Watchmen

[thraashman]

Watchmen is one of the most brilliant, thought provoking, and artistic masterpieces of writing that has occurred since the beginning of the nuclear age. The movie was a decent adaptation that I feel could have been done more true to source. I thought the protracted sex scene could have been removed in favor of the death of Hollis Mason. I thought the book ending would have been better, or at least removing Bubastis if you're not going to explain the whole genetic engineering thing. But a lot of the movie was true to source and a complete masterpiece of fiction. I haven't yet seen the extended version but I'm excited to get to.

I have a feeling that many of those who disliked this movie thought the Shawshank Redemption was slow and boring or that an old Clint Eastwood made Unforgiven a wreck.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: WraithETC
Couldn't get past 20 minutes. Terrible stuff

So you saw what, the death of The Comedian and the opening credits?

Originally posted by: thraashman
I thought the protracted sex scene could have been removed in favor of the death of Hollis Mason. I thought the book ending would have been better, or at least removing Bubastis if you're not going to explain the whole genetic engineering thing. But a lot of the movie was true to source and a complete masterpiece of fiction.

I agree on the sex scene, but Hollis Mason's death made it into the extended version. Bubastis still doesn't really fit with anything in the context of the film, though.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: WraithETC
Couldn't get past 20 minutes. Terrible stuff

So you saw what, the death of The Comedian and the opening credits?

[/quote]
Clearly watching the opening credits and first scene is enough to judge a movie on. :roll:

 

[0roo0roo]

http://revision3.com/trs/hater
around the 40 minute mark..alex reviews his reading of watchmen for the first time. funny how hard he's trying to like it dan explains why its not good.

its visually interesting, but there are issues with the way the story is told.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I really enjoyed it. I haven't gotten around to watching the extended version but I imagine I will like that as well.

 

[tk149]

Each to his own.

I love the graphic novel. The movie fell short of my expectations, but wasn't bad by any means. I think a lot of the problem was that the movie was marketed as a "superhero" film, which isn't even close to being accurate. Anyone who never read the book but saw the movie, went in expecting one thing and found something totally different, and therefore felt let down.

As with any movie adaptation from a book, they had to cut out a lot of stuff that would have given more substance and meaning to the story.

In the book, I don't think they ever actually showed blue privates. I don't know why the filmmaker felt compelled to do so.

Originally posted by: Skoorb

it would have been quite ludicrous on screen in my opinion

Ludicrous? A giant space squid ludicrous? Absolutely not.

**** SPOILER for Comic book/Graphic Novel ****













It wasn't really a giant space squid. It was a construct created by Ozymandius. The book provides hints that prominent scientists and artists the world over have been disappearing for the last few years. They went to work for Ozymandius to work on this project, which they all believed was for a new movie. After the squid was created, Ozy killed all the people involved.

The idea was to provide a "menace." Since it was mysterious and absolutely horrifying both in physical aspect and scope of destruction (killed half of New York City), everyone would feel compelled to work together to defend against this new threat. Governments would stop threatening to nuke each other out of existence.

 

[spikespiegal]

Watchmen was clearly a love it or hate it kind of film. Personally I found it brilliant and thought provoking, but can't fault others for not liking the film. I also find most people that like Watchmen are over the age of 30, married, with both partners liking the film. Interesting.....

However, two popular films I've seen in the past year that I couldn't effing stand were 'Star Trek' (campy and retarded) and 'Dark Knight' (Nolan is the most arrogant and over-rated director in Hollywood). Everything is relative, but if you prefer watching Captain Kirk being chased by a dumb looking CGI ice-monster and then Leonard Nimoy shows up with a time travel twist then we have nothing to talk about.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: tk149
In the book, I don't think they ever actually showed blue privates. I don't know why the filmmaker felt compelled to do so.

Sort of? There's clearly an outline of them in one issue at least, but it's not highly detailed or anything.

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
I also find most people that like Watchmen are over the age of 30, married, with both partners liking the film. Interesting.....

You can add another couple to your observation

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Poulsonator
one of the most important comic book/graphic novels in history.

"Important" must have a strange meaning in your world.

So what are the more important comic book/graphic novels in history?

KT

Without putting words in his mouth I believe he was taking issue with the idea that any of them are.

Without putting words in Poulsonator's mouth, I believe he meant in relation to the world comic books and graphic novels, not to history in general. I may be wrong though.

KT

That's exactly it, KT.

However, don't kid yourself, BoberFett. Comic books have had a significant importance in history, period, with the creation of such iconic figures as Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, Captain America (his first appearance during WWII, fighting the Nazi's, helping in any way possible to boost the morale of our troops)...the list is endless. Until Watchmen, however, they were always viewed as 'kiddie' and not really taken seriously in a literary significance. That all changed after Watchmen in 1986.

Examples:

Since its release, Watchmen has garnered acclaim as a seminal work of the comic book medium. In Art of the Comic Book: An Aesthetic History, Robert Harvey wrote that with Watchmen, Moore and Gibbons "had demonstrated as never before the capacity of the [comic book] medium to tell a sophisticated story that could be engineered only in comics".

Watchmen was the only graphic novel to appear on Time's 2005 "All-TIME 100 Greatest Novels" list

In 2008, Entertainment Weekly placed it at number 13 on its list of the best 50 novels printed in the last 25 years, describing it as "The greatest superhero story ever told and proof that comics are capable of smart, emotionally resonant narratives worthy of the label literature.

Text

So yea, one of the most important comic book/graphic novels in history.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Watchmen should have been 6 hours to really capture the graphic novel. I can see how it might be a little hard to follow, missing all that exposition.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: tk149
Each to his own.

I love the graphic novel. The movie fell short of my expectations, but wasn't bad by any means. I think a lot of the problem was that the movie was marketed as a "superhero" film, which isn't even close to being accurate. Anyone who never read the book but saw the movie, went in expecting one thing and found something totally different, and therefore felt let down.

As with any movie adaptation from a book, they had to cut out a lot of stuff that would have given more substance and meaning to the story.

In the book, I don't think they ever actually showed blue privates. I don't know why the filmmaker felt compelled to do so.

Originally posted by: Skoorb

it would have been quite ludicrous on screen in my opinion

Ludicrous? A giant space squid ludicrous? Absolutely not.

**** SPOILER for Comic book/Graphic Novel ****













It wasn't really a giant space squid. It was a construct created by Ozymandius. The book provides hints that prominent scientists and artists the world over have been disappearing for the last few years. They went to work for Ozymandius to work on this project, which they all believed was for a new movie. After the squid was created, Ozy killed all the people involved.

The idea was to provide a "menace." Since it was mysterious and absolutely horrifying both in physical aspect and scope of destruction (killed half of New York City), everyone would feel compelled to work together to defend against this new threat. Governments would stop threatening to nuke each other out of existence.

which of course raises the moral question, if nuking half of new york would unite the world in peace, does that justify it? and the more important question, didn't season one of Heroes blatantly rip off this entire storyline?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Watchmen should have been 6 hours to really capture the graphic novel. I can see how it might be a little hard to follow, missing all that exposition.

Evidently when Terry Gilliam was set to direct, he felt it needed to be a five hour mini-series.

Edit:
And though I like much of his work, I don't know that he was the right man for the job anyway.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Watchmen should have been 6 hours to really capture the graphic novel. I can see how it might be a little hard to follow, missing all that exposition.

Evidently when Terry Gilliam was set to direct, he felt it needed to be a five hour mini-series.

Edit:
And though I like much of his work, I don't know that he was the right man for the job anyway.

oh, just watch the motion comic.

it doesn't improve with length...

 

[TipsyMcStagger]

I also thought this movie was a total waste of 2.5 hours. Seems to me like that could have made 2-3 decent movies out of all the stories in there instead of 1 movie that skipped around so much it was just plain difficult to follow.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: TipsyMcStagger
I also thought this movie was a total waste of 2.5 hours. Seems to me like that could have made 2-3 decent movies out of all the stories in there instead of 1 movie that skipped around so much it was just plain difficult to follow.

I can understand people not liking the movie, but the whole "difficult to follow" thing that keeps coming up boggles my mind, it was not difficult to follow at all and even people I know that saw it without ever reading the GN did not find it difficult to follow either. Were people just not paying attention? I guess if you are bored that is what happens?

KT

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The movie dragged and was disorganized. If it had been 90 minutes maybe it would have been better. It was TWO HOURS AND THIRTY FIVE MINUTES LONG. I actually, no fvcking sh*ting you, found that they have an extended version that pulls it up to THREE HOURS.

I am dead serious: Anybody who would watch that three hour version needs to be sent to a labor camp because they are absolutely not contributing anything positive to society.

Says the person with 63 THOUSAND posts on AT! :laugh:



Oh, and anyone that would seriously watch any trash put out by Michael Moore.....those are the ones that need to be in a labor camp! :roll:

 

[rockyct]

I just saw the movie a couple days ago and I liked it. I never even heard about the graphic novel until the movie came out, but I could follow it well enough. I could tell that there was a lot more to the whole story though.

Also, like other people said there were at lot more disturbing images that a blue penis. People sure wouldn't have been complaining if there was a blue, naked girl in it.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I can understand people not liking the movie, but the whole "difficult to follow" thing that keeps coming up boggles my mind, it was not difficult to follow at all and even people I know that saw it without ever reading the GN did not find it difficult to follow either. Were people just not paying attention? I guess if you are bored that is what happens?

KT

Probably the same people that think Mission Impossible II and III were better than the first because the first was too confusing.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: illusion88
What a horrible movie. I thought I was watching a series of non-sequiturs until about the last 20 minutes. The plot was extremely difficult to follow and understand without any background of the comics.

I agree, There were too many giant holes that you just wouldn't be able to fill in without having read the book (which I did and I liked it even though I don't really read).

The soundtrack was put together by a 20 year old in college who selected his top 10 favorite songs off his Ipod. And why are they superheroes if they don't have any super powers? Mr Universe was the only one who could do anything, the others just had some unexplained ninja skills.

That's like asking why Batman is considered a superhero, that's a silly argument. They were all quite skilled in everything from fighting to detective work to building your own airship. As for the soundtrack, I don't remember anything about it one way or the other

I had invested so much time into the movie I felt forced to watch the end. It was like someone was twisting my arm and smashing my face into the concrete yelling "watch the end you pussy".

That's just because you're weak-willed

Edit: Isn't this something like the 10th Watchman thread this month? Srsly?

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: TipsyMcStagger
I also thought this movie was a total waste of 2.5 hours. Seems to me like that could have made 2-3 decent movies out of all the stories in there instead of 1 movie that skipped around so much it was just plain difficult to follow.

I can understand people not liking the movie, but the whole "difficult to follow" thing that keeps coming up boggles my mind, it was not difficult to follow at all and even people I know that saw it without ever reading the GN did not find it difficult to follow either. Were people just not paying attention? I guess if you are bored that is what happens?

KT

You know what the real problem is? People can't seem to really express themselves nowadays. They often hardly seem to know what their own motivations and feelings are a lot of the time. I see this all the time when people describe why they liked or disliked X or Y. Their descriptions hardly make any sense. I don't think it's because they are stupid, just sadly disconnected from their own emotional and cognitive selves. I bet if you asked these people to sit down and plot out what happened in the film a good 80% of them would show you they understood quite well what happened indeed. They just can't or don't want to express why they really disliked the film.

I for one hated the film but it had absolutely nothing to do with not understanding the plot and everything to do with writing, directing, acting, character development and the like.

 

[foghorn67]

Too meandering. They got the pacing entirely wrong.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I can understand people not liking the movie, but the whole "difficult to follow" thing that keeps coming up boggles my mind, it was not difficult to follow at all and even people I know that saw it without ever reading the GN did not find it difficult to follow either. Were people just not paying attention? I guess if you are bored that is what happens?

KT

Probably the same people that think Mission Impossible II and III were better than the first because the first was too confusing.

lol, when I watched the first one, I was pretty confused but I was pretty young. Watching it again cleared the whole thing up for me. MI:II was horrible though.

 

[lyssword]

You should stick to children's movies, but some of those might be hard for you to follow as well.

 

[ozziememz]

i loved it, the distributer marketed it wrong made it out like it was an action movie which may have gave people false hopes

 

[Synomenon]

Watched it and didn't like it either. Interesting story, but most superhero movies suck anyway. This is kind of like "The Dark Knight". Everyone is saying how great it is. Next year they'll all look back and say that it wasn't that great.