Watchmen

[MrHat]

[grebo]

[cmlancas]

This thread took a real  turn.

I just want to point out that it's very, very clear that the "super" heroes don't have super powers.  Ozy is the only questionable one, if you want to try to make a case made up of fail.  To be honest with you, citing morons off of IMDB or your peers who thought they were going to see a superhero movie is very weak support.  They expected to see a movie full of superheroes, but instead saw a movie with one superhero, one man with super-human intelligence, and a whole gaggle of sociopaths.  I suppose the cognitive dissonance (to use the term loosely) was too much for them to handle.

Secondly, back at page 4, there was a comment about Rorshach and NiteOwl et al. being stuck in the Arctic.  Don't forget Manhattan can teleport people...

[Tannhauser]

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.

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.

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.

Ozy was Batman.  You are almost exactly right about him.  He worshipped Alexander and followed Alex's conquests across Asia.  He trained his mind and body to an incredible degree, so much so that he can catch a bullet IF he's aware of it.  He does it in the comic bare-handed. 

I was worried that the movie didn't do well and folks didn't like it and then I thought, 'So?'.  Watchmen was made into a very faithful adaptation of the book, I saw it and I will have the deluxe DVD.  I loved it and that's all that really matters.

[naum]

Is Anyone Really Watching Watchmen?

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.

[tazelbain]

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.

[lamaros]

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.

 

[Tale]

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.

Retractable Heel Technology (codename RedHoT).

[Chenghiz]

I don't think I would give credit to the director of the movie for Watchmen's content. Sure, it's edgy and all that shit, but that's Alan Moore, not Zach Snyder.

[shiznitz]

I finally saw this and was glad I did but I didn't get wowed.  Seeing the movie the first time was like seeing it the third time because it was too true to the graphic novel. Casting was fantastic and the imagery was fantastic. It might have down right sucked if I had waited for the DVD. Big screen for the win.

[angry.bob]

Sooooooo....

I finally watched this. I liked it a lot overall and thought the change to the ending was a good one. Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan were excellent in their roles. Music was good over all and the very best part was the opening credits.

[Tannhauser]

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.

P.S. You sound fat.

[UnSub]

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.

[Velorath]

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.

I don't care that V updated the source, but the update lacked any subtlety.

[Teleku]

Yeah, the change in story for V hurt it.  I was fine with them updating the material, but they did a shitty job.

Also, the ending was completely retarded and removed the entire fucking point of the Comic.  On the otherhand, it also removed the "All facist are sexual deviants" scenes that were everywhere in the Comic, so that was nice.

I think the best story would be a combo between the Movie and Comic.  As it is, I ended up hating the movie for the ending and couple other plot point changes.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I never read the comic myself and while I didn't dislike V I just felt it was lacking.  I think to me at least the biggest problem was that the protagonist were all "ra ra fight the power" but besides being fairly totalitarian I never got the sense that the government was truly evil.  Without a sufficient antagonist, the actions of V felt over the top and unnecessary.  I was expecting more of an orwellian nightmare coming into the movie and I got more of a republican wet dream.

[apocrypha]

Finally got to see this.

Thought it was mediocre at best unfortunately. Problem was it tried to be too exactly like the comics. Film and comics are different media and what works in one doesn't always work in the other. Trying to keep so much of the content made it overly long and far too rushed feeling and trying to emulate the framing and visual composition of the comics made the shots feel claustrophobic and artificial. Too many short takes and rapid cuts made it feel very disjointed.

The visual style was very well done and you've gotta be impressed with the attention to detail in copying the comics but as a film it failed - a case of not being able to see the wood for the trees imo. Plus I thought the acting was mostly very poor.

In my view the best comic book conversion movie so far has been Iron Man - it took the comics as a basis and made a good film that worked within the confines of the media. Watchmen was a very accurate copy of the comics but had no soul of its own. It was like watching a photocopy of something good.

[DraconianOne]

It was like watching a photocopy of something good.

This nails it for me. It's been bugging me for ages. I enjoyed Watchmen (especially on the big screen) but recently decided that it was more like "painting by numbers" than a standalone piece.

[stray]

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?

Those two just kind seemed like thrill seekers to me. And bored.

Anyways, all of the characters are super interesting.. I think that's still stands in the movie, and I liked it. And I'm glad it was 3 hours and time was put into getting into all of the character study stuff. I probably would have enjoyed it without the fluffy action sequences, but I'll take that too. I can't believe they got Kelly from the Bad News Bears to play Rorshach though. Where was the fucking dirtbike?  

[Lakov_Sanite]

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

[Evildrider]

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.

Ya the ultimate edition is only supposed to add the Black Freighter stuff into the movie itself.

[stray]

I guess I watched the director's cut. It was a BD disc/I haven't seen the theatrical version.

[Hoax]

I saw the director's cut on BluRay this week, it was awesome and I liked the stuff they added.  The movie already felt long and it certainly didn't feel any longer the 2nd time.  Good stuff, I do agree with both of these posts though.

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.

[Slyfeind]

Okay I just saw this, and it was the "director's cut," and I really really liked it.

It wasn't dark because Dark Is In, it was dark just because that was the story.

I liked the 80's perspective. I don't think this was intentional, but I thought it was a brilliant examination on how we feel that they felt in the 80's, and how we feel they portrayed fears and hopes in the 80's. It was looking at us looking at the 80's as a superhero story. "Oh look, Nixon is president in the 80's, how amazing that 80's people would find that jarring."

I seriously didn't think anybody had real superpowers. I just saw cinema action scenes. Even the bullet catching moment was just another James Bond Rambo thing. I found it most interesting that Dr. Manhattan wasn't really part of the team. He wasn't a superhero, he was a scientist with cosmic powers, and the superheroes (people without powers!) had to deal with him. Or he had to deal with the heroes. Whatever, everybody had to deal with each other.

I'm glad I didn't read the comic, and I'm surprised people say it was so faithful, because to me "faithful" means "mess," and this movie didn't feel like a mess. It felt like a good, solid movie.

[apocrypha]

I wish there was some way I could forget having read the comics and watch the movie with a completely fresh view, because it honestly sounds like the people who didn't read the comics enjoyed it more!

Maybe I'll get really drunk one night and watch it again 

[Slyfeind]

Woah, apparently the ending was changed, but Wikipedia says the same ending for both. Did the cinema release do it differently?

[Tannhauser]

Yes.

[Slyfeind]

Interesting. Good change. Both are good, but the movie ending is more movie-ish I think.

[Hindenburg]

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.

[Slyfeind]

Weird, I didn't get that either. I saw intellectual, entrepeneur, businessman, but not girly by any means. Certainly he was a different shade of "hero." Rorschach was short and gritty, while Ozymandias was slim and cold.

[Lakov_Sanite]

He was a tad foppish sure but I thought it fit well enough.  He seemed more aristocratic than effeminate to me though.

[Sir T]

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.

[Hindenburg]

The black freighter was a parable for Ozy.

[Threash]

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.

He was too skinny, thats all.  Hes supposed to be the epitome of human perfection achieved through training and he didn't look the part, i thought the actor did a nice job he just didn't look the part.