Watchmen - Offical Thread - USE SPOILER TAGS!

[Skarjo]

This despicable trash will find an audience among sad sociopaths, deranged pseudo-intellectuals and brutalised, immature men of all ages.

Or 'GR' for short.

[chalkitdown]

That's the worst review I've ever read. He even gets simple things wrong, like how many times Nixon was elected.

[Tafdolphin]

You realise we aren't discussing a work of literary genius, right? Watchmen may be a decent read, but it's hardly the most profound piece of literature in history now is it?

The scene worked when combined with the tone and style of the rest of the film. Was it a spectacular scene? No - well, apart from the aforementioned Ms Akerman. But it did do the job and that's all that matters.

Looking past your opinion of the graphic novel, my complaint was that it didn't fit with the rest of the film. What job exactly did it get done? As I said, the audience were laughing, and not just at my showing it seems. Do you think that's what the director intended the scene to do? Make people laugh? If you answer is no, then you must admit the scene did not, in any sense, "get the job done."



*unless you mean tug-job

[Skippy]

I believe they called Watchmen "unoriginal" I don't know whether to be amused, sad or angry.

[Alvin Flummux]

That review was awful... and the fact that so many people in this country read and take seriously those shitty tabloid opinions and views.. it makes my blood boil. Outlaw the gutter press!

[Skarjo]

You realise we aren't discussing a work of literary genius, right? Watchmen may be a decent read, but it's hardly the most profound piece of literature in history now is it?

The scene worked when combined with the tone and style of the rest of the film. Was it a spectacular scene? No - well, apart from the aforementioned Ms Akerman. But it did do the job and that's all that matters.

Looking past your opinion of the graphic novel, my complaint was that it didn't fit with the rest of the film. What job exactly did it get done? As I said, the audience were laughing, and not just at my showing it seems. Do you think that's what the director intended the scene to do? Make people laugh? If you answer is no, then you must admit the scene did not, in any sense, "get the job done."



*unless you mean tug-job

I disagree, people's reactions don't necessarily reflect a fair view of scene's intentions. People laughed when the wheelchair-bound Jew was thrown out of the window in the Pianist (serves me right for watching it with Henke probably). The sex scene actually makes a lot of sense in the film. I thought it did quite a good job of communicating the fact that they actually depend on their alter-egos more than they would necessarily want to, and make a nice contrast to the whiny power-dumping if, say Spiderman.

[Tafdolphin]

You realise we aren't discussing a work of literary genius, right? Watchmen may be a decent read, but it's hardly the most profound piece of literature in history now is it?

The scene worked when combined with the tone and style of the rest of the film. Was it a spectacular scene? No - well, apart from the aforementioned Ms Akerman. But it did do the job and that's all that matters.

Looking past your opinion of the graphic novel, my complaint was that it didn't fit with the rest of the film. What job exactly did it get done? As I said, the audience were laughing, and not just at my showing it seems. Do you think that's what the director intended the scene to do? Make people laugh? If you answer is no, then you must admit the scene did not, in any sense, "get the job done."



*unless you mean tug-job

I disagree, people's reactions don't necessarily reflect a fair view of scene's intentions. People laughed when the wheelchair-bound Jew was thrown out of the window in the Pianist (serves me right for watching it with Henke probably). The sex scene actually makes a lot of sense in the film. I thought it did quite a good job of communicating the fact that they actually depend on their alter-egos more than they would necessarily want to, and make a nice contrast to the whiny power-dumping if, say Spiderman.

Ok, I agree with that bit. The rest though...I stand by my assertion (well, not just my assertion, I seem to be speaking for the majority here) that the scene took it too far, going from illustrating the return of passion into Dan's life and the importance his Nite Owl persona played in that, to pure titillation. Not just titillation either, ridiculously shot titillation. The bit where the camera pulls back and we actually see him thrusting at her? It looked absurdly comical.

[Skarjo]

You realise we aren't discussing a work of literary genius, right? Watchmen may be a decent read, but it's hardly the most profound piece of literature in history now is it?

The scene worked when combined with the tone and style of the rest of the film. Was it a spectacular scene? No - well, apart from the aforementioned Ms Akerman. But it did do the job and that's all that matters.

Looking past your opinion of the graphic novel, my complaint was that it didn't fit with the rest of the film. What job exactly did it get done? As I said, the audience were laughing, and not just at my showing it seems. Do you think that's what the director intended the scene to do? Make people laugh? If you answer is no, then you must admit the scene did not, in any sense, "get the job done."



*unless you mean tug-job

I disagree, people's reactions don't necessarily reflect a fair view of scene's intentions. People laughed when the wheelchair-bound Jew was thrown out of the window in the Pianist (serves me right for watching it with Henke probably). The sex scene actually makes a lot of sense in the film. I thought it did quite a good job of communicating the fact that they actually depend on their alter-egos more than they would necessarily want to, and make a nice contrast to the whiny power-dumping if, say Spiderman.

Ok, I agree with that bit. The rest though...I stand by my assertion (well, not just my assertion, I seem to be speaking for the majority here) that the scene took it too far, going from illustrating the return of passion into Dan's life and the importance his Nite Owl persona played in that, to pure titillation. Not just titillation either, ridiculously shot titillation. The bit where the camera pulls back and we actually see him thrusting at her? It looked absurdly comical.

Really? I thought it made a refreshing change to the tame and sanitised version of sex that most movies portray. rather than being a carefully choreographed with all arms perfectly place to block any offending body parts it was quite real, passionate and gently awkward in a believable way.

Swings and roundabouts I suppose.

[Agent47]

I'm starting to find it a bit sad that there is such a complaint about a sex scene, I wonder if this would get such a reaction if it weren't based on a cult classic graphic novel?
Some people seem determined to find fault in Watchmen purely because they don't want to accept that someone has actually made a fantastic effort to bring it to the big screen, an effort that is probably the most faithful adaptation I've ever seen of any form of literature committed to film before.

[frogg]

I'm starting to find it a bit sad that there is such a complaint about a sex scene, I wonder if this would get such a reaction if it weren't based on a cult classic graphic novel?
Some people seem determined to find fault in Watchmen purely because they don't want to accept that someone has actually made a fantastic effort to bring it to the big screen, an effort that is probably the most faithful adaptation I've ever seen of any form of literature committed to film before.

The film of 300 is pretty much exactly the same as the graphic novel. Same director as well Dude must know what he's doing.

I thought Watchmen was kinda gooseberry fool to be honest.

[Captain Kinopio]

Watchmen - 7/10

Good, had some great scenes, some gooseberry fool ones, Rorschach was as awesome as he was in the comic and it was ridiculously long.

[Jax]

Found an app on Facebook where you can replace the faces of the characters of some film stills with your own faces or whatever, quite a bit of fun to be had there.

It's called Join the Watchmen, if anyone's interested.

[chalkitdown]

it was ridiculously long.

It was two and a half hours

I could've watched another 30 minutes, easily.

[Memento Mori]

it was ridiculously long.

It was two and a half hours

I could've watched another 30 minutes, easily.

Superman Returns was 2.5 hours but felt far longer.

[Irene Demova]

Superman felt about 4 hours long

[Tafdolphin]

I'm starting to find it a bit sad that there is such a complaint about a sex scene, I wonder if this would get such a reaction if it weren't based on a cult classic graphic novel?
Some people seem determined to find fault in Watchmen purely because they don't want to accept that someone has actually made a fantastic effort to bring it to the big screen, an effort that is probably the most faithful adaptation I've ever seen of any form of literature committed to film before.

What on earth are you talking about? If you'd actually read any of my other posts in this thread you'd know I absolutely loved the film, but hated that one scene as it was actually funny, that's how out of place it was. I've said right from the start that I wasn't trying to deny anyone else their opinions; I was merely presenting my own and providing reasons for them. Why do you find it "sad" that my (and other) opinions differ to your own?

[Lex-Man]

I agree with the first point in the Daily Mail review, I would rather have seen a version of Watchmen made by any of those directors, even if it strayed further from the source, although 300 was a good film.

Although the rest was complete bs.

[Lex-Man]

Films aren't meant to make you use your imagination, that's what books are for. Films are too shy about sex scenes these days, something like Watchmen shouldn't shy away from it when you see the rest of the story.

If sex is used in a meaningful, symbolic manner then I agree. But here it was presented as titillation, and badly shot titillation at that. It felt hugely out of place in an otherwise extremely competant film.

The sex scene here wasn't meant to be symbolic, it was meant to be an epic **** caused by their exhilaration and the thrill of returning to their old ways - that and the whole costume thing mentioned in the book.
In a book/film about darkness and brutality, in a city full of depravity and perversion, why did you expect something soft and lovey-dovey? That's not how it was portrayed in the book, that's not how it should be portrayed in the film.

Oh and yes, Malin Akerman is epically hot.

I didn't expect anything "lovey-dovey." I expected a well shot scene full of, yes, passion and unrestrained lust as in the book. What I got was "Who Washes the Watchmen, a Max Hardcore Production."

There is a grey area between the white of chastity and the black of smut and this is where I expected this scene to lie. Instead, me and the rest of the chortling cinema received graphic images of a chunky dude pounding a hot chick, something Watchmen, as a film and a novel, is above.

You realise we aren't discussing a work of literary genius, right? Watchmen may be a decent read, but it's hardly the most profound piece of literature in history now is it?

The scene worked when combined with the tone and style of the rest of the film. Was it a spectacular scene? No - well, apart from the aforementioned Ms Akerman. But it did do the job and that's all that matters.

Errm yes it is (well one of the top 100)
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the_complete_list.html

The comic is full of interesting ideas it may seem slightly clunky and most of what is clever has been referenced from else where. For instance

Dr Manhattan being a reference to god. His character was a Watchmaker which is a direct reference to the watchmaker analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy. Something that was brushed over by the film imo. There are a bunch of other references that are basically missed by the film.

Also I think even the people who are saying they had problems with the film still enjoyed it, I did. It just it lost a lot in translation.

Did anyone actually dislike the film?

[Gandalf]

I can't believe this has all petered down to the sex scene? Yes it was cringe worthy and seemed a little out of place, but it didn't ruin the film though...

[FatDaz]

Having never heard anything of the Watchmen before, not read the novels and not followed the films development. I went into the film with an open mind. All I had was the TV spots that looked pretty decent.

I actually thought it was pretty good. Not mind blowing but pretty good. It had some great moments and some cringeworthy ones. I loved the opening credits with the history and exposition turned into a series of still shots. That worked brilliantly. The fight scenes were really good and the CGI was excellent. I just felt a little overwhelmed and numbed by the whole thing. The plot was flimsy and a bit haphazard. It jumped about a lot and the end goal was never really explained clearly so that when it got to the end I was scratching my head as to what it was all about. I mean The bad guy was actually one of the good guys? but he tried to kill off the good guys? why? It was never explained why he wanted to kill them off. I also thought Dr Manhattan killing Rorsarch a bit random and out of no where.

Overall I loved the feel of the movie, the character back stories and the fight scenes. I just felt it lacked an overall bigger picture that superhero films need. The opening 15 minutes were amazing but it failed to hold my attention over what was a fairly long film. And the sex scene deserves a definite simply for how cheesy and out of place it felt compared to the rest of the film.