Kevin's Watch

Okay...four days...four days...four days...(my can of drool is almost full, gotta dump, be back in a min.)...

Before you vote, a disclaimer:
NO FILM IS EVER AS GOOD AS IT'S SOURCE MATERIAL!!!!!!!!
So don't be a Fanbot, be realistic about this if you've read the comic and love it, and choose to see the film. Understand that film is a different medium...and things have to be changed to fit the three hour or less screen time and the way films are done vs. books/comics.

That said,
How good do you think it'll be, imdb'ish?

The only trailer's I've seen had lines lifted straight out of the text..good sign.
The visuals look very cool.
I'm hopeful right this second.

I just bought the companion book to the film, which I normally don't do before seeing the film in question. I am unbelievably pumped for this movie. I'm just resisting the urge to read through the whole book right now.

I already love the movie simply for its faithfulness to the look of the characters. Anything beyond that is a bonus. I know I shouldn't judge a movie by its trailer, but the atmosphere just feels right.

I predict it will be very good, but not great. The word on the street is it's really, really good, but not Dark Knight good.

My rule of thumb with adaptations is, don't go in trying to see the book, you'll be disappointed. Go in to see a lot of cool scenes from the book acted out on film, and thereby increasing your enjoyment of the book, and you'll be happy.

There have been some very, very negative reviews in the review pool. I suspect that they are not very true, but spite-driven or due to some other motivation.

Edit: But I will be disappointed that that Smashing Pumkins track won't be in the movie ... It should be!!!

Edit: the tomatoemeter is down to 73%... it was at 91% earlier.

wayfriend wrote:I predict it will be very good, but not great. The word on the street is it's really, really good, but not Dark Knight good.

I personally didn't think Dark Knight was that great, mainly because it doesn't stand up to repeated viewings for me and the last third's climax was both uninspired and by-committee: the ferry/Swat/clown/hostage situation, especially the completely incoherent editing when Batman attacked both the Swat and Joker's henchmen; had no idea what was going on there. I dunno, when the film's trailers and posters promised anarchy in the city I expected much more... Up until that, I may have ranked it with Spider-Man 2.

For this film, I'm not comparing it to anything except the director's past work, which was the antithesis of Watchmen's adult/literary themes, and I believe he will be able to make an entertaining film but I doubt he'll capture the book's depth or skillfully weave together its narrative threads and character arcs as well as Moore. That said, he may do an admirable job and surprise me, but nothing will ever compare with the graphic novel.

I'm thinking it'll be good in spite of Snyder.

Wasn't Zack Snyder responsible for the Awesome Dawn of the Dead remake? Sounds like some of you think he's done nothing of merit?

He has done stuff of merit, but as I said none of it is close to the depth or challenge of adapting Watchmen, which is like tackling Lord of the Rings, maybe even harder due to balancing the many complex characters and flash-backs. It could easily be a mess, and 300 was good fun, yes, but dumb fun. He's yet to really walk out into a movie with this much story and maturity.

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote: NO FILM IS EVER AS GOOD AS IT'S SOURCE MATERIAL!!!!!!!!

Not true; The Hunt for Red October was far better than the book - and that's NOT denigrating the book

Cail wrote:I'm thinking it'll be good in spite of Snyder.

More 300 haters. Yeah it's ridiculous but THAT WAS THE POINT!

Snyder himself called it a Greek propaganda film. (Remember the part at the end? Faramir is using the story of Thermopylae for exactly that purpose!) Technically, It was a hell of a film, true to it's source and true to its purpose. I thought it was lot's of fun the same way I think Total Recall and Robocop are tons of fun. True, his Dawn of the Dead was no Romero, but it maintained the fun-loving spirit of the original.

It better be fantastic.

Rigel wrote:

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote: NO FILM IS EVER AS GOOD AS IT'S SOURCE MATERIAL!!!!!!!!

Not true; The Hunt for Red October was far better than the book - and that's NOT denigrating the book

You right...never read the book, though.

Rigel wrote:

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote: NO FILM IS EVER AS GOOD AS IT'S SOURCE MATERIAL!!!!!!!!

Not true; The Hunt for Red October was far better than the book - and that's NOT denigrating the book

And The Godfather, I think, improved upon and obsoleted the book, as there was a rather long and silly subplot that deviated from the core of Michael Corleone's transformation.

The Dreaming wrote:

Cail wrote:I'm thinking it'll be good in spite of Snyder.

More 300 haters. Yeah it's ridiculous but THAT WAS THE POINT!

Snyder himself called it a Greek propaganda film. (Remember the part at the end? Faramir is using the story of Thermopylae for exactly that purpose!) Technically, It was a hell of a film, true to it's source and true to its purpose. I thought it was lot's of fun the same way I think Total Recall and Robocop are tons of fun. True, his Dawn of the Dead was no Romero, but it maintained the fun-loving spirit of the original.

I agree. It was telling 300 as it would have been told by the Spartans. If you want a more realistic and gritty version, complete with a stunning training sequence and all the emotional resonance you could hope for, I'd seek out Gates of Fire, which will hopefully one day be turned into a picture as well.

Rigel wrote:

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote: NO FILM IS EVER AS GOOD AS IT'S SOURCE MATERIAL!!!!!!!!

Not true; The Hunt for Red October was far better than the book - and that's NOT denigrating the book

Ditto for Carpenter's The Thing.

I'm getting slaughtered here...

wayfriend wrote: My rule of thumb with adaptations is, don't go in trying to see the book, you'll be disappointed. Go in to see a lot of cool scenes from the book acted out on film, and thereby increasing your enjoyment of the book, and you'll be happy.

Wise words! Yeah, my attitude is to go in being just happy about the fact that there is a Watchmen movie at all. I almost sabotaged my own enjoyment of V For Vendetta by being so sensitive to differences between film and book. Luckily I had not read the book for years, so I was able (for the most part) to appreciate the film on its own terms. And now we come to Watchmen: I also have not read it in years, and won't do so again until I have seen the movie.

I have to admit something...

...I didn't read each section of LOTR until I saw each film first...

Lord Foul wrote:a rather long and silly subplot that deviated from the core of Michael Corleone's transformation.

I think I know what you mean...

the previews look GREAT! and i really liked 300.

Well, after hearing and reading a host of negativish reviews, Roger Ebert's review was very positive. I am enheartened again. Not because I think highly of Roger, but because it means that it's possible for non-comic fans to enjoy it.