|
Post by Cela on Mar 9, 2009 4:12:21 GMT -5
I thought it was subpar based on both my expectations and based on other movies I do think are great character pieces. I think he brought in as much of Gibbons work into the movie as anyone possibly could and pretty much crapped on Moore's depth of story in favor of simple plot and characters and flashy scenes. Which works for him and will probably make it accessable. I just didn't like it. You did and that's fine. The real injustice I think is all the people thinking the revisions were necessary or even better. Steven King often weighs in on his adaptations. Melville, Stoker, and Tolkien never saw there stuff on the big screen. Alan Moore worked with Hollywood writers to get Watchmen adapted, and even before he finally just got sick and tired of Hollywood with the V stuff and LOEE, he came to believe Watchmen unfilmable. He knew there was too much in there that wouldn't translate well. Most of that stuff was cut by Snyder. I don't think that makes him a cinematic genius, I just think that makes the Watchmen movie lacking. I don't believe having high expectations makes me jaded. In fact I think believing that making Watchmen was inevitable and that it would have to be Hollywooded up, so yay at least we got Snyder instead of Ratner or Micheal Bay is really jaded. I do not by that this was inevitable. Especially how it almost didn't make it countless times. Also simply because disaster was averted does not mean success was achieved. Snyder has said he wanted to remain true to the book. However the ending is different. Which I am not even that hung up on. What it was changed to though, I am. Watchmen was supposed to put forth multiple worldviews and leave good and bad up to the person experiencing it. Instead Manhattan has become the stand in for God in the deus ex machina, which is easy because they cut out his ties to humanity the book was good at showing, save for the outburst over Janey. Nobody cared about the love triangle he was involved in. Rorschach has become the ultra-cool Batman/Wolverine bad man doing good in a messed up world and Ozymandias has become a supervillain. In the book everyone except Rorschach accept what he has done as necessary. Not to mention the utter neglect of the character of the shrink and his family and how there death made the tragedy of what did happen have a human face. Or Bubastis. Or Hollis Mason's fate. Maybe that stuff did need to be cut to make the movie the way they needed it to be made, but cutting that also made it unfaithfull to the book. Those things served a purpose in the story Moore told. I can accept that that's not the story Snyder was trying to tell. Indeed Moore put forth multiple world views which probably would be unfilmable save maybe in parts or a miniseries. My main gripe I guess is that attitude of good enough means great and the rest of us should accept that and that using panels as storyboards while changing the characters personalities and motivations is faithfull. You're right, they could have put EVERYTHING in the movie and have it be 7 hours long, but it wouldn't have made any money whatsoever, plus I'm willing to bet that even if it was done that way, diehard fans would still bitch about it. This is one of the most faithful adaptations to source material I have ever seen. And to call it subpar is the very height of internet snobbery.
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Mar 9, 2009 4:54:40 GMT -5
Saw the picture yesterday with a buddy of mine and his girlfriend. Some random thoughts: -The credit sequence was indeed spell-binding. -I've seen plenty of horror movies in my day, and I've read the graphic novel and knew what to expect, but man was I shook up at the dogs chewing that little girl's leg bone. -I didn't particularly care all that much for Rorschach when I read the book, but I got chills during his psychiatric evaluation, and during the ending. -Didn't care for Tales of the Black Freighter in the book. I'm glad it was cut from the movie. I'd watch it if its re-integrated for the directors cut, but I'm not gonna buy the DVD of it alone, even if I did enjoy "Under the Hood" in the book. -Doc Manhattan was actually my favorite character in the book, and I'm glad they did him justice. My only gripe was the debate on Mars seemed to end more on the miracle of Silk Spectre's existence, rather than the whole "if that's true of me, then it's true of anybody in the world." Still though, they did a good job on Manhattan. Billy Crudup for best supporting actor. -Nite Owl + Silk Spectre + Leonard Cohen = PORN. I'm not exactly complaining, I enjoyed the scene for my own disgusting reasons, but they could've trimmed that substantially and it would've been fine. -On the whole, I felt like Laurie got the worst out of the "cutting stuff for time" deal. She seemed to have a lot more going on in the book, but in the movie she's just the token love interest. -The new ending does and does not make sense, for pretty much the same reason as the old ending...basically, I don't really feel like any "catastrophe from the outside" would really bring about that kind of peace. Even without Rorschach's journal coming into play, I can't imagine two warring factions so close to obliterating each other would really shake hands so quickly and have a lasting peace. Ozy's "trick" seems more like it would be a time-out from the war, rather than all-out peace. I dunno if I'm making sense here. -I have no problem with slow motion or the overt "brightness" of the cinematography, I had no problem with the gore. -For me, time flew by, but after the movie, my buddy and his girlfriend just kept saying how damn long the movie was. The girlfriend also felt like the movie should've ended before Laurie sees her mother and the scene at the New Frontiersman (both scenes that I felt were pretty meaningful and necessary...though maybe I'd feel different if I hadn't read the book). Then again, she loves the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and I don't), so I feel pretty comfortable not giving a s*** what she thinks. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) -All in all I enjoyed the movie. 3 stars out of 4.
|
|
Phosphor Glow
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Is a real girl!
Posts: 19,875
|
Post by Phosphor Glow on Mar 9, 2009 5:13:06 GMT -5
Is it wrong that I loved the music that played over the credits? I know it's someone like My Chemical Romance, but that song kicked ass. No shame in that. Then again, MCR is one of my favourite bands EVARR!!11!11!1oawpiuef So y'know...take my word with a bucket of salt.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Mar 9, 2009 5:33:01 GMT -5
-The new ending does and does not make sense, for pretty much the same reason as the old ending...basically, I don't really feel like any "catastrophe from the outside" would really bring about that kind of peace. Even without Rorschach's journal coming into play, I can't imagine two warring factions so close to obliterating each other would really shake hands so quickly and have a lasting peace. Ozy's "trick" seems more like it would be a time-out from the war, rather than all-out peace. I dunno if I'm making sense here. I think the whole point of both the novel and film is that the solution doesn't guarantee everlasting peace. The conversation at the end of the novel kind of skirts around this when Manhattan tells Ozymandis "it never ends". It's basically a short term solution that will eventually break down. Looking at it that way I can buy both endings.
|
|
|
Post by G✇JI☈A on Mar 9, 2009 6:13:53 GMT -5
Did anyone notice the acronym for Ozymandis' project Sub Quantum Unifying Intrinsic Devices was S.Q.U.I.D (You can see it on the monitor when Dr Manhatten teleports that reactor thing to Antarctica)
|
|
Phosphor Glow
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Is a real girl!
Posts: 19,875
|
Post by Phosphor Glow on Mar 9, 2009 6:20:59 GMT -5
Did anyone notice the acronym for Ozymandis' project Sub Quantum Unifying Intrinsic Devices was S.Q.U.I.D (You can see it on the monitor when Dr Manhatten teleports that reactor thing to Antarctica) I totally did notice that. Thought I was the only one who did.
|
|
|
Post by jamofpearls on Mar 9, 2009 7:01:12 GMT -5
I still haven't digested what I've seen yet. I had a major distraction in the theater, as a man and his wife let their two year old run around the theater yelling, and causing general disruption.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Mar 9, 2009 7:06:35 GMT -5
I still haven't digested what I've seen yet. I had a major distraction in the theater, as a man and his wife let their two year old run around the theater yelling, and causing general disruption. Children should be banned from R rated movies no exceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2009 7:19:11 GMT -5
I still haven't digested what I've seen yet. I had a major distraction in the theater, as a man and his wife let their two year old run around the theater yelling, and causing general disruption. Children should be banned from R rated movies no exceptions. Didn't anyone complain?
|
|
|
Post by jamofpearls on Mar 9, 2009 8:07:31 GMT -5
Children should be banned from R rated movies no exceptions. Didn't anyone complain? Yeah, someone went and said something, and get this...the wife and child were told they were going to have to leave, but the husband stayed. Someone said out loud before that "you need to get ahold of yer kid" while the husband/dad sitting in front of me said "you need to mind yer f***in business"
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Mar 9, 2009 8:13:13 GMT -5
Now, I'm just throwing this out there for all the Box Office people out there (I'm hopefully seeing the film soon).
So it made about $12m on the Friday which rose to $56m Saturday night...
So....where's Sunday?
I mean, maybe they didn't count it, I don't know. It's just a bit weird to me Sunday wasn't counted. Maybe it was something to do with the Fox suit, I don't know. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by jamofpearls on Mar 9, 2009 9:13:16 GMT -5
Now, I'm just throwing this out there for all the Box Office people out there (I'm hopefully seeing the film soon). So it made about $12m on the Friday which rose to $56m Saturday night... So....where's Sunday? I mean, maybe they didn't count it, I don't know. It's just a bit weird to me Sunday wasn't counted. Maybe it was something to do with the Fox suit, I don't know. Any ideas? Superherohype.com says that the total weekend was 85 or so mil.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 17,088
|
Post by BRV on Mar 9, 2009 9:40:27 GMT -5
So I saw it last night, and here's my two cents.
NOTE - First, allow me to preface this by saying I've never read "Watchmen", nor did I have any earthly idea what the movie was about walking into it.
It was...okay? I think? I really don't know. I will say that I thought it was too long. WAY too long. I walked into the theater at 10:15 for a 10:20 showing and I didn't walk out until 1:15. It's not like it was an enthralling three hours either, I feel like the movie could've been two hours as opposed to 2 hours, 30 minutes, and I wouldn't have complained at all. Yes, I'm aware that to cover the entire book, the movie could be ten hours long, so you've got to keep both the avid readers and the common movie-going public happy, so c'est la vie.
The opening credits scene was incredibly enthralling. Unfortunately, I think that's about where the movie peaked. I just wasn't amazed by what I saw. Yes, I'm aware that this wasn't a "superhero movie" on par with "The Dark Knight" and "Spider-Man", but I just can't wrap my mind around why every single character needed a 30-minute story of their history. And for the love of God, Dr. Manhattan, put on some pants.
I didn't think the violence was all that graphic or brutal. The only part that made me cringe even in the slightest bit was when Night Owl broke the muggers' elbow. Speaking of Night Owl, did that sex scene really need to occur? It was outright pornography. I get that the movie is geared to men between the ages of 18-25, and apparently all we think about is "SEX, EXPLOSIONS AND BOOBS! AWESOME!", but that scene really could've been cut down.
Now remember, I'm not a follower of the franchise. I'm your common, everyday movie-going citizen who decided to give this thing a try. But it was just okay. If I was to give it a grade, I'd say C+. It was good, but nothing memorable.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 9, 2009 9:51:11 GMT -5
He didn't have to include everything to make a better movie. In fact maybe part of the problem was he tried to include too much of the scenery while ignoring the reasons for it.
For example why was Bubastis in the film? In the book he was that one thing that kept Ozymandias tied to his humanity. A genetically manufactured tie that nobody else had ever had or probably ever would. In the movie he was just another special effect that only those of us who did read the book would appreciate. He was there to look cool and get blown up, and his death meant nothing to anybody who didn't know Ozy cared for the cat in the book.
Why was Hollis Mason in the movie? How did that scene help the story they did tell if he wasn't going to die? In the book his death is a huge motivator for Niteowl to become a hero again. Instead Hollis is there to show he's a retired hero and what? It's like Snyder saw his picture in the book and threw him in without realizing why he was in the book.
I can accept that they had to cut the shrink's story and he proabably was used good enough, but I do think they missed a huge oppurtunity by not making him the "normal" human face. To really put a face on the tragedy. Moore mentioned the numbers killed and Snyder even amped that up but numbers are so meaningless. One death people care about will resonate mush more then a CGI effect of many evaporating.
Maybe they had to cut out a lot of the love triangle for time length between Manhattan/Niteowl/Silk Spectre but doing so made Jon more of the Spock character Moore did not want him to become. The only time as Manhattan he seemed to have any emotion was the scene with Janey Slater. I suppose you could argue him being surprised he knew all along she was with Drieberg had to be cut because they needed that time for the awkward overly drawn out sex scene or the slo-mo over done fight sequences, but I personally don't think those were what defined the original story I always thought it was the characters.
I personally, and a lot of the people I know who never read the book, didn't get into any of the characters except maybe Rorschach. I think that's a major failure compared to either the book or even other ensemble movies.
I really don't think that's snobbery to see something try to be something it is not and call it a failure, because I think its only faithfull to Dave Gibbons work on the Watchmen, when they were hyping the claims it was faithfull to Moore's story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2009 10:38:41 GMT -5
Just watched it last night.
I think I should have read the book first. I didn't get the same epic feeling a lot of people got from it.
It was an above average flick to be sure, just in terms of scope and visuals. I understood most of themes at play and enjoyed how each character was less cookie-cutter than most pics of the genre.
By far I think the Comedian understood the reality or humanity and how to deal with it. Just based on the movie, I'd say he was the most human character in the story. Nightowl II & Silk Spectre just wanted to fall in love, Oz & Manhattan were so removed from humanity that combined they were nearly gods. Rorschach was so disgusted by humanity he wanted to destroy most of it.
But the Comedian - I don't know. Not an admirable character by any means, but in terms of someone who had seen it all, done it all and understood what humanity was really all about - what he became is what most humans would do in that situation.
To understand and overcome something so gruesome and disgusting as the human race - you must become it - or even something worse: a parody of it.
Anyway, I love the actors who plays Nightwing II & Rorschach though. The voice got old after a while though to be honest. If you get a chance you should watch Little Children. It features both actors and is a better film to me.
All in all it was worth watching, but I believe that its one of those films that is really meant for (A) people who really understand it from reading the source material and (B) people who love to see eff'd up stuff happen.
Most other people, I predict, won't really get it and/or will find it disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Mar 9, 2009 10:39:44 GMT -5
Now, I'm just throwing this out there for all the Box Office people out there (I'm hopefully seeing the film soon). So it made about $12m on the Friday which rose to $56m Saturday night... So....where's Sunday? I mean, maybe they didn't count it, I don't know. It's just a bit weird to me Sunday wasn't counted. Maybe it was something to do with the Fox suit, I don't know. Any ideas? Superherohype.com says that the total weekend was 85 or so mil. Looking at it, it says Internationally that's what it made. Which, to me, is very good.
|
|
|
Post by jamofpearls on Mar 9, 2009 10:53:39 GMT -5
Superherohype.com says that the total weekend was 85 or so mil. Looking at it, it says Internationally that's what it made. Which, to me, is very good. Whoops...must have missed the internationally part.
|
|
King of Fighters
Unicron
Me and you, we get Superman, were from the streets
Posts: 3,418
|
Post by King of Fighters on Mar 9, 2009 11:26:25 GMT -5
The biggest thing missing, i think, was context. By virtually removing all of the "normal" people, the police, Hollis, the news stand guy and the kid, the psychiatrist and family, you lose the sense of impending doom that made the nuclear threat seem real. All so I feel they made Ozy far to cold in the movie, I miss his little celebration when he realizes the plan worked.
|
|
|
Post by jamofpearls on Mar 9, 2009 11:57:53 GMT -5
The biggest thing missing, i think, was context. By virtually removing all of the "normal" people, the police, Hollis, the news stand guy and the kid, the psychiatrist and family, you lose the sense of impending doom that made the nuclear threat seem real. All so I feel they made Ozy far to cold in the movie, I miss his little celebration when he realizes the plan worked. I get that too. That's why i don't think most people would have cared about the embrace between the news stand guy, and comic kid. If you read the book, it means alot. I think I'm going to wait till the director's cut comes out to rewatch it.
|
|
King of Fighters
Unicron
Me and you, we get Superman, were from the streets
Posts: 3,418
|
Post by King of Fighters on Mar 9, 2009 12:06:48 GMT -5
The biggest thing missing, i think, was context. By virtually removing all of the "normal" people, the police, Hollis, the news stand guy and the kid, the psychiatrist and family, you lose the sense of impending doom that made the nuclear threat seem real. All so I feel they made Ozy far to cold in the movie, I miss his little celebration when he realizes the plan worked. I get that too. That's why i don't think most people would have cared about the embrace between the news stand guy, and comic kid. If you read the book, it means alot. I think I'm going to wait till the director's cut comes out to rewatch it. Same here, when the Directors cut comes out and I watch it I'll probably end up giving it a 9.
|
|