Watchmen - Offical Thread - USE SPOILER TAGS!

[chalkitdown]

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.

He blew up all those cities to stop the US & Russia from having a nuclear war and destroying the world. Manhatten killed Rorshach because he was gonna tell the world what Veidt had done. Veidt also had the Comedian and Hollis Mason killed because they were too close to finding out what he was up to.

Were you half asleep at the end, by any chance?

[chalkitdown]

[Hexx]

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.

He blew up all those cities to stop the US & Russia from having a nuclear war and destroying the world. Manhatten killed Rorshach because he was gonna tell the world what Veidt had done. Veidt also had the Comedian and Hollis Mason killed because they were too close to finding out what he was up to.

Were you half asleep at the end, by any chance?

If you're gonna explain something at least get it right

Hollis Mason is killed by Veidt? Where??? I assume you mean Moloch but then he wasn't killed because he was close to the truth, he was killed because he could inadvertently lead Walter to the truth (and for the cops to think Walter had done)

Fatdaz - a real explanation

Veidt killed Comedian because the Comedian had found out what he was up to - as the Comedian had been hired by the government to keep an eye on the other masks. He'd found this out (somehow) which lead to his "breakdown" at Moloch's. It's not really explained why the Comedian didn't tell anyone before Veidt killed him

Veidt used Tachyon's to "block" Manhatten's future sense (which Manhatten thought were from Nuclear War). He also need Manhatten out of the way - but he couldn't directly attack him. Vedit used psychological warfar - he then hired lots of people who spent time with Manhatten at his shell "Pyramid company" - where he exposed them to cancer chemicals. This helped drive Manhatten from Earth/sever his connections with humanity

[chalkitdown]

Hollis Mason is killed by Veidt? Where

Oh noes, I got one name mixed up.

banana split.

[Hexx]

Hollis Mason is killed by Veidt? Where

Oh noes, I got one name mixed up.

banana split.

It's just funny you did it will mocking someone else for getting muddles.

Twazock.

[chalkitdown]

I remember when you used to be a nice guy.

[TravelJug]

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.

Me too actually...thought it was a heap.

[Hexx]

I remember when you used to be a nice guy.

NEVER!

[chalkitdown]

It's true. Long time ago now, though.

[Phatman]

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?

Each to their own. I consider Watchmen one of best pieces of popular fiction ever written and I'm not a 'misguided geek'. I study Literature and I think I'm justified in saying I'm extremely well read.

[Mogster]

I finally got around to seeing this last night. I liked it a lot, but I do think it suffered by being such a faithful adaptation. As much as I love the comic, I don't think I could sit down and read it all in a single sitting. That's because it simply isn't designed for it, and unlike a book you can't pause or rewind a movie, at the cinema at least. Also, a lot of the subtlety of the art and layout gets lost in translation to film, and for a fan of the comic there are a fair few scenes that jarr thanks to "missing" dialogue. On the flipside, other scenes feature dialogue from the comic that doesn't quite work in this context.

Based on the few conversations I overheard, it the rest o the audience seemed divided ('That was three hours of "what the strawberry float?"' being a choice quote), and I have a feeling that most of the "WTF" camp would have come to the movie without reading the comic first. That's hardly a crime, but the movie seems to have been aimed squarely at the fans.

There was a lot to like though. Everyone seemed perfectly cast, and I felt that the look of the film was spot-on. The soundtrack was excellent too, featuring some inspired licensed stuff. I was relieved to find that the new ending worked well too, and was meshed into the plot with some intelligence.

As for the sex scene, I didn't have a problem with it. Even in the comic, it's supposed to be fairly humorous. The "cheap" flamethrower gag was lifted straight out of the book.

Agent47, without meaning to sound patronising, have you given the comic a second read? There's so much subtlety and depth worked into it, in both the writing and art, that it's hard to argue that it isn't at least "very clever".

[DrDoom]

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?

Each to their own. I consider Watchmen one of best pieces of popular fiction ever written and I'm not a 'misguided geek'. I study Literature and I think I'm justified in saying I'm extremely well read.

That and it was on Time magazine's list of top 100 greatest novels.

[CuriousOyster]

I think it was as a faithful adaptation that you were ever going to get, there were so many little pieces of detail from the graphic novel. If I hadn't already read it though and had no idea about what it was I would maybe have felt a bit bored, not ideal as a movie for those not informed but exellent if you are already a fan.

[Alvin Flummux]

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?

Each to their own. I consider Watchmen one of best pieces of popular fiction ever written and I'm not a 'misguided geek'. I study Literature and I think I'm justified in saying I'm extremely well read.

That and it was on Time magazine's list of top 100 greatest novels.

It also won the Hugo Award - the only graphic novel ever to do so.

[Mogster]

I think it was as a faithful adaptation that you were ever going to get, there were so many little pieces of detail from the graphic novel. If I hadn't already read it though and had no idea about what it was I would maybe have felt a bit bored, not ideal as a movie for those not informed but exellent if you are already a fan.

This, basically. I actually asked two friends to come along yesterday, neither of which could make it, but as they hadn't read the comic (or indeed, any comics), I really don't think they'd have liked it.

[Mr Thropwimp]

There are other things in the graphic novel that couldn't have worked in the film either. I'm not sure if they attempted. The 'fateful symmetry' issue in particular was very profound (for it being wholly symmetrical from back to front).

Having said that, I think the film needs another watch. There's a lot to say about it but I don't think I've ever thought so much about a film after watching it. I think that's testament to its quality (regardless of what it got right and what it didn't).

[Parksey]

Right, I watched this on Saturday and still can't get my head around what I thought of it. It meanders between being a 5, 6 or 7 out of 10. I certainly don't think it should be any lower or higher than that.

I'm just going to present a few fragmented thoughts, now and bear in mind I haven't read the comic:

Firstly, as everyone has acknowledged, the opening credits were great. A montage moving through the 40s to the 80s with Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" shouldn't have really worked, but it did. I'm watching it now, and it makes me wish I liked the film more than I did.

Saying that, the music later just seemed a bit uninspired. I'd predicted All Along The Watchtower would show up way before it actually did.

The dialogue was also a little strained - you could tell where they'd lifted whole passages from the text. Whilst they may work in print, I think some felt too ham-fisted and full of cod philosophy on screen. Rorshach's opening monologue comes to mind.

Casting-wise, my only real complaint is Ackerman as Silk Spectre II. She just seemed to have been cast because she was good-looking, but fluffed up a few lines and her accent seemed to slipped a little. I've got no qualms with Goode as Ozymandias though, after looking at the pictures of him from the comic, he does seem a little thin and lanky.

My main niggle with those two characters were that they didn't really have anything to do, especially Ozy, who was a bit-part player until the final scenes. The focus seemed, to me, to be too much on Dr. Manhattan, who I couldn't empathise with at all. If, indeed, I was ever meant to. This will probably anger the fans of the comic book, but I thought the bits on Mars were dull and overlong. I get the fact that it's meant to show his distance - mentally and physically - from humanity, but in a less faithful adaption they'd be one of the first things I'd cull.

I'd also like to have seen more of Nite Owl and Rorshach, though that might have been all we got out of them from the comic too. The latter was probably the best character in it, and they could easily have been less faithful to the source material and centred it all around his investigations.

My biggest criticism is regarding the main plot. We are treated to about two hours of flashbacks and character introductions, splashing about through time (and space) and then, suddenly, the end comes harshly into focus and it all ends rather suddenly. This is one area which will benefit a 12 issue comic, I reckon.

We see little of Ozy and then are supposed to be either shocked or appalled at his philosophies, when we've barely been presented with them (plus, I twigged who offed the Comedian as soon as I realised that his assassin was also tall, thin and superhero-esque). The movie before then had been such a mish-mash of styles that it almost reverted into a cliched comic book movie by the end, as it didn't go a great job of painting Ozymandias as a conflicted "good" villain. Rorshach's journals and investigations taunted us with in-depth foreplay, before the movie shot its load at once and we were suddenly in Antarctica and there's a weird cat thing prowling about.

Likewise, the threat of World War Three wasn't as omnipresent as it should have been. It didn't feel like Ozy should have gone to such lengths to ensure peace, as there wasn't enough foreboding or inevitability about nuclear war. It was all kind of offhand and throwaway, like Dan and Laurie's remarks about it over dinner. Maybe this is the hindsight of 2009 and a time of relative peace and comfort, but it didn't seem like a nuclear holocaust was just round the corner.

As a result, there wasn't really an urgency or tension during any point of the film. That is by far my biggest criticism. Saying that, anyone who says the film is irrelevant or quaint because it is set in the 80s and we no longer face the threat of nuclear war is, quite frankly, an idiot. It's obviously a product of its time and this would only have been an issue if they'd tried to update it for today. As it is actually set in 1985, then all the concerns and fears it brings up are valid. It's like criticising a WWII for being too concerned with Nazi Germany.

I mostly enjoyed the subversions of the superhero genre - the fact that Superman can't emphasise with humanity, the fact Batman is impotent, the fact the Comedian is a violent rapist and the main villain of the piece wants to stop the Cold War. There were more plus points too, but I've forgotten those whilst making lunch.

Oh, yeah, and Nixon's false nose was horrendously bad, as was the original Silk Spectre's age make-up. It was like watching Lea Thompson in Back to the Future II!

Overall, I think the fact that it was so faithful an adaptation stopped it being a great movie. Though, it's probably the best shot at a faithful Watchmen movie you're ever going to get. Some of the things, I think, would have improved it as a film may have detracted away from the original comic.

I've not read that, but from what others are saying, it seems like it'd be a beast to adapt, so perhaps most of the film did a good job. It did limit it to a certain degree, though.

The film definitely did feel like it was nearly three hours long though. Fans may have got through the running time alright - and even wished it was longer - but I was certainly feeling it by the end. And I'm not normally adverse to long-running features (the last one of this length was Benjamin Button, which seemed much shorter, though admittedly not as dense).

And here's another review you all may find hilarious:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/c ... inema_lane

[chalkitdown]

You're rubbish.

[Agent47]

Agent47, without meaning to sound patronising, have you given the comic a second read? There's so much subtlety and depth worked into it, in both the writing and art, that it's hard to argue that it isn't at least "very clever".

I never said it wasn't clever or anything, but I just don't think it's anywhere near as amazing as some people think. I do plan on giving it another read or two though, that's for sure.

[Mogster]

Saying that, the music later just seemed a bit uninspired. I'd predicted All Along The Watchtower would show up way before it actually did.

So did Alan Moore. Each issue of the comic ends on a quote, from which the title of the issue is taken. The corresponding issue to that sequence was "Two Riders Were Approaching...", and guess what the quote was from.