Kevin's Watch

He wouldn't bother, though. After all, he was already growing distant from Humanity... He just doesn't care about us anymore.

(I need a tissue, snffle)

Anyone 'delved deeply' into the DVD? Is the DVD version expanded? Are the extras really good?

I recorded it off "On Demand", over 3 hours (supposedly had extra stuff in it). I can see where they were going with it, and they certainly hit some strong notes on the "nobody's perfect, everybody's flawed" front, but, I didn't get a whole lot of enjoyment out of it, because everyone was too flawed, and they went way overboard with gratuitous sex (and I imagine since it was on demand, they may even have cut some out). I gave the DVD of it away, it's not something I'll ever watch again.

One year after its theatrical release, I finally bought and watched Watchmen on blu-ray. (It helped that it was selling for only $20.)
The film is more emotionally involving this time around. Back when I saw it at the theater, I was too busy making mental comparisons between film and book to fully engage myself - to lose myself - in the experience. It was unavoidable - Watchmen has occupied my mind for the past two decades, almost as much as TCTC has. The same thing happened when I went to see V For Vendetta and it almost wrecked my enjoyment of that film adaptation, despite telling myself to see it with an open mind. But having liberated myself from that adamant, "purist" view (which sees any deviation from the book as sacrilegious), the full measure of this movie's goodness has hit me. A year removed from the initial hoopla around it, Watchmen the movie stands as an amazing achievement in its own right.

The three-hour director's cut is unquestionably superior to the theatrical version. Snyder maybe erred on the side of caution in regards to the film's running time. Avatar and Titanic (to name two notable examples) have shown that filmgoers are not afraid of lengthy movies if they are given their money's worth. Watchmen certainly gave me mine.

It is the inclusion of Hollis Mason's murder by the Knot Top gang that more than anything else adds powerfully to the film's pathos. The way Snyder films it, he doesn't just honor the scene from the book, he elevates it. Mason's heroic but ultimately futile stand against the gang's attack is truly both glorious and heart-wrenching now, more than it ever was in the book. Why Snyder elected to cut this of all scenes from the theatrical release is beyond me.

The substitution of Jon in place of the "alien squid" as the cause of armageddon and catalyst for peace is much more acceptable to me now, for the reason that others have stated - it logically fits the movie's version of the story. It's basically a non-issue now as far as I'm concerned.

Rorschach's execution of the child murderer via axe instead of fire also worked fine for me. Alan Moore's prose in the book remains a great piece of writing in this scene, but I also appreciate the visceral intensity of the movie version. The brutal force of Rorschach's axe blows expresses his rage and bifurcation of his own mind with effective economy. I would have gone along with some far more elaborately choreographed execution as well, but there is nothing wrong with the scene as it stands, in my opinion.

The other thing I must mention is the brilliant use of Philip Glass's music from the film Koyaanisqatsi in the sequence depicting Jon Osterman's disintegration/transformation into Dr. Manhattan. I did not see Koyaanisqatsi until months after Watchmen, so I had no notion of the music's import at the time. But hearing that music now in Watchmen gives me goosebumps. It doesn't just lend operatic grandeur to Jon's transformation, the music's modernistic style eerily fits Dr. Manhattan in its transparency of detail, the precision of its rhythmic process. It is music simultaneously impersonal and passionate, perfectly suited for a god. I don't know if Snyder is a fan of Koyaanisqatsi, but regardless of whether he picked this particular music from the beginning or if it was shown to him, I'm just very happy that he chose to use it for Watchmen.

I wholeheartedly accept this movie as an honorable representation of the book. Alan Moore may not, but that's not my problem.
Many here also dislike the film. Oh, well. Can't do much about that either. But I've got my blu-ray to keep me happy.

I didn't see this at the theater. Never read the book (never even heard of it). Blu-ray is the only version I know. I had to struggle to finish this goofy film. I couldn't find a single redeemable quality. Not the story. Not the characters. Not the action.

What's the appeal? What is it people love about this story?

You would have to read the story and see for yourself. Unfortunately, you won't be able to go back in time and read it when it was written, or even before seeing the movie. But, who knows if you'd have liked it in any event. One thing it would accomplish is it would allow you to see how true the movie is to the source material.

matrixman wrote: The three-hour director's cut is unquestionably superior to the theatrical version. Snyder maybe erred on the side of caution in regards to the film's running time. Avatar and Titanic (to name two notable examples) have shown that filmgoers are not afraid of lengthy movies if they are given their money's worth. Watchmen certainly gave me mine.

I still haven't seen the Director's Cut. I thought all they did was include the Pirates side story? Glad to hear there's more than that.

Zarathustra wrote: What's the appeal? What is it people love about this story?

For me:
1) The morality of hero and villain is ambiguous... this allows me to relate the characters as being extensions of human nature instead of some ideal (like Superman has been generally portrayed).

2) It's haunting. You have a completely justified atrocity, and it's hard to write it off as evil but you can not accept it as good. In my opinion, when Adrian says "I did it" in the book... *shudder* one of the best scenes in media ever.

3) It's consistently dark. Sometimes I just want this, and not the bubblegum dark that's prevalent in a lot of the popular media (i.e. oh no, somebody died in Harry Potter! That's so adult! *note* That's not a critic of HP, which is good in its own right, but of some people's reaction to it)

I believe Alan Moore said that this movie was the best adaptation that there could be for Watchmen (he did read the screenplay). His main issue is that Watchmen can only be presented in a comic book medium... and after reading it, I'd have to agree with him, though I enjoyed the movie despite the Syndrisms and am glad it introduced me to the graphic novel. Otherwise, I'd see it in Time's list of best novels and turn up my nose at it and say something like, "That's not a novel, idiots!"

BTW, it still isn't a novel, but it is definitely literature.

Very interesting, Orlion. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

I can see some validity in the points you made, and I suppose that these effects might work better in their original, unfiltered form. That's exactly the perspective I was hoping someone would offer, since there is obviously a lot of love for this story, and I felt like I was just missing the point.

Is the difference mainly one of being familiar with the source material? Is there anyone here who loved the movie without reading the original comics?

I have only one point of disagreement: consistently dark. I felt it the movie wasn't dark, merely campy. During all the voiceovers by Rorschach, I wanted to shout, "Shut UP!" Much too preachy and self-conscious, imo, to achieve any kind of "dark." That's why I described it as goofy.

Oh, and big floppy blue penis. Very floppy. Watch this movie with a hysterically laughing 9-yr-old boy, and you might revise your impression of "dark."

Yeah... those are the Synderisms I spoke of... I actually saw the movie before I read the book, and I liked the movie... mainly because of the ending... and Rorsach reminded me of Clint Eastwood if he were a superhero

After I read the book, though.... wow... I've been afraid to watch the movie ever since, it seemed so much better to me.

There still is blue penis in the book, but they did not feel like hitting you in the face with it all the time.

I really think Zack Synder was just trying to catch the shock value the book had when it first came up, as a result a lot of things were kinda over the top.

Zarathustra wrote:I have only one point of disagreement: consistently dark. I felt it the movie wasn't dark, merely campy. During all the voiceovers by Rorschach, I wanted to shout, "Shut UP!" Much too preachy and self-conscious, imo, to achieve any kind of "dark." That's why I described it as goofy.

I never really bought into the big Rorschach monologue in the comic, to be honest. Self-conscious is the word, yeah.

Reading it it didn't have a huge impact on me, but I can easily see why it is the classic it is. It's a great story, and very well executed. It poses some very interesting ethical questions, particularly the ending where we the heroes are left with a horrible act having been commited, and the choice between justice and the greater good. It tackles the issue of justice throughout, and whether vigilantism is ever justified. Some of it is cliche, but it's the way it takes these recognisable superhero archetypes and uses them to pose these questions that make it great.

I'll also note the book's format makes it very different, as well - not just comic, but each chapter also includes sections like excerpts of a former Minuteman's biography, and newspaper articles, that fill in a lot of background on who the Minutemen were in an interesting way, usually in a deconstructing-the-myth sense.


I should probably get around to watching the film.

Murrin wrote:I never really bought into the big Rorschach monologue in the comic, to be honest. Self-conscious is the word, yeah.

I'll take your word for it . . . though I can imagine how it would work better on the page than in the cinema.

For me, it's the fact that it's a superhero story about why we can't have superheroes. As far as I can tell, it's the most realistic portrayal of what might actually happen if people started dressing up in costumes to fight crime.

Not to mention the characters' stories, which I thought were quite well done. The Comedian, especially, whose ultimate fate was both tragic and inevitable.

The same is true of Rorschach, Night Owl II, and Adrian. Being the people they are, there's no way they could have avoided their fates. The only way to turn aside would have been to deny their own selves.

Well, you know it's tough to try to defend on two fronts: on one hand, answer the criticisms of those who feel the movie is a weak adaptation, on the other answer those who feel Watchmen itself is weak material. I'm not good at that.

Regarding the graphic novel: One person's treasure, another's trash. It's hard for me to objectively explain why I like something whose value or greatness or whatever you want to call it is self-evident to me.

But compliments to Orlion, Murrin and Rigel on your fine observations!

One gripping aspect of Watchmen for me is the oppressive, imminent threat of nuclear destruction. The story was written in the Cold War Eighties, and I had my share of nuclear nightmares living through that era. So in that way I feel a strong sense of identification: the story reminds me of some of my darkest fears from that period. But again, this is just one element. It is how it fits so well into the story as a whole that makes Watchmen what it is.

Rigel wrote:For me, it's the fact that it's a superhero story about why we can't have superheroes. As far as I can tell, it's the most realistic portrayal of what might actually happen if people started dressing up in costumes to fight crime.

Okay, you're jogging my memory with this. I remember now that this was something else that bugged me. I don't think that superheroes were ever supposed to be taken seriously (or at least literally) ... or maybe they were taken seriously in a time when we were more naive or more easily impressed or just more able to suspend disbelief. I freakin' loved the Superfriends, growing up in the 80s. Eating a bowl of cereal still reminds me of this cartoon. It was such a large part of my Saturday morning routine. But I doubt I could sit through an episode now. (Spongebob is so much better.)

I think that fantasy fans and comic book fans have always felt like they need to justify their fanaticism, because they can see the epic nature of their favored genre, but this genre is still scorned by "serious" literature elites.

So we get superhero stories that are supposed to "redeem" this image of freaks who dress up in "stupid" costumes in order to give these genres gravitas and authenticity. But in the process, they end up undermining the genres they purportedly defend by accepting the judgements of the "haters" and trying to explain away or even join in the ridicule of the standard genre tropes. If successful, this ends up being ironic and transformative. If it's not successful, it ends up being an example of that same "elitist" condemnation to which it is a response. I can't decide where Watchmen falls on this scale, but my initial impression leans toward the former.

I'm sick of comic book heroes that seem to make apologies for comic book heroes, and constantly feel the need to make them "serious." It's like describing Covenant as an "anti-hero." Screw that. He's not an anti-hero. He's a legitimate hero. Just because he isn't simple or conventional doesn't mean that he fails as a traditional hero.

I guess I'm tired of the self-conscious attempts at bucking a trend. That has become too trendy, in my opinion.

Murrin wrote:In the graphic novel,

Spoiler

the Comedian was killed because he discovered something about the plan, relating to a secret island where a lot of disappeared clairvoyants and scientists had been taken to. On the island, they used actual biological specimens along with research into psychic abilities to create the alien/squid-thing hoax; Ozymandias teleported the body into the middle of Manhattan and at the same time unleashed a massive psychic shockwave that killed anyone in the area, the idea being that it would look as though a pan-dimensional being had entered our world and the psychic shockwave was its death cry. The world, seeing that such a threat existed outside our reality, would unite to defend themselves against it.

I do think the new ending is a perfectly good way of providing the same plot device,

Spoiler

without the slightly dodgy issues provided by having the film's ending rest on the existence of real psychics (besides the fact that the existence of actual psychics undermines the main premise of the story where Manhattan is the one and only person with superpowers, the rest being ordinary people in costumes). It does, however, suffer from the problem of this new threat against which the world unites being man-made and affiliated specifically with America, which the alien plot avoided.

ditto, while the new ending in the movie was still a bit clunky.... it was less clunky than the graphic novel ending because it was closer to a realistic possibility in the story's universe. However...

Spoiler

I don't think it quite added up either. It added up more than a genentically engineered alien with psionics that was teleported 'bamf' into New York, but....

I think for an event to convince the US and the USSR to make peace, both would have had to appear to have been attacked by Dr. Manhattan in my opinion. As it was, the USSR didn't have reason to make peace with the US so much as take advantage of Dr. Manhattan's absence, and changed allegiance imo. I think it was a novel effort by Snyder though, it comes very close to working out a more fitting ending than the one in the graphic novel.

I'll also acknowledge that Snyder allowed for good guys and bad guys in the film, and Mr. Moore is probably gnashing his teeth at that, but I don't think the moral relatavism being strayed from really did much damage to the story all things being considered.

Zarathustra wrote: So we get superhero stories that are supposed to "redeem" this image of freaks who dress up in "stupid" costumes in order to give these genres gravitas and authenticity. But in the process, they end up undermining the genres they purportedly defend by accepting the judgements of the "haters" and trying to explain away or even join in the ridicule of the standard genre tropes. If successful, this ends up being ironic and transformative. If it's not successful, it ends up being an example of that same "elitist" condemnation to which it is a response. I can't decide where Watchmen falls on this scale, but my initial impression leans toward the former.

Well, I'm not a Watchmen fanatic, and I read it for the first time shortly before the movie came out. I am very much of a Johnny Come Lately to the Watchmen. My understanding was that comic books at the time were all like the Superfriends 80's show you remember - they were strong and fought for truth, justice and the American way, and such. That was why Watchmen was so profound at the time; it literally shook up the genre. The "superheroes" in Watchmen are regular folks that give in to greed, lust, hubris, and, uhh....really getting into the job. When I read through it, it seemed to take an established genre and ask the question, "What if these superheroes were real people?" The book is very cynical about human nature, with maybe the exception of Nite Owl II and what's her name.
And I think the reason the Watchmen comes of a bit different today is because it took so long to come out in movie form, and several other movies and such have borrowed from the Watchmen. For instance, Mystery Men took the "superhero" as a human being and made it funny, and The Dark Knight seemed to point out the "superhero" as a vigilante that takes the law into his own hands.
I don't know though, because I've never been a comic book fan. I've read ones here and there when I was kid, but gave it up when I grew up. In fact, the only ones I've read in the last 20 years are V For Vendetta and Watchmen. And I can now see how they changed "comic books" to "graphic novels."

Now, taking the book, my mind was blown a bit by some of the weird mirror images of the panels on certain pages with other certain pages, and weird little touches like that.

The genre was already changing by the time Watchmen was published. X-Men and Daredevil were pretty serious books back then. Frank Miller was doing Daredevil, and he definitely moved DD in the same direction Moore took, only 2-3 years prior. The Watchmen was DC's reaction to those titles, and even then, DC wouldn't allow Moore to use established characters....but it was revolutionary for them, and it opened the door for Moore to work his magic on Swamp-Thing. I only picked up the Watchmen comics after reading Swamp-Thing.

Zarathustra wrote:I think that fantasy fans and comic book fans have always felt like they need to justify their fanaticism, because they can see the epic nature of their favored genre, but this genre is still scorned by "serious" literature elites.

So we get superhero stories that are supposed to "redeem" this image of freaks who dress up in "stupid" costumes in order to give these genres gravitas and authenticity.

Watchmen, however, is not an attempt to justify the superhero genre by making it "gritty" and "realistic". It's a criticism and deconstruction of the genre for the very flaws you point out.

The tag line, Who watches the Watchmen?, questions the very idea of people taking upon themselves the responsibility to go out and fight crime in this way, treating themselves as though they are outside or beyond the law.

Rorschach (Moore's Batman - one side of him, anyway, since there';s also Nite Owl/Hawkman) may target criminals and have a strong sense of justice, but he's still a murderous sociopath. The Comedian is the all-american hero from a past era (Watchmen transports the archetype from WW2 to Vietnam) who is racist, misogynistic, and ultimately a washed up drunk. The Superman-analogue is so all-powerful that he has lost all his humanity, and his desire to use his power to help humanity could only lead inevitably to tyranny.