I watched it last night. I should point out I've never heard of Watchmen much less read the comic but it was a terrible film- probably the worst I've seen in a cinema.
The plot is all over the place- 5 mins with the main story followed by 20 mins of a hero's background then towards the end more random trips into the past. Apart from Dr. Manhattan the heroes powers are all generic- they can throw a punch but have no unique powers yet are much stronger than anyone else; they all fight the good fight because that's what good guys do (except for The Comedian). The only good bit was being asked if that super fast/smart guy is a good guy or bad guy for what he did. There's a couple of nice lines from Rorshach (sp?) too.
I think the heroes just lack any depth. I get the feeling the source material is supposed to tell of a dark world where there isn't much hope but in the movie it's summed up as:
- At the start they've all quit - In the middle the girl says to the batman-clone "lets ride of flying ship and start fighting again" "ok".
It's far removed from a cliched superhero movie but cliche is good in superhero movies, it's fine for them to follow the generic plot of: troubled/reluctant hero meets spunky yet always-gets-in-trouble girl, she convinces him to stay the course, there's a bad guy out to destroy the world, good guy kills bad guy. Watchmen didn't have that, there were no high or lows just snoozes.
<!--quoteo(post=1702733:date=Mar 15 2009, 04:56 PM:name=Tykjen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tykjen @ Mar 15 2009, 04:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pretty much nailed it with that. Znyder has no sense of storytelling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, he told it pretty much frame by frame, as it is in the comic book. And I understand if this movie goes over badly for people who haven't read the source material(which I wholeheartedly recommend). There's a lot of stuff and subplots to take in, in relatively short time.
To sherpa: the whole point of the comic was that the super heroes aren't "super". Ordinary people doing extraordinary things. I certainly didn't need power rangers-esque - this guy wears all yellow and the other guy wears red and they all have uniquely different powers - heroes to separate the characters and their personalities from each other. And if the characters lacked depth, it was because there's a bunch of them and only so little screen time. The novel is _massive_. Thumbs up for Snyder for doing the (nearly) best possible with the source material.
Also, I loved the saturday morning cartoon <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Though hopefully the networks don't actually go ahead and get any ideas from this parody.
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1702730:date=Mar 15 2009, 01:17 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sherpa @ Mar 15 2009, 01:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702730"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some stuff<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> sherp buddy, you do need to read the comic, as I suspect you've missed the point. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1702753:date=Mar 15 2009, 06:04 PM:name=BadMouth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BadMouth @ Mar 15 2009, 06:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702753"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well. I suppose more people would've liked it if Snyder didn't have to cut any of the material and released the 3+ 1/2 hour film in theatres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> With just the black freighter it brought the movie up to 5 hours. I don't know if that included the subplots of Hollis Mason, Rorschach's psychiatrist, The Newpaper Company, the Newpaper guy either. There was a lot of stuff they cut out, but hey seemed to stay faithful to the book when the plots were included.
All in all I thought it was pretty good. I saw it with my fiance and although she hadn't read the book she went with an open mind and said she liked it, although she asked me a lot of questions at the end.
I think the replacement of the giant squid with Dr. Manhattan was actually and improvement as it seemed less out of left field and more believable for me.
Didn't like Ozy's actor, he didn't exude the power needed for the role IMO. I liked SS, Comedian, Rorschach and Manhattan though. I thought they were spot on.
Music was good but over the top, like it was trying to compensate for something. Didn't need to IMO as the movie was good enough.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1702754:date=Mar 15 2009, 10:17 PM:name=Shockwave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shockwave @ Mar 15 2009, 10:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702754"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->sherp buddy, you do need to read the comic, as I suspect you've missed the point. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you've missed his point.
It's a movie. You shouldn't need to read the comic in order to understand it. It should stand by itself. And yet all I'm hearing from people who haven't read the comic is "...huh?" and from people who have read the comic all I hear is "read the comic!"
If the movie can't tell the story by itself, it shouldn't be made. You shouldn't need to constantly refer to the source material in order to understand what's going on in it. Lord of the Rings is a book-to-movie adaptation that does a good job of covering a fairly epic storyling without the need to have read the books. Sin City is a comic to movie translation that does a good job of standing by itself; you don't need to read the comics to figure out what's going on in the movie.
"Read the comics" isn't a valid answer to criticism of the film. From the point of view of the movie watcher, it shouldn't matter whether the film is a comic-to-movie translation or an original film. It should be a good film in and of itself, without the need to run off and fill in all the details elsewhere.
I had heard the idea that this movie was unfilmable and I was not sure why it was said, but now I understand. I read the book for the first time before seeing the movie, and all being sad, I enjoyed the movie.
But, given the format, it was impossible to capture the book. The biggest issue was time, so much of the cut sub plots and seemingly side stuff was gone purely due to time issues. These all add to, and build up the main story line. It's not the directors fault for removing them, since no one would sit through a 5 or more hour movie, but it removes a lot of the feeling of the book. I actually enjoyed the change to making it look like Dr. Manhattan did it, as it makes his disappearance a lot more meaningful and the end is the same (the alien always seemed out of left field in the book to me).
People have complained about stuff just showing up, or being cut (like his pet, or the newspaper just showing up at the end). Sometimes these changed the meanings of the stuff and such, but again, it was what they had to work with. Puzl, if you hold the book in such high regard, then you are right not to see this, it is missing the same message. But, I think the movie did a good job with the limits it had. It can not be made into a normal movie. I see the DVD will have some more stuff added back in, but we shall see if it helps enough or not.
So, to people who have not read: Don't go in expecting an action superhero flick. This is a character story in a masked men world. To people who have read: A lot of sub stuff has to be cut, there is no choice. If you can't accept that, don't bother seeing it.
<!--quoteo(post=1702765:date=Mar 16 2009, 03:23 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Mar 16 2009, 03:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702765"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you've missed his point.
It's a movie. You shouldn't need to read the comic in order to understand it. It should stand by itself. And yet all I'm hearing from people who haven't read the comic is "...huh?" and from people who have read the comic all I hear is "read the comic!" If the movie can't tell the story by itself, it shouldn't be made. You shouldn't need to constantly refer to the source material in order to understand what's going on in it. Lord of the Rings is a book-to-movie adaptation that does a good job of covering a fairly epic storyling without the need to have read the books. Sin City is a comic to movie translation that does a good job of standing by itself; you don't need to read the comics to figure out what's going on in the movie. "Read the comics" isn't a valid answer to criticism of the film. From the point of view of the movie watcher, it shouldn't matter whether the film is a comic-to-movie translation or an original film. It should be a good film in and of itself, without the need to run off and fill in all the details elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The way you state this, you'd think this was international law. What's wrong with making a movie for people who read? Maybe if they hear "if you'd read the original, you'd have enjoyed it" enough times, the ######tards will actually start reading again.
<!--quoteo(post=1702767:date=Mar 15 2009, 10:33 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Mar 15 2009, 10:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702767"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The way you state this, you'd think this was international law. What's wrong with making a movie for people who read? Maybe if they hear "if you'd read the original, you'd have enjoyed it" enough times, the ######tards will actually start reading again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, I don't remember anyone saying nobody's ever allowed to make a movie that can't stand on its own. Maybe that was their intention (although I feel like if given the choice between standing on their own and being a better adaptation, they would have chosen #2), but it's not some rule or something. Anyone who hasn't read Watchmen clearly has some sort of problem and not enjoying a movie definitely isn't their biggest.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
edited March 2009
Why bother making a movie if you *need* to go and read something else to make it make sense? What's the point?
There can be stories that are told over a load of different platforms. The Matrix, for example. It has the films, the cartoons (Animatrix) and the games (Enter The Matrix fills in details missing in the trilogy, and Matrix Online continues the story after the films finish). But all of them stand on their own; they complement each other, they come together and make a bigger, more complete story, but you can still just watch The Matrix and enjoy it without having to go off and watch The Animatrix just to figure out what was going on.
Films and books should stand on their own. You might gain a better insight into something by reading/watching them both, but you shouldn't be <b>required</b> to do both.
**EDIT**
Maybe I should make my point clearer.
I'm not arguging against the idea of having a multi-media interaction, here. If someone was brave enough to make a movie and a book that were each half of the same whole and linked with each other perfectly, I'd be behind them fully.
What I'm arguing against here is translating from one medium to another, and doing a poor job of it. IN this case, for example, it seems that the Watchmen comics has 100% of the information required to fully understand the story. The movie has 70-80% of it, meaning that it's not a fully satisfying experience for people who haven't read the comic (and let's face it, "not reading a comic" isn't exactly a crime here). It doesn't take the Watchmen universe and create its own take on it, as say the Spidermen films do, it takes the Watchmen universe and directly translates it, but leaves out enough details to make people confused. That's what I'm against.
<!--quoteo(post=1702772:date=Mar 15 2009, 11:41 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Mar 15 2009, 11:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There can be stories that are told over a load of different platforms. The Matrix, for example. It has the films, the cartoons (Animatrix) and the games (Enter The Matrix fills in details missing in the trilogy, and Matrix Online continues the story after the films finish). But all of them stand on their own; they complement each other, they come together and make a bigger, more complete story, but you can still just watch The Matrix and enjoy it without having to go off and watch The Animatrix just to figure out what was going on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And comic books, don't forget those. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1702750:date=Mar 15 2009, 09:18 PM:name=Dread)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dread @ Mar 15 2009, 09:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702750"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To sherpa: the whole point of the comic was that the super heroes aren't "super".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But there's that jail scene where flabby retired Batman and 100 pound hot girl go through about 30 hardened criminals!
Can those who read the source material explain what the deal is with Rorshach's (sp?) morphing mask? I was hoping for an explanation but never got one.
That's the kind of thing that got completely shafted due to time constraints.
Short version is this: Rorschach got a job doing menial labor as a seamstress sort of person. A lady ordered a dress made out of these crazy new materials that were developed in part due to Dr. Manhattan's influence (because his existence led to all sorts of scientific breakthroughs). The lady didn't like the dress so she gave it back. Rorschach (or more accurately Walter Kovacs at this point) liked the material because it was black and white, never any mixing (matches his morals!), so he took the fabric for himself and messed with it a bit. Later, he heard about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese" target="_blank">Kitty Genovese</a> thing and became convinced that she was the one who ordered and then returned the dress. In memory of her he became Rorschach and made a mask out of the material.
In the comic book it's a sort of latex though so nobody's ever really figured out how he breathes through it. The movie made it into a cloth which works much better.
Just came back from the second viewing..got a small hall for myself and it was simply just tons better. managed to overlook the initial annoyances which i guess i were too critical of. volume was adjusted accordingly and i just watched around for the details..and damn theres many of them. i liked the shot in the intro of nightowl intervening the robber of the wayne family <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Comments
The plot is all over the place- 5 mins with the main story followed by 20 mins of a hero's background then towards the end more random trips into the past. Apart from Dr. Manhattan the heroes powers are all generic- they can throw a punch but have no unique powers yet are much stronger than anyone else; they all fight the good fight because that's what good guys do (except for The Comedian). The only good bit was being asked if that super fast/smart guy is a good guy or bad guy for what he did. There's a couple of nice lines from Rorshach (sp?) too.
I think the heroes just lack any depth. I get the feeling the source material is supposed to tell of a dark world where there isn't much hope but in the movie it's summed up as:
- At the start they've all quit
- In the middle the girl says to the batman-clone "lets ride of flying ship and start fighting again" "ok".
It's far removed from a cliched superhero movie but cliche is good in superhero movies, it's fine for them to follow the generic plot of: troubled/reluctant hero meets spunky yet always-gets-in-trouble girl, she convinces him to stay the course, there's a bad guy out to destroy the world, good guy kills bad guy. Watchmen didn't have that, there were no high or lows just snoozes.
FYIW, I loved Sin City and thought 300 was ok.
Actually, he told it pretty much frame by frame, as it is in the comic book. And I understand if this movie goes over badly for people who haven't read the source material(which I wholeheartedly recommend). There's a lot of stuff and subplots to take in, in relatively short time.
To sherpa: the whole point of the comic was that the super heroes aren't "super". Ordinary people doing extraordinary things. I certainly didn't need power rangers-esque - this guy wears all yellow and the other guy wears red and they all have uniquely different powers - heroes to separate the characters and their personalities from each other. And if the characters lacked depth, it was because there's a bunch of them and only so little screen time. The novel is _massive_. Thumbs up for Snyder for doing the (nearly) best possible with the source material.
Also, I loved the saturday morning cartoon <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Though hopefully the networks don't actually go ahead and get any ideas from this parody.
sherp buddy, you do need to read the comic, as I suspect you've missed the point. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
With just the black freighter it brought the movie up to 5 hours. I don't know if that included the subplots of Hollis Mason, Rorschach's psychiatrist, The Newpaper Company, the Newpaper guy either. There was a lot of stuff they cut out, but hey seemed to stay faithful to the book when the plots were included.
All in all I thought it was pretty good. I saw it with my fiance and although she hadn't read the book she went with an open mind and said she liked it, although she asked me a lot of questions at the end.
I think the replacement of the giant squid with Dr. Manhattan was actually and improvement as it seemed less out of left field and more believable for me.
Didn't like Ozy's actor, he didn't exude the power needed for the role IMO. I liked SS, Comedian, Rorschach and Manhattan though. I thought they were spot on.
Music was good but over the top, like it was trying to compensate for something. Didn't need to IMO as the movie was good enough.
I think you've missed his point.
It's a movie. You shouldn't need to read the comic in order to understand it. It should stand by itself. And yet all I'm hearing from people who haven't read the comic is "...huh?" and from people who have read the comic all I hear is "read the comic!"
If the movie can't tell the story by itself, it shouldn't be made. You shouldn't need to constantly refer to the source material in order to understand what's going on in it. Lord of the Rings is a book-to-movie adaptation that does a good job of covering a fairly epic storyling without the need to have read the books. Sin City is a comic to movie translation that does a good job of standing by itself; you don't need to read the comics to figure out what's going on in the movie.
"Read the comics" isn't a valid answer to criticism of the film. From the point of view of the movie watcher, it shouldn't matter whether the film is a comic-to-movie translation or an original film. It should be a good film in and of itself, without the need to run off and fill in all the details elsewhere.
But, given the format, it was impossible to capture the book. The biggest issue was time, so much of the cut sub plots and seemingly side stuff was gone purely due to time issues. These all add to, and build up the main story line. It's not the directors fault for removing them, since no one would sit through a 5 or more hour movie, but it removes a lot of the feeling of the book. I actually enjoyed the change to making it look like Dr. Manhattan did it, as it makes his disappearance a lot more meaningful and the end is the same (the alien always seemed out of left field in the book to me).
People have complained about stuff just showing up, or being cut (like his pet, or the newspaper just showing up at the end). Sometimes these changed the meanings of the stuff and such, but again, it was what they had to work with. Puzl, if you hold the book in such high regard, then you are right not to see this, it is missing the same message. But, I think the movie did a good job with the limits it had. It can not be made into a normal movie. I see the DVD will have some more stuff added back in, but we shall see if it helps enough or not.
So, to people who have not read: Don't go in expecting an action superhero flick. This is a character story in a masked men world.
To people who have read: A lot of sub stuff has to be cut, there is no choice. If you can't accept that, don't bother seeing it.
It's a movie. You shouldn't need to read the comic in order to understand it. It should stand by itself. And yet all I'm hearing from people who haven't read the comic is "...huh?" and from people who have read the comic all I hear is "read the comic!"
If the movie can't tell the story by itself, it shouldn't be made. You shouldn't need to constantly refer to the source material in order to understand what's going on in it. Lord of the Rings is a book-to-movie adaptation that does a good job of covering a fairly epic storyling without the need to have read the books. Sin City is a comic to movie translation that does a good job of standing by itself; you don't need to read the comics to figure out what's going on in the movie.
"Read the comics" isn't a valid answer to criticism of the film. From the point of view of the movie watcher, it shouldn't matter whether the film is a comic-to-movie translation or an original film. It should be a good film in and of itself, without the need to run off and fill in all the details elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The way you state this, you'd think this was international law. What's wrong with making a movie for people who read? Maybe if they hear "if you'd read the original, you'd have enjoyed it" enough times, the ######tards will actually start reading again.
Yeah, I don't remember anyone saying nobody's ever allowed to make a movie that can't stand on its own. Maybe that was their intention (although I feel like if given the choice between standing on their own and being a better adaptation, they would have chosen #2), but it's not some rule or something. Anyone who hasn't read Watchmen clearly has some sort of problem and not enjoying a movie definitely isn't their biggest.
There can be stories that are told over a load of different platforms. The Matrix, for example. It has the films, the cartoons (Animatrix) and the games (Enter The Matrix fills in details missing in the trilogy, and Matrix Online continues the story after the films finish). But all of them stand on their own; they complement each other, they come together and make a bigger, more complete story, but you can still just watch The Matrix and enjoy it without having to go off and watch The Animatrix just to figure out what was going on.
Films and books should stand on their own. You might gain a better insight into something by reading/watching them both, but you shouldn't be <b>required</b> to do both.
**EDIT**
Maybe I should make my point clearer.
I'm not arguging against the idea of having a multi-media interaction, here. If someone was brave enough to make a movie and a book that were each half of the same whole and linked with each other perfectly, I'd be behind them fully.
What I'm arguing against here is translating from one medium to another, and doing a poor job of it. IN this case, for example, it seems that the Watchmen comics has 100% of the information required to fully understand the story. The movie has 70-80% of it, meaning that it's not a fully satisfying experience for people who haven't read the comic (and let's face it, "not reading a comic" isn't exactly a crime here).
It doesn't take the Watchmen universe and create its own take on it, as say the Spidermen films do, it takes the Watchmen universe and directly translates it, but leaves out enough details to make people confused. That's what I'm against.
And comic books, don't forget those. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
But there's that jail scene where flabby retired Batman and 100 pound hot girl go through about 30 hardened criminals!
Can those who read the source material explain what the deal is with Rorshach's (sp?) morphing mask? I was hoping for an explanation but never got one.
Short version is this: Rorschach got a job doing menial labor as a seamstress sort of person. A lady ordered a dress made out of these crazy new materials that were developed in part due to Dr. Manhattan's influence (because his existence led to all sorts of scientific breakthroughs). The lady didn't like the dress so she gave it back. Rorschach (or more accurately Walter Kovacs at this point) liked the material because it was black and white, never any mixing (matches his morals!), so he took the fabric for himself and messed with it a bit. Later, he heard about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese" target="_blank">Kitty Genovese</a> thing and became convinced that she was the one who ordered and then returned the dress. In memory of her he became Rorschach and made a mask out of the material.
In the comic book it's a sort of latex though so nobody's ever really figured out how he breathes through it. The movie made it into a cloth which works much better.
And I just watched Black Freighter animated..pretty kool.
And the mockumentary Under the Hood.