f13.net

I've read the comic, but I didn't enjoy it as much as so many people apparently did, so I'm not really looking forward to the movie. I'm not into superhero comics 99% of the time though.

I've read the comic, but I didn't enjoy it as much as so many people apparently did

Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/hd/).
Teaser from Scream Awards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GUmgQHvqqc).

Making a new topic here for those who don't venture into the comic sub-forum (and who apparently can't be bothered with anything comic book related until it's turned into a box office dominating movie).

Since people reading this topic aren't as likely to have read the graphic novel, spoiler related discussions shall continue to go in the other topic.

Also your 2nd link no workie.

I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.

(and who apparently can't be bothered with anything comic book related until it's turned into a box office dominating movie).

Comic books are an ass format, and everytime I hear about them it seems like all the good characters were beaten to death years ago by the need to produce a new story every month for decades on end.

Killing them financially? I figured it'd be cheap to produce them.

Why would we want to be? I can put Iron Man in my DVD player, enjoy the story of Tony Stark building a ludicrously implausible suit of armor to whoop ass with, look forward to the next one coming out in theaters a year or whatever from now, and not have to know about, care about, or humor the existence of stories where Stark was kidnapped by space mutants from another dimension and turned into a teenager so he could travel back in time and save George Washington from the Incredible Hulk, or what the fuck ever. I can put in Batman Begins and not concern myself over how this interacts with the dyslexic transsexual Batman from Altername Earth #58 who was established in some sprawling nonsensical brand-wide crossover scheme to make everyone read every series in order to have any idea what the fuck is going on.

Comic books are an ass format, and everytime I hear about them it seems like all the good characters were beaten to death years ago by the need to produce a new story every month for decades on end.

The studios say it will be released as scheduled on March 6.

Important bit quoted so nobody else has to actually click the link.


 :drillf:

Yes, it’s long but yes it’s extremely faithful to the graphic novel, to the point that the sex and violence is almost HARSHER than I remember it being in the comic. Cleavers are embedded in heads, legs snapped in two, arms sawn off with circular saws. No punches are pulled.

Goddamnit, reading even one paragraph by Harry Knowles really just makes me want to stab him with 30 sporks.

I figure 30 will be enough to cover his ginormous head. The trident is for the rest of him.

movie clips (http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/10997/tcid/1)


I have to admit, I'm underwhelmed.

Wil Wheaton's spoiler free Watchmen review is here (http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/02/spoiler-alert-watchmen-is-fucking-awesome.html)


TL;DR version. It's the best comic to film adaptation ever.

That would be convincing if not for the minor matter that everything Wil Wheaton does or says is wrong.

Did you uhh... read any of the thread? Some of that stuff's been mentioned...

Really? do tell.

What's the predicted turnout for this thing?  I really want to see it, but I also really hate waiting in lines and large, obnoxious movie crowds.

Wait, it's out somewhere? I thought it was March 6th? Or did you mean "out" in the sense that I could just wait the next five days since I'm not likely going to hit a bookstore to by the graphic novel in that time anyway? :-)

I agree with gryeyes that someone whose grown up with comics that followed this might not be as impressed after seeing the movie. But the story can probably transcend the medium as well as others have (like has been said: how many ran out to buy Batman: Year One after seeing Begins? Or bought any Ironman graphic novel?).

Movies definitely generate additional interest but i dont think its significant.

And he has even't used a big name actor in any of his movies yet.

And he has even't used a big name actor in any of his movies yet.

That would be convincing if not for the minor matter that everything the Brits do or say is wrong.

Interesting post in a Watchmen thread.  :oh_i_see:

But yeah, the advice I'd give you is go to a matinee.  Even before I worked at a theater, I never understood why people are stuck in the habit of going in the evening and paying more for a worse experience.  Hell, the theater chain I work for is now doing $6 tickets (compared to the $10+ evening tickets) for the first showing of each movie every day, and I'd be surprised if other theater chains aren't doing comperable things.  Maybe you're stuck working Friday morning, so you can't see it on release day, but you just go whenever your next day off is.  No crowds, cheaper prices.

I'm paying about $40 a ticket so that I only have to sit in a cinema with people who are there to sit down and watch, not talk to their friends about how awesome last night's party was and hey, what just happened? Did that guy just shoot that other guy? Why'd he do that? Hang on, I've got a call. Hi. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, yeah.

Then again, it's $37 a ticket for Gold Class (http://www.greaterunion.com.au/goldclass/index.asp) vs $16 a ticket for regular and we have no such things as matinees or cheap movies. Best I can do is about $10, last I checked.

God I hate the theaters.  Why can't they just hire nightclub bouncers who want to crack skulls instead of skinny little high school kids for ushers?  Hell, I don't even see ushers in most shows I've been to recently.

Ahh, someone ran with my idea.  $37 a ticket is a bit steep though, I was thinking a little more stripped down and cheaper prices.  I was thinking, nice big seats, no babies or children, you get up to whatever and you are not coming back, enforced by roided out nightclub-style bouncers.

Ahh, someone ran with my idea.  $37 a ticket is a bit steep though, I was thinking a little more stripped down and cheaper prices.  I was thinking, nice big seats, no babies or children, you get up to whatever and you are not coming back, enforced by roided out nightclub-style bouncers.

Interesting post in a Watchmen thread.  :oh_i_see:

Showcase/ National Amusements have started building new theaters based around this idea as well.  http://www.nationalamusements.com/theatres/cinema_de_lux.asp

From what I remember, it's $20 more per ticket to do the DeLux thing.

The last time I was in a theater with people talking through the movie (mostly whooping and hollering encouragement to the characters on screen), I got up, walked over to where they were sitting, and sat down next to them.  This was in a mostly empty theater.

As soon as I got there, they all shut up, and pointedly avoided looking at me as I looked over at them with crazy eyes and a friendly smile on my face.

After a few seconds of making them squirm in silence, I said, "This is a pretty good movie, huh?"  The chief noisemaker said "yeah, man, it's awesome."

Another few seconds pass as I continue smiling and nod my head enthusiastically.  They continue trying to avoid eye contact.

"... shit, man, can you HEAR us down there?"

"...Yeah.  Yeah, I can."

"Aw, shit, man, we'll keep it down."

"Thanks."

I get up and go back to my seat.  Not a peep from them the rest of the movie.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Alan_Moore_%282%29.jpg/468px-Alan_Moore_%282%29.jpg)

Interview with Alan Moore @ Salon (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/03/05/alan_moore_q_a/index.html)

One question for those that have seen it: is the Rorschach dog killing scene in it? Wife has a thing about domestic animals getting killed (especially dogs for whatever reason).

Alan Moore's a wizard! :heart:

Why do a movie when you're just copying the comic to film and why should I pay $10 to see something that is ecxactly the same as the book I already own?

The violence was over the top of even the comic

and Ozy is miscast, at least from my remembrance of reading the comic book^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H graphic novel…

The whole movie over I had the feeling of somebody reading and showing the comic to me and thought that if I'd want that I wouldn't be sitting in a movie theater but would be reading the comic instead.

For the most part it's just a panel by panel reenacting of the comic. Even scene composition and dialogue being exactly as in the comic. Snyder only diverted from the graphic novel when the scene couldn't be done in excactly the same way as in the comic (e.g. backstory of the Watchmen). The only creative changes was the ending and some of the money shots (in the prison scene for example).

The movie felt a bit pointless to me. Why do a movie when you're just copying the comic to film and why should I pay $10 to see something that is ecxactly the same as the book I already own?

The fans will like it because it's 'just like in the book' but for me that is the biggest flaw of a very good production.

Perhaps I'm more comfortable with sex than others? It fit in nice with the rest of the film for me. Not awkward, not out of place, just another very adult and very human thing happening to 'super heroes' that aren't the Justice League.

It wasn't that they were naked, it was the o-faces, the music, and the owl ship ejaculating that put it over the top.

That opening sequence really was well done.  If the entire rest of the movie was shit it would have been worth it for that first bit alone.

In my mind, it was a fantastic execution. No, it wasn't perfect... there were a few bits that were left out that I'd have like to have seen (more of the prison shrink, the Hollis Mason death, a little more in-story time between Rorschach getting caught and the break out, the future prophecy through television that Ozy spouted at the end, and the kid and newsstand guy) but overall, a fantastic adaptation.

They skipped a couple of my favorite lines (when Manhatten is blowing up mob guys the narration says something like "The intrinsic value of my actions escapes me")

I'm pretty sure Hollis' death was filmed, but cut due to time contstraints (and will probably make it's way into the dvd releases).

40 minutes is being added into the DVD/Blu-Ray versions. Time to buy a catheter.

Or a remote with a pause button.

You gents honestly believe that this movie is capable of harming TEH CHILREN? Come on now, they were watching Predator back in the day, and Alien the day before that, and finding those movies COMPLETELY AWESOME at a tender age. Stop pretending to be supersensitive PC pricks.

Let's not forget that a major plotpoint is a child being chopped into pieces and fed to a dog. A child the age of the kid I saw and the ones that kaid saw.

it's because I know good and well that two face would give her nightmares.

The movie felt a bit pointless to me. Why do a movie when you're just copying the comic to film and why should I pay $10 to see something that is ecxactly the same as the book I already own?

The fans will like it because it's 'just like in the book' but for me that is the biggest flaw of a very good production.

Was gonna reply to that with "So?", but then the coin dropped and I realized that, well, your perspective is completely alien to my own, to the point where any attempt at debate would simply degenerate into someone eventually uttering "you don't understand because you're not a parent" which is pretty much paternal godwin, so, yeah. I'll recognize that being a parent is srs bzns and stop right here.

Alas
Are you implying that you don't let her see TDK simply because your don't wanna have your sleep perturbed?  :why_so_serious:

It's a different medium, you have to change how the material is presented.

Comics and movies are both very visual formats, and a lot of the visual composition work done to make a comic tell a story effectively can actually be translated right to the screen in some cases.  Shit, one of the early stages of most movies is coming up with a 'storyboard' that's basically the movie in comic form -- why do that all over when someone with a lot of talent for that sort of thing has already done it?  IMO Snyder deserves props for being one of the first directors to both recognize this and to make it work well.

Was gonna reply to that with "So?", but then the coin dropped and I realized that, well, your perspective is completely alien to my own, to the point where any attempt at debate would simply degenerate into someone eventually uttering "you don't understand because you're not a parent" which is pretty much paternal godwin, so, yeah. I'll recognize that being a parent is srs bzns and stop right here.

Are you implying that you don't let her see TDK simply because your don't wanna have your sleep perturbed?  :why_so_serious:

Ok. You have got to be just trolling with your responses. There is no way a rational person can be serious with, well, anything you've said.

Actually, it doesn't take being a parent to know when it's a bad idea to let a young child see a movie. It takes common sense.

Ok. You have got to be just trolling with your responses. There is no way a rational person can be serious with, well, anything you've said.

I think with the success of 300 and now what looks like Watchmen (haven't seen the numbers yet, but I had a hard time even getting a ticket for a goddamn matinee showing, so I think it's going to be profitable),

Yep.  Same reason I didn't like 300 or Sin City.  Okay, truthfully I just hate Frank Miller and think he's a hack.

What you said is true, though.  Too many of these comic movie guys are way too slavish to the book.  It's a different medium, you have to change how the material is presented.

I agree on Sin City. I thought it SUCKED donkey balls.
300 I thought was win. I just wish they had used more of Stephen Pressfield's Gates of Fire for the script though.

Mouthbreathers just aren't going to like the ending. I'd be surprised if it makes 100 mil.

There aren't any really clear heroes or villains; all of the main characters want to do the right thing, but none of them fully agree on what it is or how to do it.

I honestly expect word of mouth to kill 2nd and 3rd week returns on this movie, because of the ending if nothing else. Mouthbreathers just aren't going to like the ending. I'd be surprised if it makes 100 mil.

I liked it quite a bit, but the film seemed...off?

Maybe disjointed is the right word.  It didn't flow like a film should.

It didn't flow like a film should.

I think the moral ambiguity is more what Haemish was talking about.  As Ozy points out, by the end the heroes haven't really accomplished anything.  One of the central conflicts of the movie (the looming threat of nuclear war destroying the world) has been resolved, for now, but only because the "bad guy" won.  There aren't any really clear heroes or villains; all of the main characters want to do the right thing, but none of them fully agree on what it is or how to do it.

Heh. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/)

How should a film flow?

I think the moral ambiguity is more what Haemish was talking about.  As Ozy points out, by the end the heroes haven't really accomplished anything.  One of the central conflicts of the movie (the looming threat of nuclear war destroying the world) has been resolved, for now, but only because the "bad guy" won.  There aren't any really clear heroes or villains; all of the main characters want to do the right thing, but none of them fully agree on what it is or how to do it.

I'm poor with words. 

There were some plot holes, like (and I'm not going to give spoiler tags because if you've read this far in the thread without expecting to get spoilers you're lobotomized) I don't get why Ozzy was trying to kill off the other Watchmen since they were basically irrelevant to the goal of getting Manhattan out of the picture. 

I think "the list" the Comedian referred to was the list of people Ozy was using to get Manhattan to leave Earth (by arranging for them to get cancer and pin the blame on Manhattan).

Uh, you're out in the middle of *nowhere* in the arctic and your ship crashed remember?   Where the hell do you think you're going?

Do you think Nite Owl was just going to leave him there or something?

Really, knowing Rorschach, do you think he'd have preferred that?

Saw it in IMAX last night.  Great movie.  People who are disappointed it isn't Citizen Kane are fucking confused.  It's a comic book movie.  Maybe because the originals felt like Crime and Punishment when you were 12 years old because they were so DEEP compared to The Amazing Spider Man.  Your standards are off.

Recheck who's disappointed.

The opening montage left me thinking that Ozymandias was gay.

he has no understanding of human empathies because he's quantum yadda yadda.

Yes, I actually think they kind of layed it on thick.  But then it never came up again in the movie, so I stopped trying to piece it in.  Silhouette's murder for being a lesbian made him a little more misanthropic, leading to the plot?  I dunno.  Otherwise, it just seemed random.

No, it wasn't perfect... there were a few bits that were left out that I'd have like to have seen (more of the prison shrink, the Hollis Mason death, a little more in-story time between Rorschach getting caught and the break out, the future prophecy through television that Ozy spouted at the end, and the kid and newsstand guy) but overall, a fantastic adaptation.

I wouldn't take a kid to it, specifically because of Rorschach's interaction with the kidnapper.  Specifically: the dogs fighting over the girl's meaty leg bone and the repeated cleaver to the head.  If they covered their eyes for that, the rest of the movie would be fine. 

Rorschach was absolutely the best written character.  His rants about liberals had just enough authentic wingnut in them to ground him in reality.  "You still don't get it.  I'm not locked in here with you.  You're locked in here WITH ME!"

he gushed over how awesome 300 was (and tells me he views it again once a month or so…)…

... said he was lost and didn't get the point of the story

In the scene where she's shown dead in bed there's something like 'Lesbians Must Die' written on the wall behind her.  Also, Rorschach brings it up later in full wingnut mode. . something about her being punished for being deviant.

Although I lent him my book he never read it, so maybe it true that the movie just won't connect with anyone who hasn't read it. He said he was lost and didn't get the point of the story, it just seemed like bouts of senseless violence from begin to end…

Maybe it is as Moore deemed it, "unfilmable"… …don't know what could have been done better as the film did faithfully attempt to capture the pictoral presentation just as originally presented…

Well Adrian did have a folder on his desktop labelled "Boys".

But I don't think homosexuality is that big a theme in the movie. 

This was one of a couple small changes from the book that I thought was kinda odd.  In the original, Rorschach handcuffs the killer to a pipe, leaves him a hacksaw, and sets the place on fire...

Also, if I'm not mistaken isn't the movie rated R?  That means that nobody under 17 can attend without a parent or guardian.  So why exactly didn't they let the parent bring their kids in (even if it might not have been a good choice)? 

He said 18 rated. Maybe he's in Australia where it's a bit tighter on stuff like that? (I don't honestly know where Draconian is from.)

(I don't honestly know where Draconian is from.)

UK. Australia has it rated as an MA15+ (Mature Accompanied. This category is legally restricted in that children under 15 cannot see "MA" films or rent them on video unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian) 18 in UK means that people under 18 can't see the film in a cinema or rent/buy on dvd.

Honestly, my assumption is that the change was made because that kind of killing is basically a stereotype for crazy badass these days. On the other hand, seeing him go crazy on the guy with a hacksaw was very effective at showing how he snapped.

I thought an essentially omnipotent being could come up with a better solution.  Like trap him on Saturn in a permanent air bubble with a satellite television and a bag of holding of beer.

This omnipotent being cared as little for one human life as for 15 million. Why bother taking the effort to trap him when killing him has the same moral impact to Manhatten as killing an ant?

Do what?  Maybe he was screaming for him to DO [TELEPORTING ME TO SATURN WITH INIFINIBEER]!

So there's going to be a mondo 4-hour cut that includes all the Black Freighter stuff integrated into the movie the way it was in the comic?  Holy  :drill:.

Snyder is fucking hardcore.  When they made the Constantine movie they couldn't even bother to keep him British.

but I did facepalm at the ejaculating ship (true to the source or no).

I thought Australia because my impression was they tend to be a bit more restrictive on stuff like this than the US or UK.

with the ejaculating ship ending the "how superheroes would have sex" self-parody

Also in the comic Rorschach was purposely drawn to look ugly and deranged and by the end he came off as a pathetic loser with weird emotional issues rather than a bad-ass.

Except that they aren't superheroes.

Having never read the comic, I admit to coming to the conclusion that they were all superhumans (if not super heroes).

I'd be amazed if Rorschach comes off as anything other than some angry ass-kicker. Hollywood is good at certain things; introspection is not one of them

Do what?  Maybe he was screaming for him to DO [TELEPORTING ME TO SATURN WITH INIFINIBEER]!

This is an unresolvable dispute.  Either you find his sudden, brutal explosion of a long-time companion plausible or you don't.  I don't.  I can live with it.  You can't convince me it's plausible and clearly I can't suddenly unconvince other people.

Myself in 2007:


(breaks arm patting self on back)

People that thought they were super heroes weren't paying attention. At best throughout the entire thing they just seemed like people that knew how to fight.  Well, except for Ozy's super jump and disproportionate strength.  That was a bit over the top.

I suppose if you go in knowing they're just human, that's all you see.

Why would the average movie-goer go into a superhero movie thinking they're just humans?

The only people who see this movie and enjoy it are people who like to look at large blue penis for two hours and condone rape. One of the "heroes" actually rapes another "hero", the same guy blows out the brains of the woman who is carrying his baby, and you get to see the chewed up leg of a 6 year old girl who was kidnapped raped and murdered. The plot is almost nonexistent and the guy who plays Nixon looks retarded. Whoever gave the "go-ahead" on this movie should be shot.

You see that not all superheroes are always good, but some kill for the greater good, especially, Rorschach who maliciously uses a meat cleaver to kill a child killer.

I am still not really clear on what the superpowers of the mysterious Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) and innate good guy Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson)up to now
...
Overall, it was a good enough introduction to the ultra-violent world of the Watchmen for the uninitiated. But this movie is not really for everybody. The younger male demographic is definitely the target audience, despite the overt frontal exposures of Mr. Manhattan. As far as graphic novels go, I still prefer "Sin City" and "300". I have to confess that the violence content of "Watchmen" went a bit beyond my comfort limit.

The movie is basically about it being justifiable to slaughter MILLIONS of innocent people based off of fear of an event that MIGHT happen. Imagine if someone had actually done what the movie does considering how we know the Cold War turned out. It is the style of thinking this movie promotes that allows us to morally justify genocide.

This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Absolutely no plot. Well, a parody of plot exists, but it is such a messed up theory that it is repulsing

There was no followable plot. There was no action. You don't care about any of the characters in it. The movie is filled with a lot of details that have no connection to the story. There is gratuitous violence that has no purpose and does nothing to help support what the director is trying to get across. On top of that, the movie is similar to a vast chasm of boring.

While "Watchmen" is a humanist story about the various aspects of human soul, Zack Snyder is an expert on gore, style, visuals ("Sin City") and raising the testosterone of viewers to illegal levels ("300″). He is not, however, someone who can give a soul to comics heroes.

Zack did everything he could, but it just isn't his kind of movie. Despite the "comixie" appearance, "Watchmen" should be done by a director who excels in moving the audience, not one who excels in exciting them. Instead of Zack Snyder, Sam Raimi or Bryan Singer, this movie should've been directed by Todd Solondz or Darren Aronofsky.

But worse it doesn't just try to be gratuitous violence married with the most vulgar and cliché adolescent pornography---the sickening part is that it comports itself as a profound reflection on mankind. As if all that was done was justified by some shoddy mythological and not even arcane historical references and inane attempt at a discussion on Deism. The most trenchantly ironic part of the film is its attempt to critique the violence and repulsive aspects of human nature but then perpetuates it by tainting the minds of anyone who watched with its filth.

Having never read the comic, I admit to coming to the conclusion that they were all superhumans (if not super heroes). I just figured they were all generic MA/SR scrappers or something. It is never made clear that they are normal in any way, shape or form.

the movie intentionally does not.

Why are you so fixated on this?  They had to make cuts;  the movie was already almost 3 hours long.  Are you saying they edited the movie specifically to give the impression that they had super powers?

Why do you say 'impression'?

The characters in the movie had superpowers.  Maybe they don't in the comic, but if not then the movie departed.  Because the characters in the movie had superpowers.  I watched them exhibiting superpowers for three hours.  Superpowers: they had them.

Jesus Christ.  If you define the ability to catch a bullet without having it go more than half an inch into your hand or the ability to jump from the third story of a building and land on the concrete sidewalk without skipping a beat as 'not superpowers' then yes they didn't have superpowers.  But you haven't proven anything, you're just playing semantic games. 

Edit2: It amazes me how many of the IMDB reviews come from people who have read the comic. Probably 80%+. Damn the internet is full of nerds!

The problem with the movie is, nobody is really sure what the point of it all was.  You just can't fit that much into a movie, even a really fucking long one.  So none of the themes really stick with anyone when they leave the theater.  You get the idea that nuclear war and/or a godlike being renders regular masks obsolete.  You get the idea that they are all fucked up in the head.  You get the idea that everyday man is a monster. etc etc but without reading the book you'd be hard pressed to see what the fuss is about.  Instead it comes off as a very pretty stylistic half telling of a scatterbrained story.  Which I still say is a goddamn triumph because I was certain this film would fail so hard.

Instead it comes off as a very pretty stylistic half telling of a scatterbrained story.

Because Batman and Iron Man were two huge blockbuster superhero movies that came out last Summer, and both of those characters are just human?

They didn't have superpowers any more so than the characters in 300 (or characters in about a million action movies for that matter).

Comparing Watchmen to the slow-mo-to-fast-mo violence porn homoerotic escapism of 300 says a lot.

Why are you so fixated on this?  They had to make cuts;  the movie was already almost 3 hours long.  Are you saying they edited the movie specifically to give the impression that they had super powers?

Pretty good summary, imo. Though you forgot to mention it was long.

Moore deliberately wrote the story to be ambiguous in a lot of ways. It was the ultimate superhero fan tweaker story. You're supposed to come away from the theater unsettled about these supposed heroes. They aren't goodie two-shoes people who gift-wrap muggers for the police, they break limbs, they kill motherfuckers, they BURN POLICEMEN'S FACES OFF WITH HOMEMADE FLAMETHROWERS. The most normal and "everyman" type of character in the thing, Nite-Owl, has a fucking HOVERSHIP in his basement, for fuck's sake. These aren't normal people and the viewer should feel ultimately uneasy about cheering for or empathizing with any of them when they leave the theater. It's one of those movies/stories that's meant to make you reconsider your views on this sort of story. That's why I predicted (and it appears rightly so) that the second week returns would drop significantly - word of mouth will have a lot of people with little intellectual curiousity feeling let down. It's not unfilmable, it's just that most movie audiences are completely unwilling to accept a movie that doesn't wrap everything up in neat little bows.

Saw this last night, enjoyed it. Much better than 300 or Sin City.

3 Hours of Meh, a blue schlong thrown in to spice it up.  I admit I never read the graphic novel, and mostly won't pick it up after the movie.  It wasn't horrible, but not what I was hoping.  The Comedian had potential.


Your Man-Card has been officially revoked.

Your Man-Card has been officially revoked.

300 is one of the worst movies ever made. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it, but that doesn't discount the fact that it is all-over awful.

Anyone seen that 300 spoof? Meet the Spartans..  :grin: It's actually kind of funny for the first 45 mins or so.

Tri, I am not one of those people who reflexively calls you a retard every time you post.

Tri, I am not one of those people who reflexively calls you a retard every time you post. But that was a retarded post.

Because he enjoyed a movie with a plot over a homoerotic extended battle scene masquerading as a movie?

Yes, i was rather disappointed in the unrealistic nature of the movie also. Its almost as if it was a mythic tale told around a campfire or something.

Maybe it brought out your homoerotic nature...after watching it myself, I felt like doing something manly like chewing glass or punching a bull in the face. It was much more interesting and action-packed than the 3-hour snoozefest called Watchmen.  The box-office apparently agrees....but time will tell on that front.

It was a fun romp

without reading the book you'd be hard pressed to see what the fuss is about.  Instead it comes off as a very pretty stylistic half telling of a scatterbrained story.

Owl Bear

Fucking, post, eaten... Anyway. Saw the movie as a non-reader of the comic.

What I enjoyed most, and the main thing I took away, was the humanizing of the "superheros". Like when Nite Owl snapped at Rorschach and their resulting dopey, but very human, reconciliation. Also, not getting the whole "THESE GUYS ARE ALL TOTAL PSYCHOPATHS!" angle, I simply assumed that Nite Owl was an older guy and "getting it up" took a bit longer then he might like. i.e. flawed world, with flawed heroes.

As for the overall plot, Hoax summed it up best I believe.

The movie simply moved too quickly and erratically for me to piece things together before the big reveal. Oh hai, Ozymandias is the villian, big surprise. After the movie was over I thought about further analysis into it's deeper meanings, and said fuck it, it's a movie.

Fight scenes were over the top, but well done. In contrast, I watched The Quantum of Solace on DVD the night after and the erratic, ADD like cutting every half second during every fight or chase scene pissed me off to no end.

Enjoyed the movie as a whole, even if I missed out on the moral of the story. 4/5
/review

On the whole human vs superhuman debate. When I saw The Comedian punch through the wall I assumed for the rest of the movie that he, and likely the rest of the ensemble, had limited, above human abilities, further confirmed when it was mentioned by one of the characters that Ozymandias could catch a bullet or defeat all of them at once, i.e. he was a speedster. And when you say "catch a bullet" I take it to mean like, oh look, someone shot at me/my friend and having heard the shot I will now intercept the bullet, not, oh look, I happen to have prepositioned (just put fucking Kevlar on your palms) my hand between the gun and myself.
In the movie it looked like he saw that he was about to be shot and moved his hand to block the bullet, likely BEFORE it was fired. Which, is a believable action for a quick thinker who knows his hands are (if he's not stupid) Kevlar plated, and that he is about to be shot. But not what I would call "catching a bullet".
Also, to complete the nerdfest, you would think Ozymandias would put some armor plating in his crazy outfit in either case. Making the whole thing mostly moot.

tl;dr The movie made them appear to have limited superpowers and offered nothing to refute that impression.

It is not terribly surprising that Zach Synder's film adaptation of Alan Moore's "unfilmable" graphic novel Watchmen is receiving a mixed critical review.  The film's subject material is intense and uncomfortable, and at nearly three hours long it is not afraid to make significant demands of its viewers.  Watchmen directly asks what no other superhero movie has ever had the courage or audacity to posit:  Is society actually worth saving?  In this sense Watchmen is not just about the flawed psychologies of its costumed adventurers; it is perhaps the first superhero movie to take the concept of universal sin seriously.
 
The traditional superhero film employs a formulaic template:  Evil threatens the established social order until good intervenes.  The roles of good and evil are clearly and easily defined.  This simple narrative structure is built on two premises that, until recently, have gone unchallenged in the genre.  The first is the unambiguous coupling of the hero with the moral good and the villain with moral evil.  Films like last year's Ironman and, even more directly, The Dark Knight pushed against this premise and thrust the hero/villain relationship into a much more complicated world of moral ambiguity.  The second premise, though, has until now remained virtually unassailable, and it is this element that makes Watchmen so interesting and so difficult to digest.  The second premise is that society is worth saving, that the social order under threat is worthy of salvation.
 
In most previous superhero films the desire to uphold the social order is simply taken as a given - society is good and it must be saved from the threat of evil.  But in Watchmen the immediate crisis of mutually assured nuclear destruction is not caused by one discreet individual; there is no named villain.  Instead, the threat is posed by the morally bankrupt social order itself.  Evil is not external to the social order; it is characteristic of it.  As Watchmen member Rorschach states, "The world will look up and shout 'Save us!'... And I'll whisper 'No.'"
 
Even The Dark Knight, for all its stylized noir leanings, could not commit itself to such a radical vision of human sinfulness.  This is made clear towards the film's conclusion, when the Joker plants explosive devices aboard two separate ferries.  The Joker provides each boat with the detonation device for the other's bomb.  The first boat to trigger the device will kill the passengers of the other boat, with the assurance that the Joker will spare their lives.  If neither boat acts the Joker promises to detonate both bombs, killing all passengers.  After some tense moments the passengers on both boats take the moral high ground; they are willing to sacrifice their own lives to avoid murder.  In The Dark Knight the social order is capable of generating its own redemptive moment when given the opportunity.  Conversely, in Watchmen society is wholly incapable of such self-redemption, to the point that salvation must be violently inflicted upon them by external force.

The more this gets analyzed the more I dislike it.  At least with 300, we can all agree that it is a mythical recreation of of a real event.  With Watchmen, there is way too many wankers who think this bullshit terrorism fantasy is relevant to the real world.

Also, on the silly nitpick side - in the prison breakout scene, Silke Spectre's boots have no heels (I paid attention, having always wondered how comic heroines fight in stilleto heels). Next non fight scene she appears in, they do.

The more this gets analyzed the more I dislike it.  At least with 300, we can all agree that it is a mythical recreation of of a real event.  With Watchmen, there is way too many wankers who think this bullshit terrorism fantasy is relevant to the real world.

When Alan Moore wrote it back in the 80's it was relevant.  The Nixon stuff did feel dated to me now as well as Soviet Russia though.

A big problem I had in watching this was that it often felt like an alternate history lesson that I already knew the outcome of. For that reason, as films, I think "V for Vendetta" was a better adaptation. Of course, I know lots of people hated "V for Vendetta" for daring to update the source.

It was like watching a photocopy of something good.

The other 2, I don't remember their names, but maybe that was the point...Owl Bear and Silk Scarf or something?  Are they heroes because they were there and tried like heck to do something or other?

I bought the director's cut of this on DVD because I just had to have it.

It does add some stuff that I thought was needed (Death of Hollis Mason). Most of the stuff that was added was transitional scenes or scenes that explained things a little more, which should help explain a few things to the people who aren't as familiar with the comic as myself. It wasn't a night and day better edition, though. Based on what isn't in the director's cut, I'm thinking the ultimate edition with the Black Freighter stuff won't have a lot past the cartoon stuff anyway. Still disappointed they didn't spend more time in the prison talking about Rorschach.

In my view the best comic book conversion movie so far has been Iron Man

As someone who never read the comic I have to say much of the criticism for watchmen is undeserved.  The points of it not living up to the comic may in themselves be valid but as a movie and compared to 90% of the other crap hollywood throws at us, watchmen was really, really good. 

What I enjoyed the most is that it was able to correctly portray the heroes in the movie as more than just caricatures but as real people.  Some were good, bad or crazy but they all felt real and flawed.  To me that's when a superhero movie is good, not when the special effects are great or the villain is wtfawesome but when you believe in the actor when the mask comes off as well.

What I don't get is the hatred for Ozy's actor. Having read the comic, to me he did a fantastic job, and it was pretty clear by the end that Adrian despised what he had to do, but did it anyway because he saw no other alternative, and yet it seems that the general consensus about the actor was that Adrian was played way to effete.

OK I literally just watched it. I thought it was a very good adaption of the comic and also I thought a very enjoyable film. I don't get the hate on Ozy either, I thought the actor did a fantastic job. He did not come across as effeminate at all, just calculating in a self absorbed, aristocratic way.

One thing I am glad was cut was the Black freighter stuff, because aside from grossing you out I never understood what the hell was the point of it. Humanity is 1 step away from bieng an animal? That was put forward by Rorshach, and far more effectively. Doing it again just felt that they were banging that drum too much.

Do we ever see him without a shirt?

Seeing superheroes in supercostumes in Superman or Batman is one thing, but when you try to make them Real People, the costumes become just that more ludicrous. Night Owl espeically came across as a bored middle aged man playing superhero dress up. (Is that the point?  :oh_i_see:)

Never read the comic. Watched it and generally liked it.

Seeing superheroes in supercostumes in Superman or Batman is one thing, but when you try to make them Real People, the costumes become just that more ludicrous. Night Owl espeically came across as a bored middle aged man playing superhero dress up. (Is that the point?  :oh_i_see:)

And I like to think that about a year after the events of the ending, humanity slowly started eating itself up again, and when Dr. Manhattan doesn't show up to deliver spankings, are right back where they started.

And I like to think that about a year after the events of the ending, humanity slowly started eating itself up again, and when Dr. Manhattan doesn't show up to deliver spankings, are right back where they started.

But even the bullet-catching scene was more him being surprised it worked than being some arch invincible supervillian as that event was conveyed in the movie.

As for the soundtrack, I'm repeating myself. The soundtrack wasn't the director's choice. Alan Moore named each chapter after the lyrics of a song, and each of the songs in the movie's soundtrack is one of those songs.

He looked surprised in the movie too. And really, he doesn't come across as a supervillian at all. He definitely gives off a vibe of "I have to do what I have to do because no one else has the will!"

Does it have the Hollis Mason death scene? i was severely pissed that was left out of the original. 

Musta missed that. He looked villainish to me when that general guy was shot, but otherwise came across as sort of an effete pretty boy whereas in the comic it seemed more like he knew he was smarter than everyone else but it humbled him in a way.

Knowing there's a director's cut that Haemish thought improved things, I'll definitely watch it again.

Finally saw this last night. Despite not being a DC fan and some of the mask stuff is just sooo cheesy (again, not a DC fan!)...I totally got sucked into it and watched it beginning to end. Surprised by how well it was done. Not perfect, but definitely one of the best comic book adaptations imo. Rorschach was so cool when they took his mask, and the bit about the prisoners being locked in there with him.

I kept waiting for the young chick to betray everyone, her character seemed really shallow compared to the others.

I knew that going in.  It aged poorly.

Read the comic then saw the movie. At some point. I feel like I posted in this thread already can't find nuthin'.

Besides mild annoyance with just how close it was to the comic (including the framing), the only thing I didn't like was the casting and acting for Ozymandias. In the comic, the vibe I got was a really smart and friendly guy legitimately trying to do something good with a sort of child-like optimism and curiousity about the outcome and unlimited resources to make himself untouchable.

Maybe he subconsciously wanted to be found out.

Haley is apparently going to be Sinestro.

Written in 1984-85, published in '86, movie adapted almost verbatim from the original story. So yes, it is dated.

"Watchmen" could have said all similar points but been updated and more relevant. It would have made it a better film.

Yes, we should never set any movie in a historical setting ever, it's just too hard for audiences to relate to characters and situations that aren't occurring right now. I would even go so far as to say no movie should be watched five years after the making of it, burn all copies so we don't confuse the masses with thoughts and ideas beyond their own personal bubbles.

....what the hell does that even mean?

Haley is apparently going to be Sinestro.

It means that if you are making movie based on a dated source better make sure the source is something the modern audiences can relate to.  Watchmen fails at this.

I don't understand this.  So, no more movies about Ancient Rome because modern audiences don't relate to their lifestyles?  Or is it that there is some magical cut off date where we can't do period pieces too close to present day?  Should they cancel Mad Men because nobody today really associates their life with the corporate chauvinist lifestyle of the 60's?  Or is the line drawn at the 80's?

It was a story about the life of depressed retired hero's in a crazy made up alternate timeline, with the moral question of "Is it OK to kill a million people if it saves a Billion" thrown in.  I just don't see how anybody would relate less to that today than in the 80's.  Or even in 2050 for that matter.

Let me give a counter example, BSG.  Set in a time none of us lived in but regularly dealt with issues of our time and place.  Terrorism, Occupation, trying maintain ones values while under threat, etc.

I don't understand this.  So, no more movies about Ancient Rome because modern audiences don't relate to their lifestyles?  Or is it that there is some magical cut off date where we can't do period pieces too close to present day?  Should they cancel Mad Men because nobody today really associates their life with the corporate chauvinist lifestyle of the 60's?  Or is the line drawn at the 80's?

It was a story about the life of depressed retired hero's in a crazy made up alternate timeline, with the moral question of "Is it OK to kill a million people if it saves a Billion" thrown in.  I just don't see how anybody would relate less to that today than in the 80's.  Or even in 2050 for that matter.

Its a bit odd that people will watch completely fictional screenplays and that is fine, yet have one that involves Reagan era cold war background and everything falls to shit.  It's called willing suspension of disbelief, folks. 

After all, if Nixon is President in 1985 he can just as feasibly be President in 2008.

Its a bit odd that people will watch completely fictional screenplays and that is fine, yet have one that involves Reagan era cold war background and everything falls to shit.  It's called willing suspension of disbelief, folks. 

Was this even a major criticism of the movie?  I've only heard it from the few people on this board, nowhere else.  I've not heard a single person bitching about the movie being in the 80's.  Even all the people I know who didn't like it didn't care about that.  I still cannot even fathom this argument.

I still maintain that Watchmen wouldn't be nearly as interesting and fun to read/watch if it was set in post 9/11 America instead of Nixon hover-bike 80's dystopia.

:uhrr:

Which is to say, I agree with ghost.

Is there now an internet law that any discussion inevitably ends up in a discussion of LOTR?

Apparently.

There are so many movies coming out now that never would have been possible in the 80s.  CGI has made many things possible that just weren't before.  That is what makes Star Wars so ridiculous-  Lucas never seems to get the real credit he deserves for the special effects in those movies.

My opinion is that this movie would have been much more interesting in the 80s. They waited too long.

I haven't even seen Avatar, but I suspect that it would not be the same movie if all the aliens were played by guys in blue rubber suits.

Aside from being 14 years in the grave, you mean?

Although a movie that had Zombie President Nixon in it couldn't not be a hit.

My opinion is that this movie would have been much more interesting in the 80s. They waited too long.

More importantly, though, it seems that Dan DiDio, SVP-Executive Editor of DC, has made it his mission to realize not only a sequel series but also several prequels. Why? I suppose he’d say Why Not?

What? He gets a ton of credit for ILM. And then he went on with better technology and made some movies with amazing effects but forgot to hire actors.

I'll take creaky old midget-in-a-can R2 over flying supereffects R2 any fucking day.

Compare something like Jaws (realistic movement speeds, have to hint at things which is far more terrifying, actors actually have an object to interact with) to Deep Blue Sea (unrealistically fast and maneuverable sharks).  Or The Thing, where the physical effects are still disturbing.

Or Aliens.  That was all guys in rubber suits and camera tricks.

actors actually have an object to interact with

Lets speculate about the plot.

Doc Manhatten is drawn back to earth by his infinite love for whatshername and they have a moody teenage son that sparkles in the sunlight. He longs for a girl in his class but he cant dare kiss her because of his dark secret. In the meantime Rorschach's atoms infects everyone and turns into thousands of Rorschach clones and Night owl is forced to fight him to allow the guardian of reality to reset everything and save humanity from the war with the robots that Ozy invented.

Lets speculate about the plot.

Doc Manhatten is drawn back to earth by his infinite love for whatshername and they have a moody teenage son that sparkles in the sunlight. He longs for a girl in his class but he cant dare kiss her because of his dark secret. In the meantime Rorschach's atoms infects everyone and turns into thousands of Rorschach clones and Night owl is forced to fight him to allow the guardian of reality to reset everything and save humanity from the war with the robots that Ozy invented.

Hey yeah let's do sequels!

Hamlet II:  Back from the Dead

"Alas poor Yorwick, this time it's personal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_Are_Dead  :awesome_for_real:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_Are_Dead  :awesome_for_real:

I really need to watch that play one of these days. Along with waiting for Godot.

edit: Actually, as far as I know that is no pre/sequell per se, but rather the same story from a different perspective. Which I find interesting. Maybe just not with this particular movie.

I think you meant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_Are_Undead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_Are_Undead)

As it happens, I'm going to see this tonight.   :drill:

Nobody makes a big budget movie without franchise potential. The source material is just a springboard.

Having said that, there's no way they can make the right sequel without a new graphic novel done entirely for the comic audience and being left as a fringe cultural icon for 20 years :-)