Watchmen

So for all those who went to see 'The Dark Knight' in theaters you probably saw the trailer for 'Watchmen'

I for one know NOTHING about this story but the trailer did get me interested. I created this thread for the fans and soon to be fans of this story. I'm not sure if I should actually research and/or read the graphic novel or just wait until the film is released to read it yet.

So what are your thoughts on Watchmen? Did you enjoy the trailer? To the fans do you think it'll live up to your expectations? I hear it's a very complex story so do you think the film will focus on the themes or just be another eye candy extraveganza?

Discuss! :tu:

I for one know NOTHING about this story but the trailer did get me interested. I created this thread for the fans and soon to be fans of this story. I'm not sure if I should actually research and/or read the graphic novel or just wait until the film is released to read it yet.


It's one of the most highly-regarded graphic novels of all time, released in the late 80's. Comic book history is divided up into different "ages": the Golden Age, the Silver Age, the Bronze Age, and the Dark Age. Watchmen came at the tail-end of the Bronze Age and is credited with bringing about the Dark Age (AKA the 90's). It's a deconstruction of the superhero genre; it explores the meaning and place of superheroes and picks apart the various tropes one by one. At the time of its release it was groundbreaking because it was very graphic and violent and...well...adult. Nothing quite like it had ever come before.

I definitely recommend the book. Go out and read it right now.

When I first saw the trailer, I didn't think much of it. Then I read an article in EW about the graphic novel and was totally intrigued. After seeing the trailer a few times now, it definitely has my interest and I can't get enough of that song they use. :rockon: I definitely plan to read it and see the movie.

When I first saw the trailer, I didn't think much of it. Then I read an article in EW about the graphic novel and was totally intrigued. After seeing the trailer a few times now, it definitely has my interest and I can't get enough of that song they use. I definitely plan to read it and see the movie.

Definitely read it. Alan Moore is a crazy, crazy man. Watchmen is probably his finest work. Definitely the one with the most impact.

When I first saw the trailer, I didn't think much of it. Then I read an article in EW about the graphic novel and was totally intrigued. After seeing the trailer a few times now, it definitely has my interest and I can't get enough of that song they use. :rockon: I definitely plan to read it and see the movie.

Definitely do NOT read it. Watch the movie first and then read the comic album. You'll be highly dissapointed no matter how well executed the film might end up being--which I have a feeling it won't be. This is not like "Read the Potter boks because the movies are inferior to them", this is beyond Potter. There is simply no way Snyder of all directors is going to do a good job. Not in terms of being able to adapt and cut down all that material into two and a half hours--heck, I don't care about that--but there is just no way that the high thematic concepts and tone will be delivered correctly. And it is almost dead-certain that the acting performances will be laughable at best. In fact, we already KNOW it most likely has the wrong tone based on the visual style and feel of the trailer. Oh well. At least he tried his hardest, I'm sure.

Definitely do NOT read it. Watch the movie first and then read the comic album. You'll be highly dissapointed no matter how well executed the film might end up being--which I have a feeling it won't be. This is not like "Read the Potter boks because the movies are inferior to them", this is beyond Potter. There is simply no way Snyder of all directors is going to do a good job. Not in terms of being able to adapt and cut down all that material into two and a half hours--heck, I don't care about that--but there is just no way that the high thematic concepts and tone will be delivered correctly. And it is almost dead-certain that the acting performances will be laughable at best. In fact, we already KNOW it most likely has the wrong tone based on the visual style and feel of the trailer. Oh well. At least he tried his hardest, I'm sure.

Lol. Or he could just read first and then go into the movie not expecting it to be amazing, but curious to see how it could turn out anyway. Even if it isn't as good as the book it could still manage to be a good movie in its own right.

I hope it's a good movie but also that it bombs at the box office. If it does too well I'm sure it'll spawn imitators and I don't want to end up with a "dark age" of superhero films...though The Dark Knight might have launched that already.

Did you guys hear about Fox suing Warner Brothers over the rights to Watchmen? Depending on how long the suit takes, it could delay the release of the film.

Did you guys hear about Fox suing Warner Brothers over the rights to Watchmen? Depending on how long the suit takes, it could delay the release of the film.


I'm sure it'll get released on time. There's plenty of time to work out these legal issues. Most likely they'll pay Fox to shut up, and in time people will forget it ever happened.

I think WB will fight tooth and nail for this movie. They know they've got a gem on their hands. TDK created exactly the right atmosphere for this movie's release. People want another dark superhero movie and here is Watchmen, perfectly poised to give them one.

I think WB will fight tooth and nail for this movie. They know they've got a gem on their hands. TDK created exactly the right atmosphere for this movie's release. People want another dark superhero movie and here is Watchmen, perfectly poised to give them one.Yes, I'm sure Fox is looking for a cut of the action. I saw reported on the news that Fox does not want a settlement, they want to prevent the movie from being released at all. :rolleyes: I'm sure, if that was said, it was just to pressure Warner Brothers into offering them a bigger cut.

I bought the graphic novel while in USA after I saw the trailer. It took a few reads to let it all sink in but the work is definately worthy of it's praise. It has so many levels that you need to take a few minutes to think before the end of each section. The characterization is stupendous, it beats a lot of stuff written in literature. I wasn't a massive fan of the art-work but Moore's writing more than made up for it. I think Zach Snyder might do a pretty good job, he values the comic as much as the fans do, he has the desire to make it honest and stick to the story and his visual style is excellent. I just hope he doesn't make the entire thing slow-motion like he did with 300.

The graphic novel is amazing, seeing the trailer in front of TDK definitely got my interest and I picked up the novel at B&N a couple weeks later.

After reading it, I think the movie looks good, but I doubt it will have 1/10 of what the novel is. The novel is just too difficult and complex for a proper film adaption.

I don't think it's too complex, but definitely too mature to really be marketable without watering it down a lot.

I don't think it's too complex, but definitely too mature to really be marketable without watering it down a lot.What I'm meaning, is the parts of Rorschach's diary, the parts of the black guy reading his comic book while the older man stands talking about the world and it's current state, etc. While I guess these parts will be cut, how will the audience react to the climax? There's ALOT of exposition, and if not excuted throughout the film properly, people will either be simply confused or not give a damn.

I think this will turn out to be a great movie but it'll be a grossly unmarketable one. People will be confused for sure, but it seems likely to me that they'll just be confused by the themes rather than the actual content of the story. They'll be able to follow the story. They won't be able to figure out what it's supposed to mean, not without being hit over the head with it.

I foresee critical success, commercial failure. Or WB will have an amazing advertising campaign, they'll sell tons of tickets, but people will walk of the theater disappointed. I can't see this being popular. It's just not what people want to see. Though if there's any time to make a Watchmen movie, now is it...I'd imagine TDK will have changed the atmosphere of superhero movies for some time to come.

You guys sound just like the movie executive producers that my boss has to deal with on a regular basis. It's people who think like you guys that have turned 90% of Hollywood films into the stagnant, uninspired rubbish they are today. No offense, but I'm just pointing it out. Never underestimate your audience.

You guys sound just like the movie executive producers that my boss has to deal with on a regular basis. It's people who think like you guys that have turned 90% of Hollywood films into the stagnant, uninspired rubbish they are today. No offense, but I'm just pointing it out. Never underestimate your audience.

Films are stagnant rubbish because audiences devour stagnant rubbish. They love it. They revel in it. They will pay through the nose for it.

Watchmen is offensive and disturbing. A work of art, for sure, but is this really what people want to see? Yeah, TDK has made people hungry for "dark" superhero films but don't you think this is going a little far a little fast? An R-rated superhero movie? That takes out a massive chunk of the superhero movie's audience. Who do they expect to go see it, besides us comic book nerds?

I'm actually amazed this ever got the green light. I mean, I'm glad it's getting made and I'm super excited. But I'm also incredulous that WB thought this would make them money. Clearly this is supposed to be 2009's big blockbuster from the WB front but I see it having a really narrow appeal.

I read Watchmen a few months ago. It was my first time reading a graphic novel. I re-watched the trailer for the film and what was shown is spot on. I can only hope the entire film is the same.

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/102108-watchmen-2008-scream-trailer.php

Ok, now I'm convinced. This movie is going to be AMAZING.

Well it LOOKS impressive, but the question will be whether it remains faithful to its source material in that it is an ALL AROUND well-made film, with class, finesse, and impeccable acting performances. If it's not that, then it's not too different from all the rest.

I saw the new trailer today. It does look great. I haven't read the book yet so I have no idea what a lot of it's about, but I'm excited for the film. I'll probably read the book over Christmas break. Can't wait.

All I'm really worried about so far is the slow-motion.

But oh man, that last shot of the Comedian toppling out of the window is fantastic. Even if the movie turns out to be utter garbage at least it'll look awesome.

I'm looking at an article in Entertainment Weekly right now about the lawsuit between Warner Bros. and Fox over Watchmen. It seems that in December a federal judge ruled that Fox owns the distribution rights. Fox says they do not want to block the March release, but want Warner Bros. to honor their distribution rights. Warner Bros. is going back to court rather than negotiate a deal. Hopefully, this will all be settled soon so the release date won't be pushed back!

I'm not that invested in this movie, but I've become increasingly curious about the book. I'm working on expanding my graphic novel collection - all I have now are all the Sandman books and a smattering of Batmans - and this is so highly regarded and widely talked about, it seems like a must.

SO, question "comic book nerds" - you say that Watchmen is very adult, very violent, etc. How does it compare to Sandman in that regard? (I'm just assuming you're familiar with it - if that's not true, just ignore me I guess.)

Watchmen is violent, but probably not much more violent than most other comics today. The comic world has changed a lot since Watchmen's publication so by today's standards it's not particularly violent, I'd say. Plus the art is old-fashioned and not quite as detailed as more modern comic art, so it's not really gory or anything. But there are parts of it that, while they aren't "graphic" or "violent" per se, are very disturbing because of implied violence. Also, there's a bit of sexual content, if I remember.

It's...mature. The movie will be rated R for good reason. It doesn't sugarcoat anything. But it's not a bloodbath or anything. The violence is never excessive. It can be horrifying at parts but it is always necessary.

I haven't read Sandman so I can't really compare, but the art is considerably less detailed in Watchmen so everything will look less graphic by default.

^Okay, I think I have a good idea what to expect now. Sounds like a winner. Thanks!

Today I received the reprint of Absolute Watchmen. I urge anyone who has the paperback version of the graphic novel to upgrade to the Absolute edition. It is really, really awesome. From the slip of paper that came with it:

WATCHMEN is considered by many to be the finest achievement in sequential storytelling. This oversized hardcover collection features digitally remastered line art and brand new coloring, overseen by John Higgins and Dave Gibbons. It includes 48 pages of supplemental material that has been out of print for nearly two decades, featuring a sampling of Alan Moore's script pages and the original series proposal, plus tons of Dave Gibbon's initial character designs, cover sketches, and promo pieces. ABSOLUTE WATCHMEN is the definitive collection of this timeless series.

The reprint was released in November 2008 and the only difference between it and the 2005 edition is the cover design, if I remember correctly. I wanted the new cover design so I forked over $62.79 including shipping. The 2005 edition is currently selling on Amazon Marketplace for $40 plus shipping. I don't really like purchasing books from the Marketplace so I bought directly from Amazon. Overall I think Absolute Watchmen is definitely worth the money.

Anyway, back to the film. I read (SPOILERS) (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/01/20/watchmen-actor-jeffrey-dean-morgan-on-films-rape-scene-its-rated-r-for-a-reason/) that the rape scene in the film is very violent. This kind of turns me off because I don't like rape scenes in films let alone in books or graphic novels. It was difficult to read that scene.

Well, nobody likes rape scenes. But this one is necessary. Of all the scenes in the book, that scene and the scene where the squid destroys NYC are probably the most memorable.

Well, nobody likes rape scenes. But this one is necessary. Of all the scenes in the book, that scene and the scene where the squid destroys NYC are probably the most memorable.
I agree. I know that the rape scene must be in he film. I just hope that it isn't more violent than it is in the novel. I read that the squid is not in the film. They changed the ending. Kevin Smith has seen the film and commented on the ending but I cannot give a link here because he uses profanity.

I know that the rape scene must be in he film. I just hope that it isn't more violent than it is in the novel.

It was already pretty violent in the novel, I thought. I can't even imagine them making it much more so.

I read that the squid is not in the film. They changed the ending. Kevin Smith has seen the film and commented on the ending but I cannot give a link here because he uses profanity.

The squid is a regrettable loss but what they've used instead is a legitimate enough substitute for me. Just as long as we still get the silent montage of bodies lining the gutters of streets, I'm not too fussed.

Shiny new trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvTyldqxVsY

^ That trailer came out back in November. :p

There's been screening for the film, and so far, it's recieving some high praise from the graphic novel's biggest fans... apparently Snyder has done something right, because if there's anything I've learned at this point, fans who are as loyal and biased for the book/graphic novel as these fans are, if they're left pleased and satisfied... the film must really be THAT good. :lol:

http://latinoreview.com/news/exclusive-first-watchmen-readers-review-6166

http://nerdworld.blogs.time.com/2009/02/16/my-own-private-watchmen/

:cool:

*sigh* Of course it did. I dunno why I bother. Those reviews look promising though.

Well, let's wait and see what the general public think. Comic book fans don't count because they'd lobby it regardless of how bad it was, unless it was outrageously different and incredibly, ridiculously, Frank Miller's 'The Spirit' bad.

The general public are going to hate it, of course. I'm sure it'll cause an uproar, not because of quality, but because of content. I don't think the world is ready for this movie. Maybe I'm underestimating them but I think WB is going to be sorely disappointed if they expect this to be a huge hit.

Of course, I'll see it regardless.

^Well I don't think they can expect an obscene turn-out a la Dark Knight, but I think it'll draw a respectable crowd anyway. There are enough people excited/curious about it that it will at least not 'flop' at the box office.

Just bought the graphic novel, by the way. And I've finally figured out what Rorschache's name means.

One thing that irks me is the incorrect pronunciation of "Rorschach" in the film.

What's the right way to pronounce it? I have avoided saying his name out loud for years because I could never figure it out.

It's pronounced "ʁoɐʃax". See this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_German) link for the German IPA. You can copy and paste the IPA from the pronunciation I gave into Wikipedia to get sound samples. The sample for "o" is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-mid_back_rounded_vowel), the sample for "a" is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_front_unrounded_vowel), and the sample for "x" is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_velar_fricative).

Well, let's wait and see what the general public think. Comic book fans don't count because they'd lobby it regardless of how bad it was, unless it was outrageously different and incredibly, ridiculously, Frank Miller's 'The Spirit' bad.


If you honestly believe that, stop by the Watchmen boards at the Superhero hype.

comic fans are by far the HARDEST to please. I mean, heck, there are people complaining at the smallest details in this thing. If you need an example, look up "UPDATE WATCHMEN MOVIE SUCKS" on youtube. I would post a link but the guy does swear some in it.

Really though, it will just show you how ignorant, and insane, some comic book fans are. But rest assured, comic fans are not the easiest crowd to please, they are definitely going to be the hardest.

It looks like the reviews are mostly positive but a bit mixed. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/) I'm still going to watch and form my own opinion, but I'd just thought I'd let others know what the critics think. :)

I'm so excited! Only one week to go . . . I'll be seeing it in IMAX opening night. :D

IMAX is such a waste of money, in my opinion. It's a gimmick if nothing is filmed with an IMAX camera. Who wants to move their entire head around to watch a film?

I received a call from my friend today and it looks like we may be seeing it at midnight, opening day. Hopefully we will get there in time to get good seats, unlike when we went to see TDK. I was explicitly told by my friend we would be at the theater at least 40 minuted before TDK began. We got there five minutes before and there were no good seats available so we exchanged the ticket for a different time. A huge inconvenience.

I hope this doesn't happen again.

I've seen the trailers and they're just not doing anything for me, and on top of the mixed reviews I probably won't see it. If I had read the comics I might, since I kind of have this thing where I have to see a movie if it's made from something I've read.
But the special effects do look really, really cool and if I do end up seeing the movie I'm sure they'll look even better on the big screen.

But the special effects do look really, really cool and if I do end up seeing the movie I'm sure they'll look even better on the big screen.
I am sure the visual effects are great but there are reports that there is too much slow motion. If you've seen 300, you'll know what I'm talking about. If not, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yp6DBhs0XU&fmt=18) clip. Even that's too much. Zack Snyder's direction needs to change, immediately.

Oh. Yeah, if there's too much slow motion that could bring the overall effect of the special effects down.

Overall reviews have been mixed, but I like the advisory in the NYT (http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/movies/06Watc.html?8dpc):

"“Watchmen” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). It has extreme violence, a naked blue man and some superhero sex."

I was shocked that Roger Ebert gave the film four stars.

Seems like he would've hated it for sure. Surprising.

You never know what he's going to like or why. There are films he's applauded (W. and to a lesser extent Van Helsing) that were either lightweight CGI hodgepodges or colossal experimental failures. There are films he's reviled as having no soul that are actually good. You never know with any reviewer what they'll focus on with a given film.

The previews look impressive. I'll probably rent it when it comes out on DVD.

You never know what he's going to like or why. There are films he's applauded (W. and to a lesser extent Van Helsing) that were either lightweight CGI hodgepodges or colossal experimental failures. There are films he's reviled as having no soul that are actually good. You never know with any reviewer what they'll focus on with a given film.

Yes, exactly. :)

Ebert was one of the very few critics who was dismissive of The Fellowship of the Ring. :rolleyes: But that's not to say I wouldn't agree with him on other stuff. :D (All the same though, Van Helsing???? :wow: )

I must say that Watchmen is not my normal fare but I did find the trailer quite impressive and intriguing. :) I am not familiar with the story at all, but have been reading up on it.

The only thing that would put me off is the 18 rating. The film sounds very violent. The London Metro critic said this morning that it made The Dark Knight look like Count Duckula on ice! :wow:

I might brave it though. :cool: It's showing at the London IMAX. That might be a bit too intense.

May I ask how old you are, Pearl _Took? It seems odd that violence, fake violence I might add, might scare you away from seeing a film.

One reviewer in a UK national paper said "Watchmen is unwatchable - a grotesque squandering of time, talent and technology. This despicable trash will find an audience among sad sociopaths, deranged pseudo-intellectuals and brutalised, immature men of all ages."

I guess he didn't like it then :)

May I ask how old you are, Pearl _Took?

I belong to the Marauder generation. ;)

It seems odd that violence, fake violence I might add, might scare you away from seeing a film.

Why? :hmm: The older I get, the less my tolerance for violence-as-entertainment becomes. :cool:

I'll watch something like Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan though, since I enjoy war films.

Ginger1, I'm guessing that review didn't come from one of the broadsheets. ;)

The review came from the Daily Rant - oh - er - I mean Mail :)

The review came from the Daily Rant - oh - er - I mean Mail :)

LOL, I might have guessed. :D (Did the Mail critics like The Dark Knight, we wonders, yes we wonders? Because that was violent but also pretty moral.)

One reviewer in a UK national paper said "Watchmen is unwatchable - a grotesque squandering of time, talent and technology. This despicable trash will find an audience among sad sociopaths, deranged pseudo-intellectuals and brutalised, immature men of all ages."
This is why I don't like critics. The pretentiousness in this segment of the review alone is enough to tell me the reviewer is a snob. It's also nice how the reviewer thinks that those who like the film are probably sociopaths and pseudo-intellectuals. Do you have a link to the review?

Why? :hmm: The older I get, the less my tolerance for violence-as-entertainment becomes. :cool:
I understand this sentiment. I too am this way, but only with films that have excessive violence. If a film has an engaging story, however, and there is excessive violence, I'll overlook it.

Edit: Ah. The Daily Mail. One of the worst papers in all of Britain.

Edit #2: I found the review (SPOILERS!) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1159801/Watchmen-Superheroes-sick-slick.html) and read it. I am thinking that since the reviewer obviously doesn't know that the comic is about the deconstruction of "super" heroes, I guess that means the film doesn't give that message. This doesn't bode too well.

This is why I don't like critics. The pretentiousness in this segment of the review alone is enough to tell me the reviewer is a snob. It's also nice how the reviewer thinks that those who like the film are probably sociopaths and pseudo-intellectuals. Do you have a link to the review?

Actually the Mail is in an inverted way snobbish but at the same time anti-intellectual.

Edit #2: I found the review (SPOILERS!) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1159801/Watchmen-Superheroes-sick-slick.html) and read it. I am thinking that since the reviewer obviously doesn't know that the comic is about the deconstruction of "super" heroes,

Speaking of pretentious...:)

I am so excited for this movie release... this movie and its effects look amazing! Im so glad its finally out today! :D

Speaking of pretentious...:)
I guess I should have said "The comic is about the deconstruction of "super" heroes and that theme may not be present in the film."

From what I can tell--it's very present. I think this person is just looking to make a name for him/herself and doesn't know anything about the source material. Also, what's with reviewers and the term "p.... violence" these days. The first time I heard it and saw it in print, they were talkling about The Passion of the Christ. Then, Sin City. Next, 300. Now, Watchmen. It's bordering on a trendy perjorative.:sigh:

Well I "just" came home from watching this movie and one thing really stood out, this movie is a big compromise to me. It does indeed savor many of the scenes which we who have read the comic like, but also brandishes enough pure Hollywood action in to make the rest of the audience like it.
To be honest I don't appreciate the brutal violence, it's just to much... There is no need to beat the comic violence vise, but oh my, they have. They beat 300 hands down, for sure.
(Even though 300 is incredible violent, it's war and it's brutal, but the comical "machones" just covers it for me.)

If viewed from the comic book side, they should have followed it more. Although I must impress that I am rather astonished over the faithfulness.

From a general film viewers place, this is a pretty of the line movie. The sheer mood of the whole film and much of the dialog is enough to make the happiest soul feel down. Beware that it also might be confusing, there is a lot going on in this movie. I actually believe that following the comic books story structure more, would have saved them from a little confusion.

The way they filmed the movie and the sound I have nothing to say until I see it properly and not in some public cinema. I also have to admit that my attention was mostly on the characters and the story.

One reviewer in a UK national paper said "Watchmen is unwatchable - a grotesque squandering of time, talent and technology. This despicable trash will find an audience among sad sociopaths, deranged pseudo-intellectuals and brutalised, immature men of all ages."

I guess he didn't like it then :)

Wow I don't agree with that reviewer one bit.

I saw the movie at the Midnight release and was pleasantly surprised. It stayed pretty true to the novel and as a big fan I can't ask for much more. I also thought the acting was pretty good as well as the special effects.

It may not be Dark Knight quality but I found it very enjoyable and was happy when I left the theater.

I saw it last night, and after letting it sink in a while, it may be as good, if not a little better, than TDK. It's faithful to the GN, but Snyder takes quite a few creative liberties and really lets the film soar with it.

It only felt a bit too short, but I'm sure the Directors Cut will feel different.

I saw it opening night and thought it was really good. I haven't read the GN (but I plan to), so I can't compare the two, but I was impressed with the movie. I'd like to see it again because it was really dense, especially at the beginning, and I'm sure I didn't pick up on a lot of things that those who had read the book picked up on.

Saw it last night and I've been thinking about it pretty much ever since, so I guess that means I liked it.

Despite it being nearly three hours long, it never felt like it dragged. It was really mesmerizing.

Though I imagine it seems like it would be a really hard sell with non-reader audience.

Saw it last night and I've been thinking about it pretty much ever since, so I guess that means I liked it.

Despite it being nearly three hours long, it never felt like it dragged. It was really mesmerizing.

Though I imagine it seems like it would be a really hard sell with non-reader audience.


That is how I felt. The GN is large with several characters so the movie had a lot to cover and I thought that the pace worked well.

That being said, I don't think this movie will be a mainstream success the way TDK was. It'll take a while for people to recognize the genius in this movie. Cult hit for sure. Which might actually be better in the long run.

I agree that it will be a cult hit rather than a permanent mainstream success. And the graphic novel did very well as a cult hit too.

The fact is that this is still a story about politics, high deception and the dark, very gruelling world of the superhero.

It was always going to be hard to put on screen. I missed the Tales of the Black Freighter, but the fact remains that I really loved the film. It will never beat the book- but the people who read the book are more likely to appreciate it, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree also that it's probably a hard sell for those people who did not read the book. I believe that Watchmen was tailored and made to be for the fans that were already active.

I absolutely adored Rorschach all the more after seeing the film. I violently disagree with most of what he believes- and that makes him inaccessible and enigmatic to me. That has never, ever changed. I love what he stands for in the most basic way- never compromise. His sequences were fantastic.

Rorschach was gold.

"GIVE ME BACK MY FAAAAAAAAAAAACE"

Rorschach was gold.

"GIVE ME BACK MY FAAAAAAAAAAAACE"


Yes Rorschach was amazing. I loved all his parts especially the end. :)

*Points to avatar*

I saw this on Friday with my two closest friends. We had a great time. The movie is overall an excellent adaptation and an excellent film. Though I do not like a few things.

I do not like the changes made just to show excessive violence, i.e. the prison scene with Rorschach and the three guys, and the scene with the child murderer. Those scenes are a bit much.

I also do not like how Laurie and Dan are murderers in the film (a few thugs are killed in the alleyway).

I do not like how apparently Laurie and Dan are superhuman, something I do not recall being in the comic. It just takes you out of the moment when you see, I'd say a 100lb woman, kicking grown men and causing them to fly across the area. It's like River in the film Serenity. It breaks your suspension of disbelief.

I have not yet seen the film, but I fully intend to rent it.

On a side note to JL Tucker--With regard to Serenity, I felt that River was the ultimate Slayer, that Joss conceived of her that way and that Summer Glau finally and full brought that to the screen in the action scenes of the film.

I haven't read the graphic novel, and I didn't like the movie at all. I couldn't sit through it, we left after about an hour and a half I think. The whole thing was dull and uninteresting to me, and it was clear whodunnit immediately. It was horribly gruesome and the storylines got way too choppy for me.

The book is on my list, so I may revisit the movie if I end up reading it though.

I really think it´s a love it or hate it movie, I love it :love:, it was very entertaining to me, a little long though...:cool:

what I liked the most wore the performances of the actors especially the owl and ozymandias or something like that :p it was cool

I think the film was primarily made for those who were already fans. I got the impression from my brother's girlfriend (who has not read the book) that some parts seemed confusing and choppy to her too, so it makes sense.

There were definitely some parts that I was enthralled with, seeing them transferred almost directly from page to screen.

The other side is that the violence is a tad bit more blatant than the book. It's not friendly viewing, that's for sure. But it is part of the story- and a pivotal part, at that.

It's a film I will definitely pick up when it comes on DVD. With as many special features as possible. ;)

I do not like the changes made just to show excessive violence, i.e. the prison scene with Rorschach and the three guys, and the scene with the child murderer. Those scenes are a bit much.

It's a little excessive. But when you think about it, though, there's a very good explanation for this. In the case of Watchmen the Book, the violence had no true predecessor, you know? It was essentially the first time comic audiences began to see such grisly images. In the case of Watchmen the Movie, we're dealing with a post-TDK audience. The post-TDK audience is already somewhat desensitized to violence, so the Watchmen movie has to up the ante significantly in order to make its point.

Hurm.

[QUOTE=YellowPoofBall;5252291]I haven't read the graphic novel, and I didn't like the movie at all. I couldn't sit through it, we left after about an hour and a half I think. The whole thing was dull and uninteresting to me, and it was clear whodunnit immediately. It was horribly gruesome and the storylines got way too choppy for me.

The book is on my list, so I may revisit the movie if I end up reading it though.[/QUOTe}I was thinking of going to see this movie but a nonreading friend of mine said the exact same thing as you...he was completely bored and he said that the plot was predictable. I'm a nonreader so I have a feeling I won't like it either. The visuals from the trailer looked great which is what attracted me to it, but so far I haven't heard anything positive from my nonreader friends. I'll probably wait for the dvd.

I saw this on Friday with my two closest friends. We had a great time. The movie is overall an excellent adaptation and an excellent film. Though I do not like a few things.

I do not like the changes made just to show excessive violence, i.e. the prison scene with Rorschach and the three guys, and the scene with the child murderer. Those scenes are a bit much.

I also do not like how Laurie and Dan are murderers in the film (a few thugs are killed in the alleyway).

I do not like how apparently Laurie and Dan are superhuman, something I do not recall being in the comic. It just takes you out of the moment when you see, I'd say a 100lb woman, kicking grown men and causing them to fly across the area. It's like River in the film Serenity. It breaks your suspension of disbelief.

I actually thought the prison scene wasn't any more violent than the graphic novel. Yeah, in the novel the guy got his throat slit instead of his arms being chopped off, but there was still blood everywhere and the guy still died.

However, I agree with the fight scenes. In general, all the superheros seemed like they had a degree of low superhuman strength. Rorschach jumped around like a olympic gymnast, Veidt could send Dan flying twenty feet across a room with one kick, ect, ect. It didn't bother me too much, but it did strike me as a bit odd.

I actually thought the prison scene wasn't any more violent than the graphic novel. Yeah, in the novel the guy got his throat slit instead of his arms being chopped off, but there was still blood everywhere and the guy still died.


The change in the film is actually more violent because it took more than a few seconds to saw off the arms. Then you see the arms hanging there. With the throat being cut, it's over quite quickly.

The change in the film is actually more violent because it took more than a few seconds to saw off the arms. Then you see the arms hanging there. With the throat being cut, it's over quite quickly.

Wow, you have definitely convinced me NOT to see this movie. Ugh, way too violent for me:lol:

I never read the GN but I did see it and was not expecting so much violence I would have been okay with it if it hadn't shown so much of it right close and personal. Gah it was pretty gross but the sounds were even worse.
And I do have to say that most of the stuff that Laurie said was incredibly INCREDIBLY cheesy but i got over that fast.
The opening credits were obviously the best part of the film which is sad but those were some freakin amazing opening credits. I also loved the slow motion I really thought it fit and they didn't overuse it so it was perfect.
I've heard a lot of people say how they didn't like that there was no depth to the characters but I completely disagree. I felt like Rorschach was obviously the most to go in depth but you also got to see Dr. Manhattan and Laurie's past. It would have been nice to see Dan's past but it wasn't really needed in my mind (mostly because I was fangirling over him haha).
For someone who never read the GN I only felt confused once in the movie but then caught up immediately...actually make that twice haha.

I also do not like how that the revelation that Blake is Laurie's father is handled. It's horrible. It felt out of place. It didn't seem important because Laurie's hatred towards Blake isn't emphasized enough in the film.

I still cannot get over how retarded it was to make Laurie and Dan superhuman. It defeats the purpose.

I saw this movie last night.

I thought it was pretty good. It was too long but they obviously wanted to get everything in, which is good. I thought the visual aspects were amazing! Especially Manhattan and the Mars stuff.

One gaping plot hole I think was when world peace was achieved on the basis of the common enemy of Manhattan. Wouldn't they know that he would just go to another galaxy, that they could never get him, and fighting would start again.

The music was also awful. The only song that fit the situation was the Dylan song at the beginning. All the rest was terrible and didn't fit the situation at all, I think.

But I really liked the character of Dr Manhattan. He was so cool

The music was also awful. The only song that fit the situation was the Dylan song at the beginning. All the rest was terrible and didn't fit the situation at all, I think.
I'd have to disagree.

The "Hallelujah" song by Leonard Cohen fits perfectly for the scene used because Dan is finally able to consummate with Laurie. He's not impotent in that scene. Hence the "Hallelujah". It's quite funny.

When "All Along the Watchtower" is playing, it is at the exact moment it is used in the comic. Here are the lyrics used in the comic and the film, with scene explanations from the film:

Outside in the cold distance (Dan and Rorschach walking in the cold distance)
A wild cat did growl (Veidt's pet)
Two riders were approaching (Dan and Rorschach approaching Veidt's lair)
And the wind began to howl (the wind blowing while Dan and Rorschach are walking)

I guess it just didn't do it for me

I loved the soundtrack for the movie. Awesome music that helped make the movie imo. I thought it fit well. I am going to either download from itunes or buy the cd.

I really liked the music, too. There were a lot of unconventional music choices, and that's what I liked about it. In some places it undercut the drama with humor; that was a really nice juxtaposition.

I find it a little confusing that people keep saying these characters are "boring" or "flat" or "underdeveloped." The movie is essentially three hours of character development strung together by a paper-thin plot. The characters are the focus, the only interesting aspect of the story!

This is a masterpiece but I think poor marketing has slaughtered it. Sure, it got a lot of hype and exposure, but people went into this expecting something like 300. The actual result was something much closer to Blade Runner. It's small wonder that people are disappointed.

But then, I guess, how are you supposed to advertise a Watchmen movie?

The music was probably my favorite part of the movie... Dylan in the beginning credits was just *amazing* And many many other parts in the movie I found myself just thinking "wow I want this soundtrack." Also the part with "Hallelujah" made me laugh too JLTucker... whereas my BF who was sitting next to me kind of went "wow this is just really weird and awkward..." it clicked for me. So I think it works for some and doesn't for others. I tend to have strange music choices, so I just loved it all. I think every song was well thought out and fit the movie.

I find it a little confusing that people keep saying these characters are "boring" or "flat" or "underdeveloped." The movie is essentially three hours of character development strung together by a paper-thin plot. The characters are the focus, the only interesting aspect of the story!

This is a masterpiece but I think poor marketing has slaughtered it. Sure, it got a lot of hype and exposure, but people went into this expecting something like 300. The actual result was something much closer to Blade Runner. It's small wonder that people are disappointed.

But then, I guess, how are you supposed to advertise a Watchmen movie?


I agree the characters are the focus more so then the plot. It digs into the morality of the characters. Their choices and ideals. It is a movie that really wants you to think.

Their is action but that is not the majority of the movie and I think that is why some have been turned off. At least from what I have heard from people who were dissapointed. They went in expecting a fast driven action plot. The typical comic book movie.

This film was a waste of my time. I expected something along the lines of Sin City or 300 (visually stunning, epic, a bit funny) and I was hugely disappointed. The dialogue wasn't only horribly uninspired and cheesy, it was also dragging on and on and on. Slow motion is a fine thing but there is something called overkill. There was basically zero plot and they managed to make even that sound confusing. The scene in which Laurie and Jon have this incredibly important conversation on Mars and the bit with the practical joke later on were so badly delivered and cut that they totally lost me somewhere along the way. And what was Laurie's motivation to be with Dan again? He was there?

I enjoyed the opening credits and Jeffrey Dean Morgan's performance though. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to save the film for me.

^^The slow motion in Watchmen doesn't even approach the level of slow motion in 300. Why did you expect something like Sin City and 300? The trailers made no such implication that the film would even be remotely similar to them. I'd recommend the comic, Moriath. It's far superior and if you read the comic and like it, you may look at the film in a different light.

Edit: One thing non-readers won't get from the film, which is sad because Snyder didn't do a great job showing this, is that Watchmen is basically a caricature of comic books. There's cheesy dialogue and a hilariously retarded plot, like most comic books.

I would not say it was retarded, it is far more deep than any other comic book and considering the glum situation it's "kind of smart".

You will look different on this when you have read the comic, a lot of stuff will fall into places and the agony of the most ruined scenes will attack you like a furious beast!

I agree most with what you "Moriath", but how can you say that Watchmen is not visually stunning? It's in the same lines as both 300 and sin city although not that linear. I do love the visual style of both those movies, but Watchmen has way more punch.
They have removed some of the dark humor from the film which is annoying.
Dialog, although many times straight from the book is not very good, I completely agree.

And what was Laurie's motivation to be with Dan again? He was there?What do you mean? She had fallen in love with him, and her conversation with Jon on mars didn't change that, nor did their final kiss (which was more of a goodbye kiss to a former lover than anything else).

Why did you expect something like Sin City and 300? The trailers made no such implication that the film would even be remotely similar to them.

The trailers were composed almost entirely of 300-style slow-mo action scenes. The posters have "Visionary director of 300" slapped across the top in bright yellow letters. It's easy to see how someone might have been tricked into thinking this was something it wasn't.

Having seen the movie I definitely don't think the trailers were an accurate representation of what it was about. They didn't do a good enough job of making people understand that Watchmen is a deconstruction of the superhero genre. Most of the audience doesn't want to see deconstruction, they just want to watch things blow up and have a good time. That's why Star Wars is the most popular sci-fi film of all time even though 2001 is vastly more cerebral.

The posters have "Visionary director of 300" slapped across the top in bright yellow letters. It's easy to see how someone might have been tricked into thinking this was something it wasn't.
And how did that make one think Watchmen is like Sin City?

Anyway, I don't buy this argument. The Pixar films have "From the creators of insert Pixar film here" plastered all over their trailers and those films are entirely different. I know I went to see Wall-E expecting another Ratatouille and The Incredibles. You can imagine how upset I was when that was not the case. :lol: ;)

Edit: The fact is that a lot of people went to see the film expecting a typical comic book movie. They were let down.

I agree most with what you "Moriath", but how can you say that Watchmen is not visually stunning? It's in the same lines as both 300 and sin city although not that linear. I do love the visual style of both those movies, but Watchmen has way more punch.
Oh, it was visually stunning but there were too many scenes that didn't seem to have a point apart from looking good, if you know what I mean.

Why did you expect something like Sin City and 300? The trailers made no such implication that the film would even be remotely similar to them.

Because it's an adaptation of a graphic novel and also directed b Zack Snyder? So I obviously expected more than only cool effects.

And how did that make one think Watchmen is like Sin City?


There was a strong element in pre-release reporting that because Watchman, Sin City and V for Vendetta were dystopian they were somehow the same.

It's pointless arguing over this. Snyder was screwed with whatever he did with the film. He could upset the fanboys or make the film inaccessible to non-readers. It looks like he's done both.

One thing that I wish more people would do, when they can, is actually research the source material some films are based on. When I heard that Slumdog Millionaire was based on a novel, I researched the book and came to the conclusion that the book is tripe. I lowered my expectations. And lo and behold, I think the film is as well. If you research a novel or comic or whatever that a film is based on, you may lower your expectations of the adaptation and you'll probably get a better picture on what the film is about.

The trailers were composed almost entirely of 300-style slow-mo action scenes. The posters have "Visionary director of 300" slapped across the top in bright yellow letters. It's easy to see how someone might have been tricked into thinking this was something it wasn't.

Having seen the movie I definitely don't think the trailers were an accurate representation of what it was about. They didn't do a good enough job of making people understand that Watchmen is a deconstruction of the superhero genre. Most of the audience doesn't want to see deconstruction, they just want to watch things blow up and have a good time. That's why Star Wars is the most popular sci-fi film of all time even though 2001 is vastly more cerebral.


I totally agree with this. The trailer made it appear to be a straight up action comic book movie when there is really much more going on.

Overall I think fans of the book like myself are going to enjoy this film more then non readers. I can see how it may confuse some and seem choppy.

The trailers were composed almost entirely of 300-style slow-mo action scenes. The posters have "Visionary director of 300" slapped across the top in bright yellow letters. It's easy to see how someone might have been tricked into thinking this was something it wasn't.

Having seen the movie I definitely don't think the trailers were an accurate representation of what it was about. They didn't do a good enough job of making people understand that Watchmen is a deconstruction of the superhero genre. Most of the audience doesn't want to see deconstruction, they just want to watch things blow up and have a good time. That's why Star Wars is the most popular sci-fi film of all time even though 2001 is vastly more cerebral.

That's the thing. I'm not familiar with the graphic novel at all. Based on the trailers, I honestly thought it was, well, a darker version of the superhero genre. So, I was expecting something like the dark knight or a grimmer ironman and so did a lot people that I knew who saw the film. They all said it was actually really slow, more cerebral, boring, and very violent. So, I decided to pass on the watchmen. Visually, though, the trailers looked amazing which was one of the reasons why I almost went to see it last weekend.

That's the thing. I'm not familiar with the graphic novel at all. Based on the trailers, I honestly thought it was, well, a darker version of the superhero genre. So, I was expecting something like the dark knight or a grimmer ironman and so did a lot people that I knew who saw the film. They all said it was actually really slow, more cerebral, boring, and very violent. So, I decided to pass on the watchmen. Visually, though, the trailers looked amazing which was one of the reasons why I almost went to see it last weekend.It is a darker vision of the superhero genre, it's a complete spin on the superhero genre. It's not as visually dark as The Dark Knight, but it's subject matter is far darker and frequently disturbing.

That's the thing. I'm not familiar with the graphic novel at all. Based on the trailers, I honestly thought it was, well, a darker version of the superhero genre. So, I was expecting something like the dark knight or a grimmer ironman and so did a lot people that I knew who saw the film.

Yeah, it's nothing like either TDK or Iron Man. It's a completely different beast. It's not just "dark superheroes;" it takes the very concept of the superhero and rips it to pieces. Impossible to enjoy it if what you want to see is Iron Man.

It's like...I don't know, the difference between Wall-E and I Am Legend. Similar material but they definitely CAN'T be lumped together in any sense.

Well I saw Watchmen and I liked it...I could tell...or atleast I felt...that the movie was only only skimming the surface. I did like it though..but I didn't leave the movie thinking 'man I want to see it again'..I left thinking 'Wow..that was good...but...'

And that's the thing I couldn't finish the sentence. I didn't know what it was the bugged me about it.

I never heard of Watchmen until they showed the trailer in front of the Dark Knight (Hence the reason I started this thread) I remember asking people if I should read the GN first or just wait and I ultimately decided to wait. I'm glad I did because if I do read the GN now it'll just build upon the world I just found out about (Same thing my friend is doing with HP..waiting until seeing all the movies before reading the books.)

I just don't like hearing the whole 'well if you read the GN you'll understand it more' argument...why should we be expected to? The whole 'reading the source materiel' argument can be sketchy...especially if the source wasn't that good :lol: I remember when I was younger I'd get into a movie, see the book in a store and buy it and realize if I read the book before I would never have seen the movie :lol: Film and Book are different mediums...I'm sure we all agree with that, but if you're going to adapt something for film you have to make it work for that medium and I'm sure the director of this did his best to try and make it so us 'normies' could understand it and I think..in that aspect..he did.

I just seemed like nothing happened. I dunno how to explain it. The movie is long, but it never lost my attention. I just didn't FEEL anything for these characters. It's amazing that in a nearly three hour movie there weren't many characters I actually cared about.

I will say that the director did a good job atleast giving us a general idea about where most of these characters came from. The flashbacks were a bit much after a while but I understood why he did it I suppose. I liked Dr. Manhattan and Rorschece (sp?) and that's about it.....and still when Dr. Manhattan killed him at the end I didn't care and was wondering why. When we found out who was behind everything I was just like..oh...and the main thing that was weird was when the Spectre found out the Comedian was her father...I had no idea she didn't know who her father was in the first place. For her character to be on screen for so much I didn't know anything about her. Why was she fighting...because of her mom I'm sure...but I wish that would've came across.

One question though were they meant to be just normal people dressed up as hero's? My friend asked me today he was wondering how they got superhuman strength and I wasn't sure if they were supposed to.

At the end of the day I liked it and I'm planning on reading the GN soon. Then I'll rewatch the film and see how my perception changed. It was definatly unlike any other movie I've seen and I thought a few of the music choices were brilliant. Like I said I liked the film but even with nearly 3 hours of footage I didn't connect with it.

[One question though were they meant to be just normal people dressed up as hero's? My friend asked me today he was wondering how they got superhuman strength and I wasn't sure if they were supposed to.

They didn't have superhuman strength, they're just trained up really well and so their fight scenes are, as a result, made to look and sound superhuman as is always the case with superhero movies. I think that's what the director was going for. Look at Batman in all of his movies. He's just human yet the sound effects of when he knocks someone out make it sound as if does have superhuman strength. Same when he somehow can throw a guy across the room, and when he lands against the wall, the wall has cracks in it.

But I agree. I think that made it a bit confusing for people. The thing is that the story IS about the flashbacks and the history of these characters together as a team, how it changed them, why they all went their separate ways, and what it would take to reunite them. The plot itself is meant to feel threadbare because none of them honestly care enough about the greater public being at war. They're desensitized from all of that, as many of us tend to be during times of war. Even the ones who are active against situtations--such as they were with Iraq--can often times wonder whether they've done enough or if they should, or even can, intervene more.

Essentially it's a story about how this newer generation of superheroes, the Watchmen, failed to meet the expectations of the older ones, the Minutemen (seen in the opening credits) when the torch of responsibility was passed down to them.

One question though were they meant to be just normal people dressed up as hero's?

Yes and no. Only Manhattan has powers (unless you count Veidt/Ozymandias's intelligence as a superpower). But they're not exactly "normal" people either. The whole idea is that the kind of person who would put on a mask and beat up thugs couldn't possibly be normal at all.

The thing is that the story IS about the flashbacks and the history of these characters together as a team, how it changed them, why they all went their separate ways, and what it would take to reunite them. That sounds cool. That sounds like a movie I want to see. But that didn't come across to me when I saw Watchmen. I liked the flashbacks and learning about the individual characters, but for a non-reader, the history of the group as a whole was only alluded to. The desensitization and detachment from society was clear. But the group dynamic and the comparison to the Minutemen was not really clear.

Yes and no. Only Manhattan has powers (unless you count Veidt/Ozymandias's intelligence as a superpower). But they're not exactly "normal" people either. The whole idea is that the kind of person who would put on a mask and beat up thugs couldn't possibly be normal at all.
Veidt does have a superpower. He's able to catch a bullet.

Veidt does have a superpower. He's able to catch a bullet.

Yeah, I never quite understood how that was meant to be possible in the comic book. Or why it was even necessary, seeing as if he DID get shot in the hand, it would just be a major wound but nothing that would kill him.

I saw this over the weekend, and was really impressed. I have not read the book, but I went in with a good idea of what to expect - an intelligent, cynical deconstruction of the superhero movie and its characters and trappings. I was wondering if it might be too soon to deconstruct the superhero movie because it's much younger/less developed than the superhero comic was at the time of the miniseries' release, but it worked excellently as that. Apparently it's very close to the comic, almost translating panels directly in some cases, but Snyder really made this a movie, something uniquely cinematic. The cast is great too; Jackie Earle Haley (Rohrschach), Jeffery Dean Morgan (The Comedian), and Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhattan) stood out the most to me. I think Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre) and Matthew Goode (Ozymandias) were alright, but less noteworthy. Overall, a fine piece of work.

You're right about the change from book to film. At times it's as though I could see the book coming to life in front of me, it was just amazing. I did miss the Tale of the Black Freighter, which was part of the book, but I can't wait to see how Snyder shot it as a short that will be on the DVD.

I really wanted to see this again, but now I think I won't get to because I'm so busy. I loved the soundtrack actually. It was great to hear Bob Dylan singing at several points, proving that he really is the voice of so many people.:)

I did miss the Tale of the Black Freighter, which was part of the book, but I can't wait to see how Snyder shot it as a short that will be on the DVD.I was under the impression that the Tale of the Black Freighter is getting its own DVD. I don't think it's just a short.

I was under the impression that the Tale of the Black Freighter is getting its own DVD. I don't think it's just a short.
It's approximately 25 minutes long. The DVD also has a 37 minute bit called "Under the Hood", which is the title of a book written by the character Hollis Mason.

^Oh, I see. But is it being released seperately from Watchmen? Or is it an extra on the Watchmen DVD?

^Oh, I see. But is it being released seperately from Watchmen? Or is it an extra on the Watchmen DVD?
Tales of the Black Freighter will be released on DVD on March 24. I'd save your money. It isn't worth the $17.

^I won't buy it. But I might rent it from Netflix.

Sorry I disappeared for a few days. By "short", I mean less than feature length! :lol:, I always confuse people with that, apologies!

I will buy the DVD. I can't help it, I'm a Watchmen maniac. A friend lent me the soundtrack last week, the score is really lovely to hear alone. And of couse, the soundtrack, including Bob Dylan (I love Bob Dylan, I can't help that either...) is always a welcome addition!

I had heard that for over here, Black Freighter will be released as an extra on the DVD. I don't know for sure though. :shrug: :)

And of couse, the soundtrack, including Bob Dylan (I love Bob Dylan, I can't help that either...) is always a welcome addition!

I had heard that for over here, Black Freighter will be released as an extra on the DVD. I don't know for sure though. :agree: The soundtrack's amazing.

I always get confused about what's available where when we're discussing DVDs. I wish they would make the same things available to everyone.

Yes, that's a dream of mine. Like that Batman mask they packaged with the Dark Knight in the Southern Hemisphere- or at least, parts of it. :shrug: No idea why they do it.

I know that I'm very biased about Watchmen, but I'm surprised to see it with a 64% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Apparently people found the narrative hard to follow, which is definitely understandable. I suppose that for me, it's the modern rendition of a work that, back in 1985, was well ahead of its time.

I'm aware that, had Snyder shot it without the level of faithfulness, the overall result might have been more appreciated by the masses. But generally speaking, I like the fact that it was made for the fans and with the fans in mind.

It's on my to buy list. You know, when I stop being poor. :p

I know that I'm very biased about Watchmen, but I'm surprised to see it with a 64% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.:agree: I was surprised to hear so many negative comments from my students about it. Aside from the few who have read the comic, the rest who have seen it don't seem to have anything positive to say about it. I haven't read it yet, but I thought the movie was brilliant.
It's on my to buy list. You know, when I stop being poor. Me too. :D

I know that I'm very biased about Watchmen, but I'm surprised to see it with a 64% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Apparently people found the narrative hard to follow, which is definitely understandable. I suppose that for me, it's the modern rendition of a work that, back in 1985, was well ahead of its time.

I'm aware that, had Snyder shot it without the level of faithfulness, the overall result might have been more appreciated by the masses. But generally speaking, I like the fact that it was made for the fans and with the fans in mind.

I think the big issue is that the timeline of the movie jumps around a lot, and I suppose for the "uninitiated" it could be extremely hard to tell what exactly is a flashback and what isn't. It's a very disjointed narrative.

I saw the film about a week after it came out, I haven't read the novel, and I'd like to. When I saw the movie, I liked it, because it didn't seem like other hero movies I've seen. You can't really identify with any of the heroes, they all have their flaws, and they seemed, more human. Anyway, I liked the film, and I look forward to reading the novel. :)

I think the big issue is that the timeline of the movie jumps around a lot, and I suppose for the "uninitiated" it could be extremely hard to tell what exactly is a flashback and what isn't. It's a very disjointed narrative.

Very, very true. I suppose that it's hard enough for me to grasp that thought, but it does make perfect sense. :tu:

I even remember that when my brother read the book, he consistently had to ask me what was going on and who exactly the characters were. So I see where you're coming from.


I think another reason might be that this is a film clearly made to speak to a certain person or group of people. Some people just don't buy this idea of the sci fi world and how we can eventually lose our power. The politics in the story is subtle and involving and I guess that, generally speaking, relating to the characters is a trial for someone who would usually have no interest in these rather large philosophical questions.

I finally got around to seeing this movie on Thursday (though I had to go to the ODEON Mezzanine in Leicester Square). Not having read the novel fully (I flicked through it), I thought it was a very mixed bag. I appreciate that the graphic novel is very highly regarded, but I think they should have been much more ruthless with the adaptation. The big problem for me was that the pivotal character moments just didn't mean anything to me. Nite Owl choosing to put his costume back on, Ozymandias' scheme, Dr Manhattan regaining some interest in humanity, I thought there was not enough time spent with any of these characters to really give their development weight.

Ozymandias was by far the worst handled, they waited far too long to introduce any kind of reputation in terms of physical threat (they told us he could catch bullets mere moments before he did so), which rather dampened the build-up to him meeting Nite Owl and Rorschach. I also thought his actual scheme, while sound in principle (unite the world against a common enemy), completely fell apart when focused on Dr Manhattan, someone who had been portrayed explicitly as a figure of American Imperialism. I found it hard to believe that the rest of the world would side with the US after their own weapon seemingly caused all the damage (the squid from the novel was more plausible in terms of the world's reaction to it, if not it's creation).

The other characters were handled better for the most part. Rorshach was the most convincing IMO. He had a much more fleshed out character than the others. Manhattan was also handled competently, though lack of outward emotion made it hard to buy into his change of heart on Mars. Nite Owl was OK too, I guess, he was likable and pathetic in a good way, though I feel like he is the one main character who could be removed completely from the story. The Comedian was alright, though I don't think he really lived up to his name. Silk Spectre was a problem for me. I just found it hard to care about her (though Malin Ackerman looked exceptionally beautiful), and I don't think her life was enough of 'a joke' for her father's identity to really round off her story.

In technical terms the film was enjoyable. Plenty of eye candy, plenty of gore, punchy feel to the action scenes, if I had to criticise something it would be the ridiculous Richard Nixon prosthetics that the actor was wearing, Ozymandias' pet looked and felt completely out of place, and I felt the music was by and large totally forgettable.

In the end I'd say that there was simply too much material to get through. I don't think the fragmented time-line of the movie was a problem, I actually thought that was quite well handled, just that Snyder tried to recreate the novel on the screen, when something much bolder was needed. He should have focused the story on Veidt, Manhattan, and Rorshach, one person who wants to save the rest of humanity, one who hates the rest of humanity, and one who is indifferent to them. As it is, I think he tried to focus evenly on all the Watchmen, and as a result, the movie lacked resonance. As a deconstructive critique of superheroes, it worked, as an actual movie, I think it failed.

This film disgusted me! :grumble:

Even for a 21 yr old guy like myself who's pretty much become desensitized to extreme violence and nudity and such in films I couldn't really stomach it. Saving Private Ryan happens to be one of my all time favorites and that's quite possibly the most gory film ever but that was a WAR film. It was necessary, IMO. This on the other hand, it was more like horror film violence...meant simply as gross out material which served no purpose. I mean did we really need to see someone get cut through with a chainsaw and the blood spraying all over the walls, a guy being repeatedly struck in the head with a meat cleaver, a dog dragging the severed leg of a child, a boy biting a guys face, etc?

I think NOT :no:

But by far the worst in my opinion was how the film promoted and glorified violence against women. The attempted rape scene made me sick to my stomach. The intent of rape was bad enough, but it didn't stop there...oh no, he goes on to hit and kick her repeatedly and even slam her head against a pool table before some of the other Watchmen intervene. And then later she ends up having sex with this loser, as if the brutal battering and rape attempt never occured. Domestic violence is bad enough in America (33% of couples)... we don't need to be sending the message that this kind of activity is OK. Another terrible scene was this same same loser (The Comedian) killing a women he had impregnated, because he didn't want to deal with it. And Dr. Manhattan (who could have stopped this) just stands and watches. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I forgot to mention of course there was the "blue member" hanging out throughout the film (:lol:) which didn't particularly bother me but I definitely could have done without. As for the story and plotline- Never read the graphic novel it's based on but I thought the premise was interesting but poorly handled with a pretty weak script, mediocre acting, and an ending which was quite anticlimactic/fell flat. :shrug:

Certainly NOT a film I will ever be seeing again! :relax:

I don't think it was meant to glorify violence against women at all imo. It was just meant to show the flaws and sadistic nature of the characters. It was meant to be a more realistic look at what people are capable of.

What it showed to me was that even though The comedian was a vigilante that did do some good things. There was also a dark side to him as well. The Watchmen characters are not black and white. Very gray.

The gore and the violence unfortunately is something the film makers wanted and needed to get across. The graphic novel is a very brutal violent read.

I don't think it was meant to glorify violence against women at all imo. It was just meant to show the flaws and sadistic nature of the characters. It was meant to be a more realistic look at what people are capable of.

What it showed to me was that even though The comedian was a vigilante that did do some good things. There was also a dark side to him as well. The Watchmen characters are not black and white. Very gray.

I understand that, however I expected to see some legal action taken against The Comedian and the jerk locked away. The other Watchmen were even witness to the crime. But that she does nothing and even "rewards" him for his behavior by having sex with him afterall...ugh :grumble:

Watchmen DID NOT glorify violence against women, at all. And Sally going back to Eddie did not say "hey, attempting to rape somebody is okay". unlike other superhero films. This is the first comic book film with actual, real, human depth to it. The point is not to show 'what not to do', well, actually it does do that, but it's not supposed to show the characters making these decisions. That'd be like criticizing Requiem for a Dream for showing the extent drugs took to these people, instead of doing the opposite. That defeats it's purpose, and effect.

I understand that, however I expected to see some legal action taken against The Comedian and the jerk locked away. The other Watchmen were even witness to the crime. But that she does nothing and even "rewards" him for his behavior by having sex with him afterall...ugh :grumble:She didn't reward him. She went back to him because she felt that's the closest person she could directly relate to in her daily life, and because she felt she needed him in some way. Which is what MANY women do.

Watchmen DID NOT glorify violence against women, at all. And Sally going back to Eddie did not say "hey, attempting to rape somebody is okay". It's showing the stereotypes of everyday people (I have an aunt who has been beaten repeatedly, no doubt raped, by her husband and she keeps going back to him, as ALOT of women do everyday), unlike other superhero films. This is the first comic book film with actual, real, human depth to it. The point is not to show 'what not to do', well, actually it does do that, but it's not supposed to show the characters making these decisions. That'd be like criticizing Requiem for a Dream for showing the extent drugs took to these people, instead of doing the opposite. That defeats it's purpose, and effect.

She didn't reward him. She went back to him because she felt that's the closest person she could directly relate to in her daily life, and because she felt she needed him in some way. Which is what MANY women do.

In your opinion ;)

And often times women will stay because they can't get out of the situation or don't out of fear. The film Enough (with Jo-Lo) is a good example of that. Eventually she escapes with the help of friends, but her husband is outraged by this and tries to hunt her down. Thankfully he gets what's coming to him though and she gets her revenge. A stark contrast to The Comedian being "rewarded" for his actions, IMO.

In your opinion ;)

And often times women will stay because they can't get out of the situation or don't out of fear. The film Enough (with Jo-Lo) is a good example of that. Eventually she escapes with the help of friends, but her husband is outraged by this and tries to hunt her down. Thankfully he gets what's coming to him though and she gets her revenge. A stark contrast to The Comedian being "rewarded" for his actions, IMO.

Sounds to me like your aunt needs to leave, but if she enjoys it or thinks she still loves him well she's free to live life as she pleases... :shrug:No, this is not a matter of opinion as it's exactly what the writer of the GN and director were aiming for. If you think the film was glorifying violence against women, then you severely misunderstood it, but that's not a matter of opinion or not. The film wasn't glorifying violence against women, to say it was is completely disregarding the writer of the GN and director of the film's intent, or better, to misunderstand their handling of it.

This is like saying The Godfather promotes the mafia. Or the upcoming Public Enemies promotes killing people and robbing banks. That's missing the point of it.

No, this is not a matter of opinion as it's exactly what the writer of the GN and director were aiming for. If you think the film was glorifying violence against women, then you severely misunderstood it, but that's not a matter of opinion or not. The film wasn't glorifying violence against women, to say it was is completely disregarding the writer of the GN and director of the film's intent, or better, to misunderstand their handling of it.

When it comes to how one interprets a film, it is ALWAYS a matter of opinion. There is no right or wrong as you seem to think :relax:

When it comes to how one interprets a film, it is ALWAYS a matter of opinion. There is no right or wrong as you seem to think :relax:That's not my interpretation. That's how it was. If you tell the writer of a book that's his/her opinion, and not how it is, then there is a matter of being right and wrong. The writers intent is always right, if it was to show flawed human beings and how they repeat the cycle they saw as a child, then that's how it is. You can't even argue the writer's word. You can misunderstand it, but you can't argue it.

That's not my interpretation. That's how it was. If you tell the writer of a book that's his/her opinion, and not how it is, then there is a matter of being right and wrong. The writers intent is always right, if it was to show flawed human beings and how they repeat the cycle they saw as a child, then that's how it is. You can't even argue the writer's word. You can misunderstand it, but you can't argue it.

I beg to differ (you are still interpreting the writer/directors intent :p) but I refuse to argue this further.

I have said all that I wanted to say regarding this matter of opinion and this atrocious film doesn't deserve to spoken of any more, IMO :no:

*bows out of thread for eternity*

I think you sort of missed the point of the movie, lc. It's supposed to be disgusting. That's the fabric that holds the entire concept of Watchmen together. The characters are deconstructions of the concept of a superhero. "Who watches the Watchmen?" Who, for example, does Superman report to? Who holds Superman accountable for his actions? Nobody. How can any person be trusted with that type of power, or the authority to take the law into their own hands? People are violent, vengeful, disgusting. They have horrifying impulses, they have self-destructive addictions, they have serious character flaws.

Moral ambiguity is the centerpiece of Watchmen. The whole point is that heroes can be disgusting. The world is not black and white as Rorschach sees it, but rather varying shades of grey. The Comedian attempted to rape Sally and also shot a pregnant woman; but simultaneously he was also fighting on the frontline for his country and beliefs. No human being can possibly be an absolute paragon of justice, that defies our very nature. Trying to shoehorn people into such a role can only meet with disaster.

Watchmen doesn't glorify violence or rape; it doesn't glorify anything. Watchmen exists to tear things apart.

Calm down guys just a film after all. :) Let's all be respectful. Also I have edited a couple posts. Let's keep stories of a personal nature out of this thread.



I agree that it is meant to show the many human stereotypes that we face in society. I also can see why this movie may disgust some. It certainly depicts the violence in a graphic way.

I liked the book and the movie because of the questions it posed to the reader/viewer. No one was purely good or evil in the book or movie. All were gray characters and that is something I personally enjoy when reading a book or watching a film. Makes things more believable and the characters more memorable.

I think you sort of missed the point of the movie, lc. It's supposed to be disgusting. That's the fabric that holds the entire concept of Watchmen together. The characters are deconstructions of the concept of a superhero. "Who watches the Watchmen?" Who, for example, does Superman report to? Who holds Superman accountable for his actions? Nobody. How can any person be trusted with that type of power, or the authority to take the law into their own hands? People are violent, vengeful, disgusting. They have horrifying impulses, they have self-destructive addictions, they have serious character flaws.

Moral ambiguity is the centerpiece of Watchmen. The whole point is that heroes can be disgusting. The world is not black and white as Rorschach sees it, but rather varying shades of grey. The Comedian attempted to rape Sally and also shot a pregnant woman; but simultaneously he was also fighting on the frontline for his country and beliefs. No human being can possibly be an absolute paragon of justice, that defies our very nature. Trying to shoehorn people into such a role can only meet with disaster.

Watchmen doesn't glorify violence or rape; it doesn't glorify anything. Watchmen exists to tear things apart.You hit the nail on the head. :tu:

I just recently saw this movie, and i wasnt all that impressed. I was excited to see it and i thought the previews looked really good but i think maybe i was missing a piece or something. I havent read the graphic novel, but i found the movie way too long for one thing, it just seemed to drag at parts, and I agree with an earlier comment that is seemed unnecessarily gory in a few parts, and again maybe thats because i havent read the graphic novel, and dont get me wrong i like a little gore in my movies at times but i think this was a bit much. I also felt like they didnt do a great job with the story, it seemed to skip around at parts. All in all i expected something completely different than what this movie had to offer. I think i missed the boat on what to expect in terms of graphic novel turned movie. And after reading the above post it seems to make more sense, but i dont think that wasnt portrayed out well in the preview and if you arent familiar with the storyline i think its harder to glean the true message of the story from the movie.

The advertising campaign was pretty misleading; I think that's why so many people ended up disappointed. They didn't make it clear enough that Watchmen isn't just something you go watch and enjoy; Watchmen is supposed to make you question your beliefs about the morality of a superhero.

I also think that most people simply don't want to have their beliefs questioned by a movie. I'm still amazed this film was ever given the green light; the audience for it doesn't exist. But I'm glad it was made anyway.

All else aside, it would be difficult for a movie based on an Alan Moore work to really gain a wide audience. While he has done continuity work for the likes of DC and Marvel most of his original stuff is seriously dystopian which doesn't fly in the local googleplex.

The advertising campaign was pretty misleading; I think that's why so many people ended up disappointed. They didn't make it clear enough that Watchmen isn't just something you go watch and enjoy; Watchmen is supposed to make you question your beliefs about the morality of a superhero.

The advertising campaign came in the light of films like Batman and Superman coming back to the fore; the entire superhero genre was given a new lease of life when Batman Begins was released a few years ago, and it strikes me that in an attempt to make Watchmen more open to people, an attempt was made to localise it as a superhero movie. I entirely agree with you- Watchmen is not a superhero movie. The point of films like The Dark Knight and Spiderman 3 is that the hero ends up questioning how long he can be a hero before he turns into the darkness he most seeks to fight off and destroy. But their morality and their sense of what's correct is never truly hurt or disenfranchised. Watchmen targets that exactly. It tears apart the adage of the superhero and it ruins forever the white knight image we have of the people who seek justice. In no way is it a superhero movie in the conventional sense- and as a result of that, people thought of the film in one way, and when they saw it, were horrified at what it declared.

I also think that most people simply don't want to have their beliefs questioned by a movie. I'm still amazed this film was ever given the green light; the audience for it doesn't exist. But I'm glad it was made anyway.

I suppose this is debatable. I appreciate having my views challenged by a film- but it sort of depends on the individual moviegoer, so I know what you mean, and I figure you're right generally speaking. If you're not the type of person who wants to watch a film that questions, then Watchmen isn't the right film to see, and I know that many people did not see it on the cusp of that same thinking. :tu:

The audience for it is the reason why I think the advertising went the way it did. As you say, it doesn't truly exist. While there are those of us who have long been fans of Watchmen, I can't say that we're worth spening millions on to make a film that was risque from the offset. In the 1980s, the book was a pinnacle of the dystopian vision, upheld as being way ahead of its time, and it treatied with sectors of society who questioned a lot of what was going on back then. It's still relevant today, proving that it was, and maybe still is, way ahead of its time. Which is why you're right- though I'm thrilled with the film and even with the differences between it and the book- there's no way it's a general superhero movie. There's no way that it's a film about doing right. The one character we assume to be a sociopathical sycophant, Rorschach, actually turns out to be the one who does the most honourable thing of them all, determined as he is to keep truth in the wing and to do what many of us would agree is the right thing.

The film exists to prove that some people like to watch values burn; and it applauds those discrepancies and inequalities. It's why I love the film. It totally questions the superhero and it never lets up in that device, which I really appreciate.

All else aside, it would be difficult for a movie based on an Alan Moore work to really gain a wide audience. While he has done continuity work for the likes of DC and Marvel most of his original stuff is seriously dystopian which doesn't fly in the local googleplex.

While Moore is generally dystopian and bizarre, I'd say Watchmen is by far the hardest sell to the mainstream audience, if only because - in their eyes - it "lures them in" by making them think it's about superheroes, and then turns right around and stabs them in the back. It's hard to make Watchmen appealing to someone who just wants to go watch Spider-Man beat up on the Green Goblin. But all of Moore's other stuff is relatively...straightforward. His other works are pretty obviously outside of the superhero genre and thus easier for someone who isn't interested to stay away from. You're not going to open up The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen thinking, "Wow, there's going to be some spectacular fights in this!" But it's a good deal easier to make that mistake with Watchmen.

But now I'm rambling. I kind of wonder when Hollywood is going to get tired of attempting to make successful movies from Alan Moore properties. If they really wanted to capitalize on the superhero boom and make something that would appeal to mainstream audiences, they should have looked to Tom Strong immediately. That's the superhero genre at its finest, and the audience already exists for that, since I'd say it's pretty much the same people who went to see The Incredibles.

While Moore is generally dystopian and bizarre, I'd say Watchmen is by far the hardest sell to the mainstream audience, if only because - in their eyes - it "lures them in" by making them think it's about superheroes, and then turns right around and stabs them in the back. It's hard to make Watchmen appealing to someone who just wants to go watch Spider-Man beat up on the Green Goblin.

Well, you pretty much nailed one of the reasons why hollywood considered Watchmen unfilmable for the 20 years or so after the graphic novel was completed.

The dichotomy between the purists who, while fervent, would have accepted no less than an utterly faithful adaptation, and the movie-going status quo who crave a faster pace and praise production value over content were largely considered irreconcilable by every director Fox tried to bring on board for the title in the early 90s, and nobody would touch it.

When dealing with rabid comic fans from the 80's, there's very little margin for error, and if you can't please the people who made the comic popular in the first place, you're going to fight an uphill battle for PR/marketing for the duration of the theatrical run.

Personally, I quite enjoyed Watchmen, despite being a fan of the graphic novel in the 80s, and initially hoping they'd remain in lockstep with the book. For all of the glaring differences, I think it's probably as faithful as on could hope for it to be and still retain a modicum of success (Though in fact, a lot of reviews PANNED it for it's stifling faithfulness to the text, and I'm forced to wonder how closely those critics paid attention to the comic, if they even read it at all). It was a happy medium for me in the theater, though the box office take seems to reflect the difficulty faced in trying to shape the film adaptation's mainstream appeal.

I have a feeling though that they'll be making a killing on the Blu-ray and DVD versions. I work at an audio facility that did a lot of work on the forthcoming Blu-ray version, and there's a LOT of added material that i think is going to go a long way in driving sales to people who perhaps felt the theatrical experience was lacking.

This was one of the greatest films ever. I really dug the movie, the acting, the filming - everything. I saw the long version and I was riveted the whole time.

I was lucky in that I never read the graphic novel as that seems to have ruined it for some people. So for me it was the bomb. I liked that they allowed us to make up the ending in the movie - will the diary publish? For me, no. :D

This was one of the greatest films ever. I really dug the movie, the acting, the filming - everything. I saw the long version and I was riveted the whole time.

I was lucky in that I never read the graphic novel as that seems to have ruined it for some people. So for me it was the bomb. I liked that they allowed us to make up the ending in the movie - will the diary publish? For me, no. :D

I'm a staunch Yes on this. I honestly believe that the diary was published; I believe that because of the choice of newspaper and because of the affiliation he had to the paper that made him send it there. It may have been in the crank files section, but even in the real world, the crank files are often the ones that we read most often, because any filler is generally good filler; the more unbelievable it is, the better.

I love the idea that his diary may have been published because while I disagree with him violently in every other way, Rorschach actually did exactly what I would have done; told the world about it.

I love the film as much as the novel, because it makes me ask the same questions. At every viewing and every reading, I struggle to find a character to agree with most. I tend to come out with different ones each time, and it's nice to see the action from the novel transferred almost perfectly to the screen. I highly recommend the graphic novel Wick.

This was one of the greatest films ever. I really dug the movie, the acting, the filming - everything. I saw the long version and I was riveted the whole time.
How is the inclusion of the animated comic in the film? Does it flow well?

They are re-releasing Watchmen, the Directors Cut, next weekend, for one week July 17-July 23, in theaters. It comes with 25 more minutes of footage.
I think it's only in limited theaters though.

http://www.fandango.com/fandangoblogdetail_582853?bsc=true&ym=0#comments

The Hollis Mason's death scene is on youtube. I must say, though pointless to the film and understanding why it was cut, the scene itself is quite brilliant. I probably would have jumped up and clapped when the Raging Bull score kicked in (no secret that it's my favorite film), it's used so perfectly it's unbelievable.

Congratulations Blu-Ray owners. Watchmen: Ultimate Collector's Edition (http://www.theblurayblog.com/2009/07/watchmen-ultimate-collectors-edition-blu-ray-details-revealed/). I don't know if DVD owners will be shafted or not.

I'll just be getting the DC on blu-ray.

I'm a staunch Yes on this. I honestly believe that the diary was published; I believe that because of the choice of newspaper and because of the affiliation he had to the paper that made him send it there. It may have been in the crank files section, but even in the real world, the crank files are often the ones that we read most often, because any filler is generally good filler; the more unbelievable it is, the better.

Yeah of the four of us who watched it, 2 decided it published and two of us decided it didn't. But we all agreed that it would not affect world peace either way because it would not be widely credited even if it did publish. But that was our take on it - I imagine there are some that would like to imagine it destroying world peace that was based on a lie.

I love the idea that his diary may have been published because while I disagree with him violently in every other way, Rorschach actually did exactly what I would have done; told the world about it.

Yeah - it was the right thing to do. But in terms of the storyline, I decided it wouldn't publish because world peace was cool.

I love the film as much as the novel, because it makes me ask the same questions. At every viewing and every reading, I struggle to find a character to agree with most. I tend to come out with different ones each time, and it's nice to see the action from the novel transferred almost perfectly to the screen. I highly recommend the graphic novel Wick.

Maybe one day :)

Since I'm short on cash, I am selling my copy of Absolute Watchmen. :(

I hope the 5-disc set will be released on DVD. I won't be going to Blu-Ray in a long, long time.

I downloaded the soundtrack for the movie today, both the soundtrack and the score by Tyler Bates. The score is especially good.