Watchmen

[MrHat]

It didn't flow like a film should.

How should a film flow?

I'm poor with words. 

[HaemishM]

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.

Yeah, that. Moral ambiguity is hard to swallow for most movie goers. People watch Dark Knight knowing there's likely to be a sequel to fix the dark ending - Watchmen requires people to make up their own ending beyond the movie's framework.

What's funny is that the audience and people I've talked to who haven't read the books loved Rorschach. Both he and Dr. Manhatten are the characters most like comic book archtypes - Rorschach is the ulitmate in uncompromising morality (and a sociopath as a result) and Mahatten is the aloof godlike ubermensch - and rather than being the characters the audience can empathize with least, it's the exact opposite. They love Rorschach BECAUSE he's a superhero icon they can wrap their minds around. And in this "imperfect" world, neither can survive, which is one of the strongest points of the story.

It doesn't hurt that Rorschach has the best lines and is a badass, and the blue guy is awesome looking as an iconic figure.

[DraconianOne]

I'm poor with words. 

It's a genuine question. You felt there was something wrong with the way film played out in comparison to other films and I'm curious to know what. Unless you're talking about trying to explain it.

[sidereal]

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.

I agree with MrHat on the flow.  It's because the movie was half flashbacks and the chronology of the flashbacks was inconsistent.  For example, the Dr Manhattan in Vietnam subplot was sprinkled through the whole movie in basically random order.  Flight of the Valkyries, then The Comedian shooting his baby mama, then the surrender of the Viet Cong, then Nixon asking Manhattan personally to intervene (or something like that order).  There were about 20 different threads like that and it took some work for someone who hadn't read the comic books to reassemble those threads in chronological order and they'd have to do it in the middle of a bunch of explosions and shit going on.

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.  But desensitizing kids to violence like that isn't worth the upside, which is what exactly?  Getting them to shut up for 3 hours?  And trying to avoid nightmares for your kids isn't about preserving your own sleep, you twat.

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!"

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.  And what the fuck with the list?  What list?  And I don't get how a supposedly mastermind midget can be all cocky with two big palookas (and eventually just one!) against a fucking superhero who'd just demonstrated he can beat the holy shit out of people on a whim.  That's just not plausible.  It's possible the first two are better explained in the books.  The last is just weak.

Edit:  Oh, I wouldn't let my kid watch palooka #1's arms getting sawed off either.  I think that covers it.

[Rishathra]

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. 

The thing is, he wasn't trying to kill the other Watchmen.  He offed the Comedian because he managed to find out what was going on, and people like Moloch and the scientists because in order for the fraud to work, he needed to have NO witnesses.  He orchestrated the hit on himself to deflect suspicion, and he did it after Dan gave him the heads up.  The whole "someone's knocking off costumed heroes" thing was simply the ravings of a sociopath.

[sidereal]

Aaahh, yes that makes more sense.  In the movie it's crammed into a little denouement monologue and you don't get any time to figure it out.  Seriously, it's the crux of the movie and Ozzy burns through it in like 30 seconds.  There's something about Nixon in there and you're like, um what?  Nixon?  List?  Cancer? Moloch's a what? Who?  BAM!  Next scene.

[Samwise]

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).

[Geki]

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).

since we're beyond spoilering...

Yeah I believe that was the list.  Also, I still don't like Rorschach getting it the way he did.  It didn't make sense in the comic and it didn't make sense in the movie either.  Nobody takes him seriously in either of his persona and suddenly he's worth bagging.  Not to mention he goes walking out of Ozy's place like he's going to stinking walk home or some shit.  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?

[tazelbain]

And Nixon was going to start WWIII over Afghanistan?

[Rasix]

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?

[sidereal]

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.

[Samwise]

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

[Geki]

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?

They were both stranded...  

[Samwise]

The ship wasn't busted.  Nite Owl said that it'd be fine, it just needed some time to melt the ice off (using the fuel from the flamethrower).  I figure Rorschach was going to hike back to it and fly back to civilization if nobody stopped him.  Of course, he knew he was going to be stopped, but his code compelled him to keep trying to do the "right thing" even if he knew it was futile.

[sidereal]

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

No, but he's a loon.  You'd do it for Nite Owl's sanity's sake.  Ideally, you'd say you were putting him in a beer-filled airbubble on Saturn, and then just forget the bubble and he secretly dies and everyone is happy.  Or if you're going to kill him, make him die in his sleep or something.  Gruesomely exploding him in front of Nite Owl's eyes is a bit unnecessarily brutal.  But yes, he has no understanding of human empathies because he's quantum yadda yadda.

[Merusk]

That takes human morality and a sensitivity to human suffering Manhattan lacked.  Thus his departure from the planet with little more than a "meh."  Yes, he felt things, which Ozy was able to use against him, but it was HIS OWN guilt, not human guilt, not human emotion. 

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. It's those of us who *didn't* read the comic.  Those who did think it's fantastic.  I found the movie too dense, trying to do too much and accomplishing too little of it well, including the superhero parts.  Then you add-in the difficulty you describe, trying to puzzle it all together at once and in such a rapid-fire pace.  It didn't stand-up as a good /film/ as a whole, but one missing significant parts.. even at 3h long.   Plus the whole thing is so damn wordy, which makes sense when you consider it IS a very dense, layered comic book on screen.

[tazelbain]

The opening montage left me thinking that Ozymandias was gay.

[sidereal]

People who are disappointed it isn't Citizen Kane are fucking confused.

Recheck who's disappointed.

Not in target audience of comment.

The opening montage left me thinking that Ozymandias was gay.

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.

[Hindenburg]

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

He understands human empathies. He just doesn't give a fuck.

[sidereal]

Nonsense.  He tried to talk Rorschach out of it so he wouldn't have to kill him.  Letting Nite Owl live is a risk, since he knew too.  Letting Ozzy live was a risk, because he knew too.  But he let them live.  He tried to stop Ozzy in the first place, even after he knew it wasn't armageddon.  He obviously has a conception of morality.  He blew him up instead of some other more complicated solution because it was a better OH SNAP plot point and the Rorschach-shaped blood pool was cool cinematography (slash comicotography).  They sacrificed some plausibility to get it.  Fine.  It's not necessary to retcon nerd-justifications for it.

[Soln]

And Veidt gets to rebuild humanity.  Yeah, that's moral.   

[DraconianOne]

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.

There is the part shortly before the fake assassination attempt on Veight where he tells the businessmen that he's not clever, he's stupid because he can't relate to people. Despite being human, he's almost more detached from humanity than Doc Manhattan is. I also don't think he had anything to do with Silhouette's murder.

[UnSub]

From memory, Silhouette's death isn't covered in any depth in the source other than she died in bed with her lover and it was messy. I always took it that they'd killed each other (or murder / suicide pact), but obviously the film shows a different version of messy. It makes me wonder if the Comedian had bumped them off too, or if it was the actions of criminals they'd fought.

Also not shown is that the Comedian killed Hooded Justice (the guy who kicked the crap out of him after the attempted rape). Again from memory in the book when the Comedian says, "This is what turns you on, isn't it?" Hooded Justice kinda goes, "No, what? ... really it doesn't" and stops (then turns around and tells Silk Spectre I to get up and stop being so weak, or something). I liked it better in the movie that 1) Hooded Justice keeps pounding the crap out of him and 2) Nite Owl I is ineffectually standing around behind them all, ready to try to help Spectre as best he can.

Veidt's sexuality is questioned in the source too. If he is modelling his life on Alexander the Great, then he might swing both ways. Irrelevant unless you really want to build a OMG HOMO ARYAN POSTER BOY IS THE BAD GUY YET AGAIN PROVING HWOOD HATES TEH GAYS case. 

[sidereal]

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.
I only thought they were laying Veidt's theoretical homosexuality on thick because in the sequence where he's in front of Studio 54 there's a cast of characters behind him and I picked up on the Village People and Bowie in full Ziggy Stardust mode before it cut away.  But other people on the Internets claim Jagger was in there, too.  So maybe there were just hamming up how glamorous and metro he was and it wasn't about his sexuality.

[Phire]

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.

All of this is in the Directors cut. They had to shorten the film to have it on IMAX. The directors cut will hit theaters in June.

[naum]

A coworker can't stop visiting everybody and informing them how awful and morbidly violent and gruesome Watchmen is, even though he gushed over how awesome 300 was (and tells me he views it again once a month or so…)… …I didn't think it was any more violent than 300 (or Kill Bill or $other…)… …nor did Mrs. Naum but she closes her eyes during them parts… …I think 300 had more beheadings, body skewerings, dismemberment, blood gushing volume, etc…but I guess it must be the emotional factor, like it's OK if it's on the battlefield, but not in the civilian-scape. Though the most shocking scene had to be what was implied — the dog/little girl remains…

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…

[Quinton]

Watched this yesterday evening and overall enjoyed it.  As a friend of mine points out, the director does not do subtle... a number of scenes could have been quite effective in a shorter form, but this guy will always drag it out longer if he can show some more violence and spurting blood.  Hell, the original was pretty violent too, but I think he just went over the top in places where it wasn't necessary.

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. 

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...

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!"

That has to qualify as one of my absolute favorite Roscach lines, and like almost every line of his, it's 1:1 with the book.

I think a bit of the disjointness of the movie comes from, at times, following the original format a little to exactly.  It could actually have stood to be fiddled with a bit more to flow better as a movie.  On the other hand, the fact that they captured almost all of the book in a 2.5 hour movie is pretty impressive.

[Samwise]

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

Have you considered that he might just be a bit thick?

[UnSub]

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.

It said "LESBIAN WHORES" written in their blood. I don't remember that panel from the source, only a reference to her messy death.

 - checked a wiki entry: she was clocked out by minor adversary. The scene was Snyder's invention based on that.

Mick Jagger and Ziggy Stardust were leaning on the car outside of Studio 54. The Village People were behind Ozy as he was having his picture taken. I took it as Ozy being a celebrity at the time and going to all the hot party spots.

[DraconianOne]

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…

I know a few people who never read the original but who loved the film. I did read the original - once, 15 years ago. I don't own a copy and I think I skipped most of the Black Freighter comic as I can't recall any details about that particular story. I thought the film was pretty good. By no means perfect but pretty good. I don't think there was anything wrong with the flow of the film either apart from one or two scenes where the pacing felt a little wrong and it could have been tightened up.

I think the film is going to have a similar effect on people as the original did all those years ago but in a different medium.  People will go to see it expecting a plot-driven action piece about superheroes and will get a character-driven piece with a noir-esque plot in the background and heroes or are not as conventional or recognisable as would be expected.  (By recognisable, I mean they don't fit the superhero archetype rather than people now knowing who these characters are). A couple of things amused me last night: when queuing up for tickets, a family was in front of me (two parents, three kids who were no older than 14) trying to get tickets but couldn't understand why they weren't being sold any. "But it's a superhero film? Why can't our children go and see it?" "It's 18 rated. Your children are too young." "But it's a superhero film..." A few people walked out of the screening as well obviously because they found it dull or long winded.

[Tannhauser]

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. 

[Geki]

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. 

I took that as some kind of demographic/marketing info for his toy line...


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)? 

[Riggswolfe]

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...

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.

[Riggswolfe]

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.)

[DraconianOne]

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.)

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.

I'm not getting involved in any discussion about ratings sytems, censorship or whether or not parents are right/wrong to take their kids to see it.  My comment above was just an observation that some people still equate superhero films with being for kids - not about them trying to get kids into an adult rated film.