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.
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
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?
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.
It took some searching, but here's the link to TFA.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
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...
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
Too much graphic sex and foul language.
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.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
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.
they somehow expect an R rated movie to have fluffy bunnies farting rainbows or something.
Sooner or later someone will make a highly disturbing R rated movie with bunnies who fart rainbows and you'll eat those words.
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.
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
You're right. I see an "R" rating and immediately think "family friendly".
Happy Tree Friends?
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
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!
Maybe they're upset because 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. Violence, while present, was rarely all that graphic, relying more on setting, dialogue and subtlety for it impact rather than outright gore. As to foul language, Watchmen contained it, but I cannot recall the novel being excessively laced with profanities in the manner of, say, Killzone 2 for example.
Regardless, this movie will disappoint fans. It must. As a medium, film is inherently incapable of producing a work with as much breath, depth and contrast as Watchmen, or any other graphic novel, or indeed any other type of novel at all. Movie buffs may disagree with me, but I think it stands to reason that no film of any reasonable length has the time and opportunity to engage with the viewer in the same way that a novel consistently engages with its reader.
A reader can hover over every frame in Watchmen for five minutes if they desire. A reader can dwell over a paragraph for a similar amount of time. A film director simply cannot avail of this kind of engagement in his movie, except in a handful of scenes. It is both a strength and a weakness of film as a medium, but it puts serious limitations on the medium.
People seem to have an irrational desire that their favorite novel/comic/game/whatever be paraded in front of the masses in the form of a movie. I cannot understand this point of view. If something is good, then it doesn't need validation in the form of a Hollywood epic complete with marketing campaigns and happy meal toy lines. If anything, good works should not be subjected to this kind of crass spectacle.
When I see "pundits" debating the "themes and imagery" of the Watchmen movie on TV talk shows, a little piece of my love for the novel will silently die.
May the Maths Be with you!
Even if they assumed that, when they went to order the tickets and saw the R rating that should have made them at least question why the movie was rated R. I'm not much of a fan of the MPAA (for various reasons including that they're a psuedo-official form of censorship), but they at least do give some hint as to what the content of a film is even if they're a bit heavy handed sometimes. Anyone that takes their kids to go see a R rated movie and then bitches about the movie content should have their kids taken away by child services as they're clearly not capable of looking after themselves let alone a small child. To be clear I'm not saying there's anything wrong with taking a child to a R rated movie, that's for the parent to decide, but it has to be the parents decision, and bitching about having your kid at an R rated movie means that you didn't see it yourself or even look into it so you're failing as a parent.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Sooner or later someone will make a highly disturbing R rated movie with bunnies who fart rainbows and you'll eat those words.
(Don LaFontaine):
In a world where evil stomps good like God at a Dawkin's speech, cute little bunnies fight to protect the innocent.
Action!
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Sniff my gas if you want to live.
Comedy!
Tom Cruise: hehehehehe
Drama!
Oprah Winfrey: Girlfriend, you got gas!
More comedy!
Bruce Campbell: Good, bad, I'm the bunny with gas.
Irresponsible casting:
Rosie Perez: I'll take bodily functions that start with the letter F, Alex.
More gratuitous action!
Arnold Schwarzenegger again: We've got to get out of heah! Go! now! Get to the CHOPPA!
More head-scratching casting!
Keanu Reeves: Dude! Wait...what?
Coming soon to a theater near you, United Artists presents: Little Bunny Poot-Poot
This time, it's personal.
Rated R. Film contains scenes depicting flatulence, dutch ovens, donkey punches, and Nascar.
Sent from your iPad.
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.
Actually you can show someone under 17 an NC-17 movie, it's just that movie theaters have all essentially agreed not to. There's nothing stopping a theater from doing so other than the fact that it would probably lead to massive protests by the nanny-state faction, and quite a few conservatives, plus fallout with the various movie studios and most likely the inability of the theater to ever get movies from the studios again.
As for the movie, yeah it was violent, but I don't think it was unrealistically so, which is kind of the point. Probably the two worst scenes in the entire movie are at the end with the exploded body (not going to say who's cause I don't want to spoil it for anyone), and when that one guy gets his arms cut off, but aside from that it wasn't particularly bad. Personally I feel movies like SAW are much worse in terms of gore and violence. As for the sex and nudity, they did an amazing job of making it realistic which is something that can be said of very few movies out there which is perhaps what so many people are upset over. Everyone seems to want to make sex and nudity out to be some huge deal in one way or another when the reality is much less so, and I think this movie captured that very well.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
It does miss the whole point. The post right above yours (replying to same parent) hits the nail on the head. With the new ending, there is fear and little hope. Eventually once people realize Dr. M is gone for good, they'll squabble again. With the original ending, there is a little fear, but there's also a lot of hope! Also, the Dimension X, being fake, will lead people to continue searching for it.
That said, both endings are nullified by the _very_ end and the crank file.
NC-17 is movie death.
I believe that rating it R "For Images of a Dog's Head Smashed Open" would keep parents from bringing their kids. Or even just "For Images of a Blue Wang."
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.