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...
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
Can I get this from torrent already? I'm not cheap. I just like to tie a couple slashdot topics together when I can.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
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...
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.
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.
sorry, I meant 15 seconds
It is 3:06 PM. You will be making a mistake twelve minutes ago.
You're right. I see an "R" rating and immediately think "family friendly".
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!
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.