lower if I hadn't read the series a few months ago. More to come later when I have time explain.

This was not a great adaption, merely good. There have been many, many better examples.

 

[tsukaesugi]

Moreso than the movie, I'm really looking forward to the animated series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

It does leave a bunch of stuff out from the original graphic novel though.

 

[SouthtownKid]

Would you have a problem with a film adaptation of your comics?

Live action or animated, I'll let you choose.

hell motherfucking no, I would not have a problem with it.



Yes, I would want to be involved in choosing the creative team. I mean, in an ideal world, I'd also want final script approval but that's not likely to happen. So barring that, as long as I could have approval over the choice of director (and let that director have power of final cut, if possible), I could then enjoy the movie as a product of that director.

No movie is ever going to be a book. No book is ever going to be a movie. Or a radio drama, or a painting, or a video game, or a tv show, or comic or whatever. While there is some overlap, all of those mediums have different strengths and weaknesses. People shouldn't expect one to be one of the others. They shouldn't even WANT that. What if Blade Runner was a perfect adaptation of the novel? Yeah, it's a great book, but the world would be missing one of the greatest movies ever made. As things are now, we have BOTH, which is the best of possible worlds.

Watchmen the movie SHOULDN'T BE Watchmen the comic. We still have the comic! Anyone can read it at any time if they want to experience that story. No movie is ever going to be a more pure 'Watchmen the comic' experience than Watchmen the comic. Fucking duh.

If, say... David Lynch were to direct a Dogby movie, that would be a dream come true for me. It would be vastly different than the comic, as he would no doubt filter it through his own worldview and focus on things that grab him. It wouldn't be my Dogby, it would be his Dogby, and I'd have a nearly 100% chance of enjoying it as a David Lynch movie no matter what he did to it.

So, long story marginally less long: As long as I could choose the director, I could then sit back and trust him/her to make his/her movie and not be trying to make my comic, which of course, I already made and which still exists.

 

[SML]

STK's comments about different media forms are especially relevant because Alan Moore himself says essentially the same thing in Writing for Comics.

 

[thirdkind]

So, long story marginally less long: As long as I could choose the director, I could then sit back and trust him/her to make his/her movie and not be trying to make my comic, which of course, I already made and which still exists.

ban plz

Lack of nerd rage makes you unsuitable for your industry and this forum.

 

[Marek]

Fair enough.

Saw it last night again. Fuck this movie. About the soundtrack, it's totally generic. Actually, that describes the movie too, for that matter. They took something special and dumbed it down to the point that anybody can like it. Generic.

I don't remember the Comedian assassinating Kennedy in the comic... Hmmm... I don't remember Ozymandias hanging out with fucking David Bowie at Studio 54 from the comic either. I do clearly remember the movie being 3 of the most boring hours of my life though, no thanks to the stupid ass unnecessary scenes.

It's well known that Alan Moore doesn't like his shit being adapted, but if I was him, I'd fucking murder Zack Snyder over this.

Considering what hollywood could have done to it you should be thanking your lucky stars.

You are forgetting that this story is an allegory. To me the Comedian and Moloch represent (among other things) the struggle between soldiers and the darker forces at work behind war itself. These people represent ideas and social constructs, so long as the grit and grime of their backstory is well represented then who gives a shit. Would it really have made you feel better if they mentioned Ozymandias's sexual preference in Rorshach's monologue?

The soundtrack is awesome because this is an age not unlike the Vietnam era. Those songs are still relevant and if you don't like them then too fucking bad. This movie is about inspiring people and challenging them to think. They preserved the philosophical aspect of the book.

This movie is anything but generic. You are just a sore fanboy. I bought the book in anticipation of the flick, so it's not like I've been waiting for this my whole adult life.

Think about what kind of impact this movie is going to have on normal Americans who just want to see some action and T&A? I'm still shocked it got made the way it did. Shocked in a good way

IMO all it needed was more Rorshach, more New Frontiersman, and less bare-assed Nite Owl.

 

[OmegaSaber]

The more I read this thread the more I think I'll enjoy the movie. I liked the book, but never understood the ZOMG!!-ness of it. Though I felt the same about DKR as well. I blame TV.

 

[ulasamosa]

having never read the comics I went into it just expecting a decent superhero flick. After seeing it all I can say is....meh. It was ok, to put it simply. The action that was there was very cool and stylized, however there just wasn't enough. The movie felt very slow to me and my interest kinda floated away at times. Would I watch it again though? probably.

 

[ferrarimanf355]

OMFG at the ending! WOW...

 

[-Hibikster-]

having never read the comics I went into it just expecting a decent superhero flick. After seeing it all I can say is....meh. It was ok, to put it simply. The action that was there was very cool and stylized, however there just wasn't enough. The movie felt very slow to me and my interest kinda floated away at times. Would I watch it again though? probably.

I got the same exact sentiments as you do. I never even heard of the comics, and only began to hear about the hype a few months before the movie was released. All these articles on Digg, plus things like "oh this is gonna be the most showed movie of all time", add the fact that we were there an hour early to watch it and the lineup was fucking huge, I was expecting an incredibly epic movie.

The movie was okay, nice scenes and a solid story, but I really think the overhype killed it for me...I was expecting way more than this.

 

[BigTinz]

Moreso than the movie, I'm really looking forward to the animated series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

It does leave a bunch of stuff out from the original graphic novel though.

LAWL

 

[DeadPixels]

Considering what hollywood could have done to it you should be thanking your lucky stars.

You are forgetting that this story is an allegory. To me the Comedian and Moloch represent (among other things) the struggle between soldiers and the darker forces at work behind war itself. These people represent ideas and social constructs, so long as the grit and grime of their backstory is well represented then who gives a shit. Would it really have made you feel better if they mentioned Ozymandias's sexual preference in Rorshach's monologue?

The soundtrack is awesome because this is an age not unlike the Vietnam era. Those songs are still relevant and if you don't like them then too fucking bad. This movie is about inspiring people and challenging them to think. They preserved the philosophical aspect of the book.

This movie is anything but generic. You are just a sore fanboy. I bought the book in anticipation of the flick, so it's not like I've been waiting for this my whole adult life.

Think about what kind of impact this movie is going to have on normal Americans who just want to see some action and T&A? I'm still shocked it got made the way it did. Shocked in a good way

IMO all it needed was more Rorshach, more New Frontiersman, and less bare-assed Nite Owl.

I agree with you on almost all of your points. However, I just can't be as forgiving. On it's own I feel the movie kept only marginally enough details to be called a remotely workable story, which, even if they can be made sense of, end up losing any kind of significance or urgency.

A good example of this, at least in my opinion, would be that in the book the feds are actively investigating Nite Owl for violating the Keane Act. During the scene in Archimedes where Silk Specter and Nite Owl decide to break Rorschach out of prison, the characters are dealing with going into the heart of a heavily guarded compound to nab up Rorschach despite being actively pursued by the law. In the film, this whole scheme comes off so low-impact. The time they spent showing our caped crusaders fucking could have at least been spent showing the agents getting ready to storm Danny's house. They take the time to mention the Keane Act, yet don't bother dealing with the way it directly impacts the characters in the book. Lame, especially considering they show Danny take the Archimedes out of the harbor yet forget to mention the whole reason it was down there is because the police had an APB out for the heroes.

And that's just one example. Like I mentioned earlier, leaving out the news stand vendor and the dude reading The Black Freighter (a great source of the books social commentary), Hollis Mason's murder, and a handful events just made the story lose so much impact.

 

[aria]

Okay, I have more time and I want to outline my opinion more. To start, let me say that this movie is not very good if you haven't read the comic, acceptable if you're at least familiar with the story, and good (but not great) if you've read the comic and actually know the story so you can fill in numerous blanks in a film that's already 2 hours and 40 minutes.

So here's my honest opinions, feel free to agree or pick them apart as you wish:

[No spoilers in these first few]

• The good news is director Zack Snyder ("visionary", LOL) doesn't do anything stupid, his 300-style slow/fast stuff is reserved for a few fights and action sequences that are passable; his direction here reminded me of Chris Columbus' work in the first Harry Potter film: keeping as close to the source material as he can and being guided by a fear of not offending fans.
• The bad news is Snyder can't actually direct actors very well; that translates into the following: actors are left to their own raw talent and, frankly, luck. I thought Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach), Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl II), Matt Frewer (Moloch) and Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhattan) were good to very good. I know people thought Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian) was excellent, but I felt he gave a performance that could've been even better if the director had guiding him more; this was even more so for the actor playing Ozymandias, who looked like he'd been left on an island of no direction; a good director would've focused him and given him direction that would've made the character (and the ending) more powerful than it was.
• The real fiasco is with all the actresses... While he's apparently comfortable with half-naked guys or guys in spandex, Snyder does not know what to do with women. All three were terrible, but while the actresses playing Silk Spectre I and Janey Slater looked directionless and a bit 1-note, Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II was a total lightweight --a near disaster considering how pivotal they made her character. She's competent enough to carry most of the action scenes, but either she can't effectively emote or Snyder didn't offer her any realistic direction. Many of her lines sounded like a high schooler doing a read-through. Especially when things involved deeper emotions, she was unconvincing.
• The music ranged from great choices to terrible choices. I don't mean the quality of the songs; individually the soundtrack features a lot of great songs, the problem arises when they insert a song that's just too heavy-handed (or simply inexplicable) for the situation going on. A few transitions that could've used some more harmonious instrumental music get these jarring pop songs that completely muck up the transition. i.e. You don't follow a moment that's been set up as being dramatic and traumatic with a rock/pop song.
• The extra-crunchy violence actually detracted from the movie. In the comic, when the superheroes fight, they tend to punch people out and have classic comic-book fights where they manage to out-fight their opponents --this is juxtaposed by actions of Rorschach and The Comedian, who tend to go over-the-top in their violence, making them notable. In this version, everyone seems to have a propensity for giving horrific injuries and being super-strong. It was needless and kept two of the characters from being as powerful as they could've been if they'd kept it to the more "dark" characters.
• The sex scene on Archie was comically bad (that was an unintended pun): Not only was it like a parody of a movie sex scene (complete with hilariously heavy handed music... Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah"... really? LOL...) It made me realize that the producers may have been stuck with Malin Akerman because no self-respecting actress would've been willing to do that. The earlier scene with Dr. Manhattan was done the right way, I really don't know what they were thinking here. I guess the blame should be on Snyder for not knowing how to direct a scene like this.

[PROBABLE SPOILERS, AHOY]

• The script wasn't polished. Sure, it kept to the source fairly well, but there were some major logical gaps that weren't explained because, in rewriting the ending and changing things, someone forgot to explain (or accidentally cut) some helpful explanations. Best example: as readers of the comic know, Dr. Manhattan not only brought renewable energy before the time of the story (I had no major issue with it being turned into the ending) but he (or at least his influence) brought about radical breakthroughs in genetic engineering. They never mention that in the movie. So when you see Ozymandias' blue tiger, you either know the background from the book or you think "WTF is this doing here?" I heard some people in the theater giggle when they saw it, I can't blame them if they didn't know the context.
• You can use the same problem above for the inexplicable prevalence of airships --by removing the aspect of an already green society, their presence just seemed strange. Again, more giggles from the audience when the Gunga Diner balloon floated by Ozymandias's office. Who would know why the victory in Vietnam would lead to airships?
• Take the same issue above and Archie is also hard to explain in the movie's logic, other than Nite Owl's dad was apparently rich enough to allow his son to do incredibly ground-breaking research without anyone knowing.
• I actually thought they did a good job with redesigning Ozymandias' Antarctic lair... it was exactly what I would've pictured.
• While it wasn't in the book, I thought the added fight sequence in the prison also made sense. The problem was Nite Owl and Silk Spectre register absolutely no surprise that there's a FULL SCALE RIOT going on when they arrive. I'll cut the screenwriters some credit and assume/hope this the result of a cutting room decision.
• While the scene on Mars looked great, it seemed to really suffer from the cutting room floor --you have Dr. Manhattan telling Silk Spectre that he's going to show her amazing things, but it just cuts to the end of their conversation. This makes me want to see the Director's cut.
• Because of the movie length, the decision to basically cut all the side stories of people living in NYC out hurt the impact of the final Armageddon. Still, I can understand how this was difficult to avoid.
• They screenwriters should have stayed closer to Moore's portrayal of a Nixon who wasn't both inept and wary of starting nuclear Armageddon instead of an almost parody. Doesn't help that I saw Frank Langella's epic performance in Frost/Nixon last month...
• The opening titles were excellent... if you'd read the comics. Otherwise they were probably neat to watch but a little more confusing than they needed to be, especially since the book explains them clearer --and, in a vestige of the comic, Rorschach explains the title sequence in the movie at the same time he does in the comic. I thought they did a surprisingly good job with Silhouette at first, but then made the lesbian thing a bit too heavy-handed.
• It was nice to see almost all of The Comedian's story in the movie. Too bad they only touched on Hooded Justice, but I understand why it was too minor to really explain out.
• The new ending... I thought it worked, but it could've been handled better. The stuff about renewable energy needed to be smoothed over a little bit more, in that it seemed a little shoehorned when it might have been made more seamless. They did not do a good job explaining exactly how those extra units appeared in Moscow or other hostile cities. Also, the weak direction of Snyder kept the impact of Ozymandias's "30 minutes ago" from seeming as jaw-dropping as it could have been --especially in a movie! With all of that said, the framing of Dr. Manhattan was a good idea and worked well into his ending.
• The decision to have Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II apparently still living openly and fighting crime (in a mysteriously fine NYC) was needless and made it seem more stupid than necessary.
• I think the decision to not include the New Frontiersman until the very end was fine and did not hurt the movie.

[END SPOILERS]

So, on the whole, I still liked it and I want to see the Director's Cut.

 

[Ajax]

Snip

If you liked it, cool man. I didn't. I didn't ever mean to come across like a sore fanboy, but I firmly disagree that they preserved the philosophical implications of the book.

Also, I did mean to mention that most of the characters were cast really well. Rorschach and Nite Owl especially.