Slashdot Mirror
Watchmen Watched
In a blatant attempt to make my movie-going a valid business expense, I'm putting together some notes on Watchmen, and providing a place for you all to discuss it. The first thing I want to say is that I had high hopes: If you ask any serious comic book nerd what the most important book is, they will probably give you one of two answers, and "Watchmen" is the right one. So really Snyder, the director of 300, could only do wrong. Fortunately for me, he was very true to the book: just like 300, many sequences are shot-for-shot from the comics. Some stuff didn't make it, and the new ending has a different meaning to me (one that really isn't as satisfying, but is certainly cleaner). But what I can't say is if it was a good movie or not. I sorta wish I could get an impartial opinion of someone who isn't a nutty fan of the book to tell me how it stands as a movie. I imagine a bit slow, wordy and maybe a bit confusing in parts. I'll leave full reviews to others, but I enjoyed the picture and suspect you will too.
I went to see the midnight release in IMax and thought it was amazing. I was worried about the changed ending, but after seeing it, it works very well. The cinematography and choice of music was spot on and even though a lot of people bitched about the slow-mo fighting I thought it looked cool. Had one person with us who hadn't read the books and she thought the movie was "good" and she enjoyed it. I wouldn't call myself a huge fan by any stretch (the first time I read the comic was only a few months ago), but I did enjoy the comic and I think they did a good job on the movie. Oh, and yes I did go to work today, I'm just a bit tired now is all.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Have never read a single one of the comics, nor even read many comics in general, and I thought the movie was F#$%^^& awesome. Rorschach's lines felt kinda forced into the movie for the first 1/3 is the only complaint I can think of, but it didn't hurt the movie. Also although they do have sex scenes galore it felt like they belonged in the movie unlike most movies nowadays where they just suddenly go off plot for a gratuitous sex scene to help the movie sell. Although Dr. Manhattan didn't need to be showing off quite so much. [I saw it in the morning so I wouldn't have to deal with crowds, my work hours are flexible]
I agree totally. The original ending galvanized humanity into working together and would eventually lead them into space and exploration searching for a reason as to why this occurred. This new ending basically put the fear of a angry new god into them. I would rather we expanded into space to learn then to cower in fear of a vengeful god should I develop something he might not like me having. I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
So I'm reading some of the reviews/opinions about the movie, and I'm pleased to see that a lot of people seem to get the idea that most of these "superheroes" are just people in costumes. Night Owl has all the gadgets etc., but he doesn't really seem to have the temperament to be a hero. Plus, though he may have all the gadgets and everything, it's safe to say that the Owlship can fly for the same reason that the sky is full of dirigibles and people smoke weird cigarettes with bubbles at the end -- namely, because of Dr. Manhattan.
Dr. Manhattan, we are told, is the only one of the bunch with any superpowers. And, unfortunately for all the rest of the so-called superheroes, he has the ultimate superpower -- basically, control of time and space. Nobody else is ever going to match him. Might as well close the book. The catch, however, is that all this godlike power has made him (quite naturally) detached from humanity.
OK, that's all well and good so far. But I always thought that one of the major, MAJOR themes of the novel revolved around Ozymandias, and the reader's slowly-dawning realization that there might not be only one superhero in the world. There might be two.
Dr. Manhattan may be the world's only literal comic-book superhero, but Ozymandias represents more the Nietzschian "superman" -- a normal human being who has transformed himself into the ultimate that the human race can hope for. He's billed as "the smartest man on Earth," sure -- but the mere fact that he [REDACTED] shows that he's also one of the top physical specimens on Earth, too. That guy was one tough mofo! And by the end of the story, we see that Ozymandias really, actually can catch a bullet in his bare hand; it's no parlor trick.
So the ultimate question is: What does it mean to be a superman?
We've shown that it has distanced Dr. Manhattan from humanity. But it's easy to say "that's only natural, Dr. Manhattan really isn't human anymore," and maybe in fact he is redeemed at the end. But Ozymandias is human, yet his superiority over the rest of us seems to have isolated him in exactly the same way as Dr. Manhattan. Maybe he can't fly to Mars, but think of him sitting in that big chair at the bottom of the world with his cat for company, watching rows of television screens bringing him images of the decay of civilization. Think about what he decides to do about it. Is there humanity in his plan? Is he a hero? A villain? Does he find redemption?
Does the world need supermen? Is there even a place for them?
I always thought these were some of the major themes of Watchmen, but I rarely hear them discussed, and it's not clear to me whether they're represented in the movie. (Are they?)
Just thought I'd throw it out there to give us all something to waste time with on a Friday afternoon. Cheers!
Breakfast served all day!
It's rated R for a reason, and several plot summaries I've read use words like "dystopian" and "gritty" so it boggles the mind how so many people are upset the movie isn't "family friendly", like they somehow expect an R rated movie to have fluffy bunnies farting rainbows or something.
The problems with R ratings, is that they're "Adult supervision required", and are usually applied when only one of "graphic sex" "full frontal nudity" "realistic sadism" "exploding bloody messes" "attempted rape" "adult language" or "soft-core porn" exists. _All_ of these exist throughout Watchmen, so it really should have been rated NC-17 "No one under 17, ever". Parents routinely take kids to movies where only one or two of the above things exist because it's not too much trouble to explain to a 12 y/o: "we don't say those words in public" or "that's a bad man, and he'll go to jail". Extra bad: the "heroes" were doing all of the above, not the villains (except in rare cases).
This movie wasn't family-friendly for a lot of families of all-adults. It was not marketed as it should have been (as the gruesome and ugly story it is). Every trailer I saw looked nice; not quite fluffy bunnies farting rainbows, but maybe real, slightly dirty bunnies pooping real rabbit poop. It should have been marketed as vampire bunnies let loose in a movie theater, biting people's heads off. Then parents would know not to bring their kids.
The above was me being objective. The subjective-me is a fan of the book, so I liked the movie, but need to remember not to eat anything while watching it the second time. I agree with Taco that the alterations change the entire meaning of the story.
You know, I'm tired of bullshitting my way through life. I call them as I sees them. And that is a serious confession, coming from me.
The whole song and dance about Hollywood grinds my whole existance. I believe in making things. In combining things in non-obvious ways. My whole upbringing has thought me to further the cause. Whatever that may mean, btw.
Point is, I value 'creators'. If you happen to make something that doesn't already exist I'm all for it. Maybe you invent a new mathematical proof or algorithm, a new kind of music, or some practical application of science, you have my backing. Further the cause, and all that.
However, the brokers of stuff? The lawyers? The middle-men? No love for them at all. If it were my call, I would find a nice wall to put them against it. Not a popular view, I know.
Point is, we as mankind, are in this together. Find a way to cope as one, or face trouble. My tribe is the engineers, the makers, the original inventors. I think my tribe will prevail after all is said and done. Choose carefully, grasshopper.
The entire book is built off of the brain monster: it is a reference to Starro, the alien starfish that is the first villain the Justice League fights together, and symbolically it represents how Ozymandias's plan is to force the world to band together.
It's also the final and most important element of novel, which is the deconstruction of the superhero genre. The octopus punctuates that deconstruction and really says something clear about super heroes: The monster-of-the-week has appeared, and this time there is no last minute batman plan or newly developed superman power that can stop it. All of the heroes are gone. None of the heroes ever were heroes. Not to mention that Ozymandias, the real villain, has shown himself to be as much a part of the game as the others despite his claims to the contrary. His ends-justify-the-means attitude is just as arrogant as the other Watchmen's.
Understanding the octupus is really, really, important in terms of the book's literary value.