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.
SNAPE KILS DUMBL-
wait fuck, nevermind...
Never read the comics or books, Send me to see it on the /. dime and I will give you an opinion on how it was just as a movie. =P
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
You want replies from people who aren't huge fans, but you posted this before most people get off work today. Only a true fan would skip work/school to watch a movie.
I've not read the book (I just finished chapter 1), and I'm seeing it tonight at 9:30; if you still want the viewpoint of a non-obsessed fan, check back tomorrow for my reply to this post.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Where's the link to TFA?
.: Max Romantschuk
Graphic novel dilettante here, just curious. Sandman?
ceci n'est pas un sig.
I just saw the BBC review on their NEWS TV channel (review available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/review/7926222.stm), one word springs to mind: turkey
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I have not read the book, nor seen the movie. It was great! How's that for an untainted opinion?
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
Roger Ebert
In a blatant attempt to make my movie-going a valid business expense,...
To get reimbursed from the parent company, to increase Slashdot's losses or all the above?
I'm putting together some notes on Watchmen, and providing a place for you all to discuss it.
Where is this place you speak of? I don't see a link or anything...
Oh, wait...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Judging by the summary it might be 300 - not that I was aware that was ever a comic.
Alan Moore's Judge Dredd was a major part of my staple fiction diet during my youth. Those stories were dark, amusing, insightful, prophetic, and downright nasty and callous in places.
All in all excellent stuff, with some stories that still make me dig out my collection.
Yup, still got every one up in my loft, as bought from the newsagent each week as they came out.
Never read Watchment though, to be honest I hadn't heard of it till this movie. My main fascination is SF pulp from the fifties and sixties though, so I kind of hang out elsewhere in the SF biosphere.
How does it compare to Judge Dredd? (anyone who thinks I mean that godawful film needn't reply..)
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/
15 minutes of oblique tit vs. 45 minutes of full frontal blue dong. Feminism is out of control.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
They ditched the giant squid in the end and blamed everything on Dr. Manhattan instead. The people who made the movie claimed that part had the same effect as the book. Really that's nothing like the book, and it misses the whole point. Makes me wonder what mook decided that'd be a better ending than the original.
I have nothing compelling to say
I've seen a lot of book-to-movie attempts. Some are watchable, like Lord of the Rings. Some are not, like Dune. I can't help myself. I'm nitpicky. Occasionally very nitpicky.
But I'm keeping high hopes that The Watchmen will not be too far off the mark. Why you ask?
Because Kevin Smith liked it.
Let's face it - he's probably a bigger comic book geek than almost all of us. And if it passes muster with him, it may just be great.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Too much graphic sex and foul language.
I read the graphic novel one week and watched the Motion Comic before I saw the movie this morning at 12:00 AM. Here are a few notes:
a. The movie has a long runtime: Watchmen covers a lot of material. I think I left the theatre at 3:00 AM. Make sure you have the endurance to enjoy the entire film.
b. Watchmen can be confusing: The movie can be a bit of a challenge to follow if you are not familiar with the graphic novel. I had to explain parts of the movie to a friend who had never read the comic 10 times, namely information regarding the Minutemen and the Crimestoppers, and the differences between the two generations. The movie does a good job of giving a backstory, but it can be a lot to keep track of.
c. There's nudity. If you read the graphic novel, you know what to expect. Come in with a mature mindset, and you will do a good job. Come with a theatre of teenagers and you will get some silly snickers during some serious scenes. Anyone familiar with the comic should know which of thes I am refering to.
d. Careful if you watched the Watchmen Motion Comic: If your first experience was with the Watchmen Motion Comic, you may be disappointed at some parts. Namely because the WMC will have you expecting voices to be in a certain way. After reading the graphic novel, I watched the WMC and I associated the voice of Dr. Manhattan with my images of him. I was a bit upset hearing the voice actor for Manhattan. He did a good job on his performance, though.
e. Don't come into this expecting 300: This is a crime thriller, not a beat-em-up movie. Sure, it has some good violence and action if that's what one is looking for, however, the real meat and bones is in the storyline and how it deconstructs the superhero concept.
That's about it. They did as good of a job as was possible considering time, budget, and fanboy limitations.
That's about it...
To :"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
I would reply:
But it sure is satisfyingly final.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
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 am a non-fan (ducks). Over the years I have heard all the hype about how important it is, Time 100 Top Novels, etc. 2 weeks ago I bought it, read it, and then found the script for the movie on the 'net and read that too. I didn't like the book. In reality, it's not a book but just 12 comics pasted together with a bit of fluff inserted that really didn't have anything to do with the plot. The whole "Graphic Novel" thing just doesn't do it for me, I read comics as a kid, this is no different. The characters are weakly written, because of the format there is very little real information on a page (I especially remember the one page with 4 or 5 panels with only the words "Ahhhhhhh" or similar. The plot itself wasn't bad but the ending in the 'novel' was totally weak, and from what I read in the script should be very much better in the movie. The whole pirate subtext was awful. I would have been much happier without reading it. I understand that it's going to come out this summer in the extended DVD edition. Oh, and the whole manic depressive omnipotent mass murderer in love with a human was just ridiculous. Ok, now with all the bashing out of the way I'll say that I have high hopes for the movie as a visual implementation of the book, and must say that I think the book must be a perfect ready-built storyboard for the movie. From what I read Zach Snyder lived with a copy under his arm and so for once, mostly, the novelist and artist's vision are going to be implemented as they intended. So, yes, I will go see it, I'll probobly even like it, but I've given my copy of the book away. BTW, I'm not the only one that just isn't feeling it: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/popvox/archive/2009/03/04/don-t-believe-the-watchmen-hype-really-don-t.aspx
Ultimately, Watchmen was a faithful representation of the source material. You can read the book and base your opinion of whether or not you will enjoy the movie on your opinion of the book.
I found that the actors portraying Nite Owl II, Rorschach, and Dr. Manhattan were excellent in their roles. There were so many little atmospheric touches, I missed them all (looking through the credits, you'll see acknowledgments and thanks for use of clips from various shows and movies, I didn't see half of those in the movie itself).
My twitter
It's like there's nothing you can do about that joke. It's coming, and you just have to stand there.
was having high hopes.....
we all should know better by now....
The brain monster wasn't important, the reasoning behind it and Ozymandias' "ends justify the means" altitude is.
Very faithful except for the ending which is still faithful to the idea of the ending.
There were a few scenes in the first hour that were a little loose or slow. that's not it.
Here it is: The movie had a great sound track but a lousy score. The background "emotion" music (that made star wars great) was average. the sound track was the biggest change in the "feel" of the novel to me.
The characters were great except veigt was about 20 pounds too light imho.
There is a lot of stuff there for the fan which is meaningless to someone who hasn't read the comic first. It's not bad- it just doesn't connect emotionally because you see some secondary characters or scenes without the 30 panels of buildup you got in the comic.
Some things were the same as the comic but came across a LOT differently.
Never has so much swinging male private parts been on display. Much more impact when it's swinging around than on the printed page.
The sex scenes had a lot more impact and were more *real* than many sex scenes in many other movies. the awkwardness of it is frequently dropped from "hollywood reality". it was amazing. this added a lot ot the suspension of disbelief for the rest of the film.
The violence was extreme. In the panel, it's one thing-- on the screen- it's disturbing. This is not a kid's movie even if they edit out the nudity.
Was very satisfied- understood the edits and changes that were made. Recommend it- but you'll get more out of it if you read the graphic novel first.
And what is with hendrix being the new SF catch song...
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I've read it but asked a friend who hadn't read WATCHMEN to see the movie with me so we could review it. Our discussion is the video at the end of this review (the review focuses more on Alan Moore not wanting to see the movie than our different experiences watching it). http://r4nt.com/article/watchmen-the-what-is-alans-problem-review/ ...and the video itself can be found at either location (use blip for CC license)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY7fCCmUxs8
http://blip.tv/file/1844574/
In a nutshell he never read it, but he is a comic geek, and he loved it and is seeing it again today.
I HAD read the comic but don't consider myself a comic guy. I also loved it.
Certainly the most interesting Alan Moore adaptation yet. In terms of quality, to ME its the best, followed by FFROM HELL and V FOR VENDETTA.
He was never confused during the screening, and never felt anything was missing. Nor did I. Obviously stuff IS missing, and a longer version is coming. But it stands on its own as an excellent movie.
In general I loved the movie, excellent soundtrack, almost as good as the graphic novel.
3 Issues However:
1: Where was my squid
2: Because of the lack of squid, the comedian's finding out of Ozzys plan didn't work too well, it's not as clear as it is in the novel how he found out about it.
3: I felt Ozzy could have been fleshed out a lot more - they showed very little of his backstory or motivations.
I always wanted to see this one up on the screen. For those that don't know, Death was a recurring figure in Sandman.
I haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to see it as soon as I can. I was hoping this wouldn't get screwed up, and signs indicate that it hasn't.
The surest way to screw it up would have been to get Tim Burton or Paul Verhoeven to direct it; they don't seem to be able to make a movie based on a book without wanting to change things and put their own fingerprints on it. (I'd love to watch a Starship Troopers movie. Too bad we didn't actually get one.)
Everyone agrees that a perfect, 100% faithful adaptation is impossible, unless you do it as a miniseries that is around 12 hours long. The best we can hope for is that the screenwriter and director do a good job of streamlining the story and keeping the important parts intact. Kevin Smith says that this has been done.
I've read several reviews, and they illustrate how impossible it is to walk the tightrope. The movie keeps large chunks of the original dialog intact, and reviews have complained about dialog-heavy, boring long scenes. As a fan of Alan Moore's writing, I'm expecting that I will like or love these "boring" scenes. You can't please everyone.
I read an interview with the director, Zack Snyder. He said the movie studios pushed on him to cut some of the more shocking scenes, such as a rape, and a scene where a pregnant woman gets shot; but the scenes were important to the story, and he got them kept in. In the book, the alienation of Dr. Manhatten is shown visually in the way he stops bothering to wear clothes; this is kept as well. The pirate-themed side story would have made the movie too long... but they filmed it anyway and it will be available as its own feature on DVD.
I read that Zack Snyder gave each actor a copy of the graphic novel, and authorized them to edit their characters' dialog to more closely match the graphic novel. I have real hope that this movie will make me happy as a Watchmen fan.
P.S. Alan Moore is not happy with it, but as far as I can tell, he is automatically not happy with any attempt to turn his work into a movie. You could get Peter Jackson with an unlimited budget, and he still would not be happy. I read that they offered to have him help with the adaptation, but he declined. (Which makes perfect sense... that way he can complain about everything, and no one can say "well, you had the power to change that, why didn't you?")
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
'Watchmen': Bam! Pow! Whack! Zzzzzz . . .
Alan Moore did some work for 2000 A.D. (the magazine that featured Judge Dredd), some of it famous, but I'm not sure that he ever wrote a Judge Dredd story. Most of the famous Judge Dredd story arcs were written by Judge Dredd co-creator John Wagner.
Breakfast served all day!
I haven't see it yet, but I really liked the newstand sequences for the emotional pull to NYC, although in a post-9/11 world it may all too easy to absorb this tragedy in. And I never really saw a point for Doc Manhattan's Bluetooth dongle in the novel, I'd hoped he'd at least keep his briefs on for the film.
-=Bang Bang=-
http://io9.com/5165227/the-version-of-watchmen-the-studio-wanted
Great jumping cats! Someone made an animated "Saturday Morning Watchmen" cartoon and it is seriously funny. It's at the end of this article, but here's a direct link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Found this at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6zyRr3tmlU
Its what Watchmen would've looked like if it was turned into a cheesy cartoon...
Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
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!
Where I regularly go to lunch, said he freaking loved it. He had never read the graphic novel, and had only seen the previews on TV. To be honest, if Snyder's previous work is any indication, it's a crowd pleaser. Wordiness is really only an issue if you assume the public is so blatantly starved for attractions that they need movies to be just non-stop action scenes. Based on how many people who had never read the books got into the LOTR movies, I'd say the public is pretty damn tolerant of dialogue as long as there's a strong finish.
I saw it last night at midnight. I was vaguely familiar with the story of Watchmen from looking it up on Wikipedia before hand...but I had no idea what I was walking into.
To say it blew my mind would be an understatement. I walked out of that theater disgusted with humanity, but apathetic towards any attempt at making things better. Its like I'm pissed off at everyone but I don't care. Its a very, very weird feeling.
I feel the way I do, but that overwhelming sense of despair is coupled with a new appreciation for my child and wife. My wife has a disorder which doctors told her would make it 100% impossible for her to have kids...well we had a daughter. I've always found my daughter's existence to be the closest thing to a miracle I've seen in my life and the philosophies that dabble into the subject of life as a miracle only reaffirmed my adoration for her life and my wife.
This story has changed me. I cannot credit the movie for this, and I will read the book, but all the same I feel different from watching this...I saw a bit of myself in every character's good and bad points. I hate myself yet feel superior to my friends and colleagues. I have to go since I just peed my pants.
I thought it was well made. I honestly didn't feel the extended length of the film. It had that dark comedy that I am a fan of. If anything, there was a lot of schlong from the the blue captain planet guy but I guess that makes more sense than the Ken doll flat pelvis approach.
The fact that a "nutty fan of the book" isn't panning the movie (and even enjoyed it) is a pretty positive sign. Usually even great screen adaptations get slammed by die-hard fans (Lord of the Rings springs to mind).
No Sig for you!
In a blatant attempt to make my movie-going a valid business expense..
If you go to enough movies to make a dent in your tax bill, you need help! If you don't go to that many movies, but you still look for ways to deduct a $10 ticket, you really need help!
Possible spoiler about book: Ok, I have not seen it and really reluctant to. The ending is what got me really worried. The ending is supposed to be the WTF moment(not the generic and boring new one) where an alien attack takes place that forces everybody in the world to band together and set a aside their differences. Yes, the squid was stretching belief but the idea of aliens forcing humanity together is still sound. Now that we have Dr Manhattan as the one blamed, it changes it into an external force into an internal force. On top of that, the other countries would not band together but look at each other with even more suspicion, the most likely scenario it would band other countries against the U.S., since it was DR Manhattan who caused it. Also, taking out the bodies at the end of the book was stupid, don't give me that bullshit about 9/11 after all the other stuff put in the movie (nuclear cloud, rape, kids body..etc), Why do directors HAVE to fuck up the endings in otherwise great movie? I don't want to see a fantastic movie, just to have it be disappointed at the end.
(SPOILERS AHEAD -- but honestly, you knew that when you clicked on this article.)
I know it's controversial, but I liked the new ending better. It made more sense and related better to the earlier themes of the story (Dr. Manhattan as God) and didn't require the introduction of several new sci-fi elements right at the last minute (telepathy and genetic engineering). It was true to the idea of the original, but implemented in a more coherent way. I feel this was a pretty good change -- if Alan Moore had done it that way in the original, it probably would have been a slightly better story.
Heresy! I know, right? I can understand how some people have fond childhood memories of Watchmen and are justified in feeling that the ending was too great of a change. But I only read the book for the first time a few months ago, so I'm viewing Watchmen as just another story. In that sense, the movie stayed true to the original.
-- 77IM
Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
Master: Well, yes and no.
OK, OScar movies are out Dec to Feb and summer starts in May. The studios often put their dogs out inbetween. Nice to have something interesting to watch then.
It follows the spirit of the comic in a Hollywood package (read, can't possibly be identical). In some ways it's better - real people doing the same things is quite vivid and confrontational, thus the 'R'. The characters convey the same foibles and characteristics in much less 'time'. I like the revised ending... the alien thing seems a bit gratuitous to me anyway; at this point, we are meant to be left pondering the fact that Ozymandius is right, damnit!
The soundtrack rocks too. Make sure you see it in a decent theatre on a big screen with a honking sound system, so Jimm'y's All Along the Watchtower and Archie's thrusters can have full effect.
All in all, given there is an Director's Cut, extended edition with the comic book in a comic book coming, I'd almost be prepared to think this could grow into a cult film (not certain though). It's good enough to warrant watching the Watchmen again.
People hadnt pre-read it were confused. But I thought it was a decent abridgement. I thought the HP movies are better than the books.
And by the way, you sucker subscribers even paid for my popcorn and gas to drive to the theater.
Well, they also pay his rent, grocery bill, etc.
Why in the fuck would I give any weight to a review that can't even be bothered to get the title correct?
If these are the same dots I see, they are not anti-piracy... they're timing dots.
At the end of each reel two dots appear on screen, each only for a split second, exactly eight seconds apart. Their purpose is to aid the projectionist in switching reels. At the first dot you turn on the second projector (which you've already queued up to '8') and at the second dot you flip the switch that turns off the first projector and turns on the second, creating, if all goes well, a seamless transition.
It's true that most big theaters nowadays either use digital projectors or "Platter" systems (where all the reels are spliced together into one giant reel), rendering timing dots for the most part redundant, but they still seem to be added to the film masters to keep film "backwards compatible" with traditional two-projector theaters.
When I was first asked by a friend to read the novel, I reluctantly agreed to do so. "I'm just not into superheroes." was my tepid response. However, "TW" is more than a comic book or superheroes story. It's a gripping novel about how morality and power affects individuals. For me, this part of the story is paramount and the superhero aspect is just a vehicle to propel the story. In order to make the movie digestible to alpha-wave producing audiences, the movie is simplified and stripped of the philosophical nature of the original novel. What remains is an in-your-face cartoon that pales in comparison to the spirit and heart of the original story. That is the real sacrifice and what is missing in the film. I didn't hate this movie but I wanted to love it. Bottom line: The book transforms a cartoon into a great novel. This film transformed a great novel into a cartoon.
The first is my friend who went with me to watch it last night. He said during the intermission that he feels like he's walked into a sequel and was missing lots of information, to which I replied that the novel went just like this. After the movie he said he enjoyed it very much.
My other friend went with his wife and they both said that it was a movie you had to stay really focused and concentrated on to understand, but that they think it's one of the best comic-book-based movies they've seen in years.
I've read the novel and loved it, so my view doesn't count ;)
"Programming is life, the rest is mere details"
I'm really surprised by the comments here, because I haven't seen anyone mention the writing. What killed this movie for me was the dialog; by the end of the movie I was blushing in embarrassment at how bad some of it was. Anyone else feel this way? I found the first 20 minutes of the movie extremely compelling (the visuals, the aesthetic, the editing, the cinematography were all fantastic), but as it went on I grew less and less enthused. I followed the plot fine, and although I enjoyed the 'watchmen' universe, I found the plot line that was mainly present in the second half of the movie pretty poor, by movie standards. Another thing I haven't heard anyone mention negatively was the sex scene. I honestly couldn't tell if it was meant to be serious or not -- it seemed so over the top to me that I thought it might be a joke. Overall I give the movie a B+.
Well written, CmdrTaco. This is one of the best summaries I've read on Slashdot. It told me exactly what I wanted to know about the movie. You introduce yourself as an admitted comic-book geek, you discuss it's adherence to the original work, and you attempt to speculate on the perception of The Average Joe; no spoilers, no gushing. I can now enjoy my weekend terror-free and go watch this thing at my leisure.
I just watched it @ IMAX. I went with a friend that is a fan of it. We both agree that it's an awesome movie, although the the ending is a little light. I would recommend it to anyone I know except the die-hard anti-comix and anti-SF folks. But, they should just die anyway. The music was perfect and there's way too much depth in each scene to catch it all at one sitting. Now I'll buy the book. I'm ordering the DVD.
So I read the graphic novel recently, after hearing about it for years and then having the movie being created. I think the hype of the "Greatest Graphic Novel of All Time" sort of diminished the appeal for me. It was fine, and it may have been great in its day -- it gave superheroes faces and lives as opposed to making them archetypes.
But I started reading comics in the early 80s and was there when they went from adventurous to dark with people worrying about their next paycheck or their love life or the priest just shotgunned through the back of his confessional, etc.
So when I finally got around to reading the Watchmen, it was like the summary of a long-running soap opera series, with the occasional person in a funny costume. The trailers always surprised me as they showed explosions and running and fire...but really, the novel has very little of that. It would almost make more sense to just have a room of people standing around as the trailer, because that's what most of the book is.
To sum up, I wasn't blown away by the novel because of the hype and time I read it; I may be blown away by the movie because my expectations will be so low.
... Heinlein's nasty little fascist wet dream for what it was, and played it up so we wouldn't miss it. (Adolescent males with a poor grasp of history might not have caught it in the novel, but Verhoeven is a Dutchman whose country was occupied by those bastards... he KNEW.)
I piss off bigots.
I agree. I think the main points of interest are that the vigilantes realize that what they are doing is weird, and that there are no villains in tights. The justification for pretty much every other superhero franchise is "look, mean guy in tights and mask doing naughty things, I'll put on some funny clothes and kick his ass." In Watchmen once the mean guys stop wearing tights pretty much everyone else does, too, because they feel silly.
Of course Dr Manhattan doesn't have much choice (though he chooses to wear less and less clothing, and couldn't he just decide not to be blue?) and Roschach just likes hurting people.
Watchmen sort of goes one level beyond most other comics (Spiderman tries to figure out how to be happy when he HAS to be Spiderman, Superman sort of likewise, X-men same except more violent with rejection overtones...) in looking at motivation and having sort of reasonable self-images (Dirk Gently's rules apply, the impossible happens often, the ridiculously improbably is fishy; why do they do it?). Of course Ozymandias is way out there.
I'm in no rush to see the movie, though I did read the book because the movie came out.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
Not that I can't spare the few dimes to see this in the theater, but I'd rather download this one and see it in the comfort of my own home.
Preposterous! The only way to truly appreciate Dr. Manhattans' giant blue penis is to see it on a big screen.
You can't take the sky from me...
To combine the thoughts of posters above, Dune was an incredible movie on it's own. No "oh please" about what's missing or added relative to the book. Consider them two separate works of art. It is campy maybe, but that makes it more lovable.
King Kong was actually surprisingly good, delivering both action and emotion. When I heard it was in the works I thought that was one movie that did not need to be remade, but it turned out worthwhile.
I'll agree somewhat on Lord of the Rings. The first film is the best (as long as you don't demand complete page to scene faithfulness). The others lack feeling in part because they have to jump through so much story so quickly. I personally really like the ending of the final movie, though.
You seem to be a picky book nerd who can't appreciate movies as a separate form of art. Are there any book to movie translations you do approve of?
Watchmen, despite its fairly uncompromising storytelling, was not what you would call and R rated comic. With the exception of Manhattan's big blue genitals, sexual references were fairly tame.
I wouldn't call that rape scene "tame". Disturbing, troubling... those are words I'd use.
And then there's what happens to the girl who gave the Comedian his scar.
This movie isn't for kids, the rating is fair warning.
You can't take the sky from me...
Saw it tonight, enjoyed it thoroughly, although I don't remember there being quite as much Junior Doctor Manhattan in the comic book. Seemed like the rest of the audience thought the excess of electric blue ding-a-lings was a bit unseemly/disquieting.
I recall someone intoning somewhere up behind me "Unlimited power over all the matter in the universe and he can't even spring for some boxer briefs?"
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
While I liked the movie overall, I do have one thing to say: Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah", particularly the version he sang himself, is possibly the most incongruous song you could ever choose for a love scene. The entire theater was laughing their asses off, myself included. I don't know how anyone could possibly have thought that was a good idea, except maybe as some kind of bizarre joke.
Minimal. We saw it at IMAX sitting closer than we should have and my wife (who made it through about 2 minutes of Cloverfield) was only bothered a couple times. I would suspect seeing it at a normal theater would be fine.
In Soviet Russia, Watchman see you!
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
Loved that big blue, oh, it was huge! No not that, the dude, not the little dude. Get your mind out of the gutter.
I've never read the book. Seen the cover a few times and didn't know what all the excitement is about. I guess it was the blue bit flopping around the screen.
Loved the movie. It was slow and confusing at parts but they were wise and explained it in later visuals and narrative.
Overall it was excellent!
The naked blue dude was a bonus as was the dark Nietzschian dialog. Life is empty and meaningless and it's empty and meaningless that life is empty and meaningless. When you reach that point, as big blue floppy dude did, you get that the meaning of life is what you bring to it. They choose a dark impression of people and acted upon it.
Just got back from the movie (3 hours!). Since I'm a night owl, you'll get my thoughts now.
The movie was a bit long, and my gf explained that it could have been longer. One example she gave was the scene on Mars arguing the fate of humanity; this was more dragged-out in the book. Overall, I felt it was well-paced, with action spaced between a lot of emotional stopovers to flesh-out characters.
Reality: a lot of people who are looking for a brain-dead action flick are going to be disappointed.
I really liked how all the characters had their dark pasts. It made them a lot more fun to get into.
One thing that I did have to question is this: where did all these people get such super strength and reflexes? These people are breaking bones, moving fast, catching bullets, and smashing holes through furniture - if they're just regular joes in-costumes, how can they do all this? Manhattan is explained, but no one else is.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
I had always figured that if Watchmen were made into a movie, they wouldn't show two things:
I was wrong with both of those, but they couldn't have a guy getting burned to death, a throat being slit or a hideous squid-looking thing. Strange how that works.
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
I think given time, Nixon probably would have evolved into even more of a caricature of himself than what we remember of him.
That being said, the somewhat subtle reference to Doctor Strangelove (the war room) was cute.
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
Oh, I think you're right on about it being a piece of political fiction. Dune was a good one for that too. Actually, Regan quotes from the 1983 make me wonder if the Watchmen came from his quote about humanity unified against an alien threat.
If you look the 1983 sentiments that launched the Regan era "Star Wars" program exists before Watchmen. It was about then that Regan makes comments about Earth being unified against an alien threat... and those same sentiments are present in the Bush administration. So really, the authors are reflecting a "plot" already found in the real world.
The "Watchmen" is in part a commentary on the fact it is so very screwed up that the "alien threat" strategy actually works as well as it does. But, I wouldn't read any conspiracy theories into anything. That would be silly. These are common tactics of state building at least as old as the Pharaohs.
[signature]
So does Hamlet!
My wife and I have just been to see it. Neither of us have read the comic books or knew the characters at all. We both really enjoyed it. Her comments: "Not your typical super-hero film", and neither of us guessed the baddie until he was revealed. Definitely one for the DVD list.
I am not a fan girl but now that I have seen the movie I have ordered the graphic novel. The movie seemed a little disjointed, but mostly it was super easy to get absorbed. My suspension of disbelief was interrupted once, when I realized there were porcelain toilets in the jail cell. But it lasted a fleeting second. There was however an infant in the seat behind me and I was livid at the parents. Really though? Really??