Predict How Good Watchmen will be?

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:11 am

I saw it last week. First off, huge, huge fan of the graphic novel. This was pretty tepid, especially in comparison. Aside from Rorschach and to a lesser extent Ozymandias, the acting was awful. The altered ending irritated me -- although I think that's been covered in the Watchmen threads here -- and I think it was stiff. There was something disjointed and frozen and inorganic about it. The novel simply flowed; the film mechanically sifted through the novel's motions.

Post by **matrixman** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:10 am

Fist and Faith wrote: I'm most definitely seeing it again before it's gone. Probably try for IMAX, which I didn't manage this time.

I'm hoping to see it in IMAX, too, but I don't see it on their schedule yet. Haven't been to IMAX in a loooong time.

Lord Mhoram wrote:The novel simply flowed; the film mechanically sifted through the novel's motions.

I've begun re-reading Watchmen, and there's no question that the story flows better on page than onscreen. As soon as I started reading, I appreciated anew all the many and subtle things that are missing from the movie. Still, I think Snyder's love for the novel is clear in every shot, even if his interpretation may have left some or many fans wanting.

Post by **Plissken** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:36 am

This movie was pretty good, considering the depth, age, and complexity of the source material. Trying to make the violence and blood as shocking in a 2009 movie as it was in an 80's comic book was a thankless task to begin with, and the attempt was valiant - even if tragically so.

Not being able to keep all of the flavor-y goodness of the Pirate storyline and journals and whatnot - eh. If Tom Bombadill didn't make the cut, what chance did what would've amounted to incomprehensible voice overs have?

The worst - the worst bit - was the goddamned scoring. People were laughing (then sighing, then shifting in their seats uncomfortably, then..) during the love scene. Okay people, listen up. The original version of Halleluja was not quite right in Shrek. Using after Shrek in an actual live action sex scene -- brrr!

As a test of the storytelling, I used my girlfriend, who had never read the graphic novel. I'm still explaining this mess, a week later.

And yet:

I will probably buy the DVD. I'm told the Pirate Story will be included, and at home I can always turn down the sound during the painful bits. Maybe dub in Jeff Buckley. This is the effin' Watchmen, you know.

Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:02 am

Lord Mhoram wrote:I saw it last week. First off, huge, huge fan of the graphic novel. This was pretty tepid, especially in comparison. Aside from Rorschach and to a lesser extent Ozymandias, the acting was awful. The altered ending irritated me -- although I think that's been covered in the Watchmen threads here -- and I think it was stiff. There was something disjointed and frozen and inorganic about it. The novel simply flowed; the film mechanically sifted through the novel's motions.

I honestly think one of the main problems with the film comes from Snyder trying to stay with the source material too much...I think it hindered him and that's why the story threads don't quite feel right...I think if he would have went with a more organic and free flowing process, he probably would have gone the Jackson Three route in that they started the way they thought the story had to/should be told, and through the rewrites ended up much closer to the source material of Tolkien's...the significance of this is the whole "journey" and how it influences the more nuanced, subtler parts of developing a story...(that sex scene though...???)

Does that make sense?

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:43 am

So it's me against the world, eh?

Post by **matrixman** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:41 pm

Fist and Faith wrote:So it's me against the world, eh?

Seems we two are the only ones who thought the sex scene was watchable.

My only real wish: it would have been nice if Snyder had been more adventurous with the running time. A 3-hour movie (a la LOTR) might have helped to alleviate the feeling of story compression.

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:29 pm

I'm posting this because I want to see what discusion this produces. So read, and discuss, please. The juicy part is the final third.

AN OPEN LETTER FROM A WATCHMEN SCREENWRITER

So it has been five months since I saw my first rough cut of WATCHMEN, and eight days since the premiere of the film I've been working on since late in the year 2000.

The reviews are out -- Some outstanding, others rankly dismissive, which can be frustrating for the people involved, (though I can only speak for myself,) because I firmly believe that WATCHMEN, the novel, must be read through more than once to even have the faintest grip on it. And I believe the film is the same.

I've seen it twice now, and despite having run the movie in my head thousands of times, my two viewings still don’t' allow me to view the film with the proper distance or objectivity. Is it Apocalypse Now? Is it Blade Runner? Is it Kubrick, or Starship Troopers? I don’t know yet.

All I know is that I had a pretty amazing experience the two times I've seen it. And both viewings produced remarkably different experiences. The point is, I have listened for years, to complaints from true comic book fans, that "not enough movies take the source material seriously." "Too many movies puss out," or "They change great stories, just to be commercial." Well, I f***ing dare you to say any one of those things about this movie.

This is a movie made by fans, for fans. Hundreds of people put in years of their lives to make this movie happen, and every one of them was insanely committed to retaining the integrity of this amazing, epic tale. This is a rare success story, bordering on the impossible, and every studio in town is watching to see if it will work. Hell, most of them own a piece of the movie.

So look, this is a note to the fanboys and fangirls. The true believers. Dedicated for life.

If the film made you think. Or argue with your friends. If it inspired a debate about the nature of man, or vigilante justice, or the horror of Nixon abolishing term limits. If you laughed at Bowie hanging with Adrian at Studio 54, or the Silhouette kissing that nurse.

Please go see the movie again next weekend.

You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me also point out that I do not profit one cent from an increase in box office, although an increase in box office can add to the value of the writers' eventual residual profits from dvd and tv sales.

But I'm not saying it for money. I'm saying it for people like me. I'm saying it for people who love smart, dark entertainment, on a grand, operatic scale. I'm talking to the Snake fans, the Rorschach fans, the people of the Dark Knight.

And hey, if you hated the film, if you think we committed atrocities, or literary mistakes of a massive, cephalopodic nature. If the movie made you a little sick to your stomach, or made you feel bad about your life. If you hated it for whatever reason, that's cool too. I'm not suggesting you risk gastro-intestinal distress just for the sake of risky filmmaking.

But if you haven't seen it yet? Well, I'll just say this...

It may upset you. And it probably will upset you.

And all along, we really meant it to.

Because face it. All this time...You there, with the Smiley-face pin. Admit it.

All this time, you’ve been waiting for a director who was going to hit you in the face with this story. To just crack you in the jaw, and then bend you over the pool table with this story. With its utterly raw view of the darkest sides of human nature, expressed through its masks of action and beauty and twisted good intentions. Like a fry-basket full of hot grease in the face. Like the Comedian on the Grassy Knoll. I know, I know...

You say you don't like it. You say you've got issues. I get it.

And yet... You'll be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you. How it was rough and beautiful. How it went where it wanted to go, and you just hung on. How it was thoughtful and hateful and bleak and hilarious. And for Jackie Earle Haley.

Trust me. You'll come back, eventually. Just like Sally.

Might as well make it count for something.

David Hayter

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:08 pm

He has a point that too many people think comic-book films play too easily with the stories yet this film is being lambasted by some critics for being too faithful -- but the flaw with his argument is principally the changes made to the ending of the film, which is not something to be sniffed at, coming from a reader of the graphic novel. That said, it's utter bullshit that I'll "be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you." No it won't. If it weren't for this thread and the copy of the book lying on my bedroom floor and people asking me "Hey, have you seen Watchmen yet?" I wouldn't have even given the film a second thought. Also great points about the soundtrack made above; it was really pathetically predictable. It was as if the director took all the most stereotypical songs used in films and used them at all the stereotypical times ("The Times They Are A Changin'" for the historical flashback; "Hallelujah" for the sex scene; give me a break). I don't think the film was without merits; I thought that the Comedian flashbacks were by far the best part of the film and the best capturing of the novel's spirit, and that's no minor part of the story.

Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:16 pm

Lord Mhoram wrote:He has a point that too many people think comic-book films play too easily with the stories yet this film is being lambasted by some critics for being too faithful -- but the flaw with his argument is principally the changes made to the ending of the film, which is not something to be sniffed at, coming from a reader of the graphic novel. That said, it's utter bullshit that I'll "be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you." No it won't. If it weren't for this thread and the copy of the book lying on my bedroom floor and people asking me "Hey, have you seen Watchmen yet?" I wouldn't have even given the film a second thought. Also great points about the soundtrack made above; it was really pathetically predictable. It was as if the director took all the most stereotypical songs used in films and used them at all the stereotypical times ("The Times They Are A Changin'" for the historical flashback; "Hallelujah" for the sex scene; give me a break). I don't think the film was without merits; I thought that the Comedian flashbacks were by far the best part of the film and the best capturing of the novel's spirit, and that's no minor part of the story.

Agreed...I might watch it again down the road, but there's nothing about it that makes me really want to see it again.

Post by **[Syl]** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:02 pm

The only thing I'll think about this movie when someone mentions it a couple years from now is 'Oh yeah. Blue penis.' It wasn't bad (ok, the soundtrack was about as subtle and skillful as I would expect from someone who directed 300. Personally, it was "The Sounds of Silence" during the funeral that nauseated me) , but aside from the Rorschach and Comedian parts, fairly boring and completely forgettable.

Post by **Zahir** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:33 pm

I've seen it twice already. This was a very good film indeed. I have roughy two serious problems with it. One was the startlingly poor quality of the old age makeup. Really. These days you can get latex that looks like skin, not plastic. Whoever did this did it poorly. Very poorly by current standards.

Second, I thought the ending was a little "off" in terms of the editing for impact. But that might be me, although I still feel that way having seen it twice now.

Overall, I was very impressed. The story was there, in all its heart, albeit altered for a different medium. In particular I thought the characters of Nite Owl II, The Comedian and Rorschach were portrayed brilliantly.

Post by **Rigel** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:30 pm

Just saw the movie last night, after finished the book last week.

The book had a great story, though the psychic squid ending didn't really resonate (although the consequences did).

The movie felt like it was extremely faithful to the story and characters, but something was off in the editing (and yeah, I agree that the music could have been better).

Not the masterpiece people wanted, but probably the best adaptation that can be done of such an ambitious work.

Post by **Orlion** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:04 pm

Just saw the movie last night...can't understand how anyone couldn't follow what's going on (keep in mind, too, I have yet to read the GN). I thourghly enjoyed it, probably because I had such low expectations for this film, since it was directed by Zack Synder (I've completly hated and wanted to destroy 300 and Dawn of the Dead). I enjoyed the ending, we'll have to see what I think of it after I've read the GN. Soundtrack was a little distracting (Sound of Silence during the funeral? that kinda distracted from the overall mood I thought). The sex scene, like every sex scene I can think of, was pointless, it did not add to story and took away fifteen minutes that could have been used to provide better transitions else where.

However, I liked the grittiness of it. I prefer dark movies like Sunshine, Dark Knight, 30 Days of Night, and Dirty Harry, and I wish there was more of them...I at least can't find many good ones...

I'd give it an 8 out of 10, and I'm expecting the Unrated DVD to improve upon the movie

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:19 pm

Lord Mhoram wrote:He has a point that too many people think comic-book films play too easily with the stories yet this film is being lambasted by some critics for being too faithful -- but the flaw with his argument is principally the changes made to the ending of the film, which is not something to be sniffed at, coming from a reader of the graphic novel. That said, it's utter bullshit that I'll "be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you." No it won't. If it weren't for this thread and the copy of the book lying on my bedroom floor and people asking me "Hey, have you seen Watchmen yet?" I wouldn't have even given the film a second thought. Also great points about the soundtrack made above; it was really pathetically predictable. It was as if the director took all the most stereotypical songs used in films and used them at all the stereotypical times ("The Times They Are A Changin'" for the historical flashback; "Hallelujah" for the sex scene; give me a break). I don't think the film was without merits; I thought that the Comedian flashbacks were by far the best part of the film and the best capturing of the novel's spirit, and that's no minor part of the story.

Well put Mhoram. Much as I love David Hayter, I think he's selling the film and scaring us to think "dark, arty" works like that will never be produced again if it fails. Dark Knight, for me, was darker and artier (Chris Nolan is a better director than Snyder), and I'd say Dark Knight did pretty damn well.

Post by **danlo** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:02 pm

I just came back from the theater-and for 5.50 it was worth the money, but I felt like I was in there for 5 hours. I thought it was a lot of fun, though I don't think I'd have liked it as much if I rented the DVD. I, probably, would have liked it even less if I had read the graphic novel.

Rorschach was a interesting character-he sort of reminded me of Ben Urdich the reporter from the Daredevil comics in his storytelling. From the previews I thought the guy who played the Comedian was Robert Downey Jr. on steroids. I could see parallels of four of the characters with DC heroes (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash)-but I guess I haven't read enough DC to make the connection with the Comedian. He seemed like a cross between Marvel's Nick Fury and the Punisher.

Being a junior in high school in when Nixon resigned the Vietnam and Kent State flashbacks really stirred up some old emotions-and at least we now know who the hidden shooter on the 'grassy knoll' was.

-I thought that was pretty slick. Rip Torn always does a great Nixon. If not for Forrest Gump I would have thought Dr. Manhattan shaking hands with JFK was a great effect.

It was fun going downtown for a change-they were filming a movie on 4th and Gold and I chatted Silverstien's roadies behind the Sunshine Theater for a while.

Post by **wayfriend** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:01 pm

Yeah, I finally saw it. I was hoping to see it in IMAX but, alas, by the time I got around to it IMAX was all about Monsters and Aliens.

I thought the movie did an amazing job of tying together so many flashbacks to tell a coherent story. I wasn't lost anywhere, and I didn't feel like it was dragging either. Rorschach delivered what was hyped, right up to his last second. But I was very surprised to enjoy the Nite Owl character so much.

Of course, if you don't like stories with baggage then this certainly would not ever be your favorite superhero movie.

My first initial gripe was the CGI Dr. Manhatten - his face wasn't very expressive, and if his lips moved you could tell it was CGI. I have no idea why they did not use the real actors face. (And in one early scene I swear the symbol on his forhead looked like a round sticker.)

Some of the music could have been chosen better. Sound of Silence, yes, poor choice. Hallelujah, yeah, bad choice.

Very very little comedy. But that flame thrower provided at least two moments that earned laughs.

See it again? I think you have to. There were so many details that I am sure I will enoy catching the second time around. (Anyone else catch a reference to four-legged chickens?)

Post by **matrixman** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:29 pm

Four-legged chickens? I missed that. I probably missed a lot of things because I was too busy admiring how well the main characters were portrayed.

danlo, regarding the parallels to characters in the "regular" DC or Marvel universe, that's a good point - and I don't think it's accidental. Watchmen didn't arise out of a vacuum. I'm sure Alan Moore had some well-known superheroes in mind when he wrote Watchmen. You might say Rorschach represents the vigilantism of Batman taken to its logical and extreme end. Rorschach is what Batman would be like if he were truly in the real world - he'd be terrifying - and not the "fashionably cool" terror of Batman. Whatever compassion or humanity Batman had - the "pleasant fiction" of the noble comic hero that we adore - has deserted Rorschach. He is single-minded in his desire to punish what he considers to be evil, so much so that there is no room left in his vision for shades of grey or reasonable compromise. Alan Moore himself used the word "psychopath" to describe Rorschach. On the other hand, it is that moral starkness about Rorschach that makes him so compelling. Rorschach may have been modelled after Batman to some degree, but he is certainly no carbon copy.

Post by **wayfriend** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:22 pm

I thought I read somewhere that Watchmen began with established superheroes, but the authors were forced to change it early on at the request of the comics involved.

I can imagine

Superman -> Dr. Manhattan
Batman -> Nite Owl
Wonderwoman -> Silk Spectre
Dick Tracy -> Rorschach

etc.

Post by **wayfriend** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:42 pm

Ah. I see now.

Wikipedia wrote:Charlton's [Comics] most enduring legacy is its superhero characters, most of which were acquired in 1983 by DC Comics, where Giordano was then managing editor. These "Action Hero" characters were originally going to be used in the landmark Watchmen limited series written by Alan Moore, but DC then chose to save the characters for other uses; Moore instead developed new characters loosely based on them. The Charlton characters were incorporated into DC's main superhero line, where some of them enjoyed renewed popularity, most notably Blue Beetle, Captain Atom and The Question, who had languished in obscurity for years before being reintroduced in DC's epic Crisis on Infinite Earths limited series; Blue Beetle subsequently joined a version of the Justice League of America and played a major role in the events leading up to Infinite Crisis in 2005-2006; The Question played a key role in the subsequent year-long series 52. The team of Charlton characters first planned for Moore's Watchmen became reality in 1999 with the DC limited series L.A.W.

Digging into it [link] ...

Blue Beetle became Nite Owl.

The Question became Rorschach.

Captain Atom became Dr. Manhattan

Thunderbolt became Ozymandias

Peacemaker became The Comedian

Niteshade became Silk Spectre

Post by **matrixman** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:33 pm

Interesting. Thanks, wayfriend!

That original line-up would have been quite a sight, what with the Peacemaker and that headgear of his.

The article doesn't mention it, but I wonder if Moore and Gibbons also based the Minutemen (the precursors to the Watchmen) on established characters.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Predict How Good Watchmen will be?

Predict How Good Watchmen will be?