Watchmen

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rhombaad

Video Game Time Traveler
I saw Watchmen on Saturday with some friends of mine.  I enjoyed it, but I think that's because I was expecting it to be much worse than it was.  The changes made, ending aside, made sense since Snyder was trying to fit in every major plot point not including the news stand, which only shows up once.  I'm not condoning these changes, it's just that I can see why he altered what he did.  I thought the performances were pretty good, aside from Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre II) and Matthew Goode (Ozymandias).  Goode kept slipping into some weird accent, which was a little distracting, and he looked way too young for the part (the latter not being his fault, of course).
 

Rhombaad

Video Game Time Traveler
Aazealh said:
What do you think of it, as someone who enjoyed the movie? IMHO it might have been wiser for him not to write this. He's basically self-congratulating and asking people to go see his movie a second time.

Part of it kinda seemed like a big "fuck you" to anyone who read the graphic novel and didn't enjoy Zack Snyder's take on it.  I don't really think he has the right to say that to fans of the original material, since they're entitled to their opinion as much as anyone.  I did however like the fact that he's urging fans of the movie to see it more than once in an attempt to show studios that these kind of movies are enjoyed and that we'd like more movies like this coming out, rather than the traditional dumb Hollywood action movies.
 
Aazealh said:
What do you think of it, as someone who enjoyed the movie? IMHO it might have been wiser for him not to write this. He's basically self-congratulating and asking people to go see his movie a second time.

QFT. That's the exact impression I got the moment I started reading it. Personally I don't care what "sacrifices" he made and other people made. The movie could have been better story wise. The movie didn't "nag" at me after seeing it. And it was hardly what I'd call rough. Nice try Hayter, but no thx.

Rhombaad said:
I did however like the fact that he's urging fans of the movie to see it more than once in an attempt to show studios that these kind of movies are enjoyed and that we'd like more movies like this coming out, rather than the traditional dumb Hollywood action movies.

You want more bad adaptions of comics, graphic novels, anime and manga? :???: I don't want anymore movies like this coming out. I'll take my chances with Sin City 2.
 

Rhombaad

Video Game Time Traveler
Ramen4ever said:
You want more bad adaptions of comics, graphic novels, anime and manga?

Like I said, I didn't think it was as bad as you did.  I can understand why you didn't like it all that much, and as I said I certainly can't condone the numerous changes that were made, especially the ending, but I had a good time at the cinema.  The graphic novel remains unchanged on my shelf, so I'm not all that displeased, and I look forward to reading it again in the near future.  Personally, I think the movie could have been much worse, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Rhombaad said:
[quote author=Solid Snake]
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 [Watchmen].
[/quote]
Squid.

Trust me. You'll come back, eventually. Just like Sally.
Hahahaha, ok, I'll admit that got a laugh out of me :guts:

I think I will go see it this weekend, just to confirm my disappointment from what I've read of reviews. Will post review here.

PS: One of the really GREAT comments from the link to the Hayter letter:

I loved the movie. I loved it a LOT. I'll buy the DVD, undoubtedly, and though I won't go back next weekend, I'll definitely go back. It's saying a lot of things that I want to examine more closely, about justice, society, pragmatism versus idealism, relationships, love, hate -- it's a pretty dense story, and I'm looking forward to picking it apart and seeing how it ticks. And the performances were wonderful, especially Carla Gugino, Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and I didn't feel the film dragged at any point - though I can understand why some people would.

I've tried a few times over the years to read the graphic novel but it never grabbed me
:ganishka: Ok, I think I'm starting to understand it all now :ganishka:
 

Lithrael

Remember, always hold your apple tight
[quote author=NightCrawler]Even if i didn't like the movie that much. I agree it was very courageous, for a blockbuster (way more than The Dark Knight), in it's presentation and faithfulness to the form and adult themes of the original work, and we need more movies like this, not watered-down toy commercials like Wolverine.[/quote]

[quote author=Aazealh]Let's not exaggerate. The movie's not a complete sellout, but it isn't an act of extraordinary bravery either. It's still commercial and surfing on the wave of comic book adaptations. It's not small budget independant cinema with challenging themes.[/quote]

I usually don't go around accusing anyone of stinking of elitism, but even small budget indie cinema has to sell something unless it's a vanity project or running on grants.  Even a big budget movie has some measure of bravery when it fails to cave to the things you know the investors must have been saying they wanted the whole time.  I seriously doubt the bomb analog was any more popular with the money people than the squid.

Many of the negative fan reactions to Watchmen are really leaving me scratching my head.  I read it a couple times when I was a kid (cause I liked Gibbons from the stuff he did for Doctor Who) and I just re-read it over the last few days.  I really just can't see the changes they made and the skippage of the comic book and side characters and events, as eviscerating the story of The Watchmen.  From listening to some fans, it's like they would have preferred faithfulness to the point of including the extra goofy 80's version of being prompted for the Pyramid files' password.

And even as someone who digs the GN, lack of squid is nothing even vaguely deal-breaking to me.  Indeed in a post 9/11 world I don't think the squid even works anymore.  We all know how quickly a single nation can fuck up disaster-based worldwide goodwill, and the 'oh shit I accidentally stuck myself through a city, blarg ded' idea of the squid doesn't seem like it would sell so well as a multi-national disaster.  Even in the books an accidental alien incursion didn't make much sense to me as the mobilizing event behind worldwide cooperation.  Blaming it on Dr. Manhattan seemed to me to work perfectly well with the story.  And..  honestly, I don't see what would have been so cool about getting to see the squid.  It just sits there.  It's ded.

So yes, I liked the movie, no, I wouldn't have been happy with 'anything'.  I think it was almost as faithful an adaptation as could be done in a movie and still hang together well and be a great moviegoing experience.  Probably my biggest complaint with it is just the bit with Nite Owl yelling at Ozy at the end.  I would have been much happier sticking with more of the flavor of the original dialog, and with the biggest 'oooooh burn' feeling for the audience coming from Jon's more dispassionate words. 

But both the book and the movie leave the audience with the potential for plenty of conflict over evaluating whether Ozy has done the right thing 'in the end'.  After all, human morality is not only about numbers any more than it's only about absolutes.  Part of why the original hit so hard was how close the audience was to the fear of nuclear annihilation.  It's still a possibility of course but it's nothing like a major theme of popular thought like it was prior to the fall of the soviet union.  These days more people are afraid of rogue states and terrorists killing many, than of superpowers killing everyone. 

Indeed only recently has popular thinking got to be dark enough to even make Watchmen feel powerfully relevant.  Imagine trying to make The Watchmen, either the limited series or the movie, in 1991, when the world was so hopeful about the future?  It wouldn't have worked at all.  It couldn't have grabbed the hearts of the public.  For a story about humanity needing a terrible hit to be saved from itself, you need a preexisting sentiment that perhaps we do need to be saved from ourselves.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
I won't attempt a full counter argument as I still haven't seen the movie (t-minus 3 hours to viewing). You make some stellar points about the power of the story in culture later in your post, and I'll let others respond to those. But you started out with a rather weak argument.

Lithrael said:
And even as someone who digs the GN, lack of squid is nothing even vaguely deal-breaking to me.  ...  And..  honestly, I don't see what would have been so cool about getting to see the squid.  It just sits there.  It's ded.
My problem with the direction Snyder took is pretty simple. It's not like I have some burning desire to see the squid in full 2009-level CG. It's the principle of the change. I'd just rather they had adapted the movie in a way that kept all the original elements intact, rather than change it to suit the age.

I don't think all the nerd rage present on the Internet is unjustified. Their anger is less directed at Watchmen and more the premise that the original concept isn't deemed good enough to stand up to today's standards by Snyder et al. The rage is especially focused because Watchmen is another Hollywood attempt to update an Alan Moore title. His tiles have been R A P E D by Hollywood during the past decade. And fans will always rally against another that seeks to change the perception of the source material because of the mistakes in the past.
 

Lithrael

Remember, always hold your apple tight
Walter said:
My problem with the direction Snyder took is pretty simple. It's not like I have some burning desire to see the squid in full 2009-level CG. It's the principle of the change. I'd just rather they had adapted the movie in a way that kept all the original elements intact, rather than change it to suit the age.

Fair enough - then we just have a difference of opinion over which is more valuable:  an adaptation's faithfulness to the original material for faithfulness' sake, versus an adaptation's attempt to make the story have the same sort of impact on a different audience.  It's a lot like the difference of opinion over footnoting to explain, versus westernizing, cultural aspects of a story when doing a translation. 

You definitely have a point, but I like my position too.   :griffnotevil:

Especially as the GN is very much available to anyone who wants to check it out.  Unlike being stuck for what the original meant when presented with a westernized translation.

As long as I'm at it I'll add my voice to convincing any fence sitters to check out the book. It's an awesome read, and in no way boring, even if you've just watched the film. Even if it does have a typically obnoxious male attitude in the writing of all the women. That's just comics for you. Or maybe women. :puck:
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Lithrael said:
Fair enough - then we just have a difference of opinion over which is more valuable: an adaptation's faithfulness to the original material for faithfulness' sake, versus an adaptation's attempt to make the story have the same sort of impact on a different audience. It's a lot like the difference of opinion over footnoting to explain, versus westernizing, cultural aspects of a story when doing a translation.
It's not about being faithful for "faithfulness' sake," it's respect for Moore's work. Who are they to say the story won't have impact on a modern audience? Do they think they can write the story ... BETTER than Alan Moore? :troll:
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Lithrael said:
A lot of words are typed out and spaced in the original message.

I don't disagree everything you said. I was really suprised that the movie wasn't that bad. It wasn't like V for Vendetta, which I believe managed to lose the entire message Moore was trying to say, but it was able to add something to change it a little bit at the end. As far as what Night Owl said to Ozy I really liked that instead. I don't think I would have been able to tolerate Dr Manhattan's speech with that obnoxious voice he has in the movie.

This is an actual spoiler.
Also I felt that the way Rorschach killed the child killer in the house should have been left the way it was in the book, Rorschach cleaving the guy was brutal, yet I felt like it lost something from him not burning the house down while giving him the offer to saw off his leg.

Walter said:
His tiles have been R A P E D by Hollywood during the past decade.

I wouldn't really call Watchmen raped, more like... molested. Of course when you compare V for Vendetta and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to the source material I can understand why he disliked them so much.

Walter said:
It's not about being faithful for "faithfulness' sake," it's respect for Moore's work. Who are they to say the story won't have impact on a modern audience? Do they think they can write the story ... BETTER than Alan Moore? :troll:

Well there are plenty of movies that are adapted which the original author giving them their blessing, even with the original source material being slightly altered [Coraline]. What I think it really comes down to is Moore's blinding hatred for Hollywood and the movie industry. I'm not trying to defend the changes, but for the most part they really were probably for the best. As Lithrael pointed out most people would just think of 9/11 when they see the squid and they will just think how [even know] that the world wouldn't come together like that and would quickly just fall back into a state of near war.
 

Lithrael

Remember, always hold your apple tight
Heheh!  Well seriously, I never got the squid.  So...  uhh...   :schnoz:

But if the internets sentiment is mostly misdirected rage over steaming piles of shit like the League of Ex movie, then heheheheh, yeah, I can see that.  Ouch.

And yeah, I could have seen leaving that scene for Rorschach alone. I'm guessing they figured the audience would be too bored/distracted by the (very superficial of course) similarity to the Saw series. That's certainly where my mind jumped to when I was rereading the book. But of course there's nothing wrong with the argument that that's no reason to change it.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Lithrael said:
I usually don't go around accusing anyone of stinking of elitism, but even small budget indie cinema has to sell something unless it's a vanity project or running on grants. Even a big budget movie has some measure of bravery when it fails to cave to the things you know the investors must have been saying they wanted the whole time.

Since you're directly replying to me with this, I'd like to know what's remarkably courageous about this movie, if possible. The things that deserve applause for the brave fight against the evil Hollywood execs, and that weren't a necessity without completely denaturing the work. What's "some measure", exactly? And do you think it stinks of elitism to roll one's eyes at what I'm quoting below?

David Hayter said:
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.

"Is Watchmen the best movie ever made? I just don't know quite yet. But to be sure, you guys should go watch it twice at least." :schierke: For the record, I didn't need to read Watchmen twice to understand it.

Lithrael said:
And even as someone who digs the GN, lack of squid is nothing even vaguely deal-breaking to me.

It's convenient to reduce all criticism of the movie whatsoever to the lack of the squid though. Just like it's convenient not to mind the disappearance of something you didn't like in the first place. Paradoxically, considering my participation to the discussion, I don't even care about this whole movie issue myself aside from my general dislike of adaptations. However I have to point out that the changes go beyond the ending and aren't all insignificant. Apart from that, actualizing the context seems like an easy excuse to me, considering the fact the story is happening in an alternate history in the first place (It's like saying 1984 doesn't work well in today's world. Does that mean the original isn't good anymore?). The original Watchmen is all about the 80s, and it's also targeted at comic book nerds. The costumes are cheesy, the "heroes" are dangerous vigilantes and don't have any actual superhuman powers (except Manhattan obviously), and all that stuff. I don't think there's much weight in justifying changes based on that excuse while leaving the rest intact. I'd rather just hear "didn't like that so we removed it", which is probably the actual reason for those changes.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Aazealh said:
"Is Watchmen the best movie ever made? I just don't know quite yet. But to be sure, you guys should go watch it twice at least." :schierke: For the record, I didn't need to read Watchmen twice to understand it.

Ha! Solid Snake can go fuck him self. I'm not paying for this movie. :ganishka:
 

Lithrael

Remember, always hold your apple tight
[quote author=Aazealh]Since you're directly replying to me with this, I'd like to know what's remarkably courageous about this movie, if possible. The things that deserve applause for the brave fight against the evil Hollywood execs, and that weren't a necessity without completely denaturing the work. What's "some measure", exactly?[/quote]

Well for starters, not slapping undies on Dr. Manhattan. Perhaps you'd like to point out some other mainstream movies with lots and lots of full frontal male nudity.

[quote author=Aazealh]And do you think it stinks of elitism to roll one's eyes at what I'm quoting below?[/quote]

Heheh, of course not. The 'elitism' comment was directly to this:

[quote author=Aazealh]It's not small budget independant cinema with challenging themes.[/quote]

[quote author=Aazealh]It's convenient to reduce all criticism of the movie whatsoever to the lack of the squid though. Just like it's convenient not to mind the disappearance of something you didn't like in the first place.[/quote]

I didn't intend to reduce it to that, I was just responding to it since I've seen plenty of fans bring it up. And, uh... sorry for not liking the squid?

[quote author=Aazealh]However I have to point out that the changes go beyond the ending and aren't all insignificant.[/quote]

I'd be interested to hear your opinions on that. I'd certainly agree that a lot of reinforcement of the themes was cut. But I don't see much I'd call significant.

[quote author=Aazealh]Apart from that, actualizing the context seems like an easy excuse to me, considering the fact the story is happening in an alternate history in the first place (It's like saying 1984 doesn't work well in today's world. Does that mean the original isn't good anymore?).[/quote]

Possibly? It'd be helpful if you came up with a closer analogy, since 1984 still works great.

[quote author=Aazealh]The original Watchmen is all about the 80s, and it's also targeted at comic book nerds. The costumes are cheesy, the "heroes" are dangerous vigilantes and don't have any actual superhuman powers (except Manhattan obviously), and all that stuff. I don't think there's much weight in justifying changes based on that excuse while leaving the rest intact. I'd rather just hear "didn't like that so we removed it", which is probably the actual reason for those changes.[/quote]

It's targeted at people with an awareness of the general themes of costumed comic book heroes. And it's still all about the 80's. That doesn't mean you can make the audience suspend its knowledge of how the world reacts when put to such a test, once it's gained that knowledge - at least not without spending a lot of time establishing that people in that universe aren't like people in the real one. Which would be a weird thing to try to do in a story that's mostly a commentary on the human condition. You can say a Jules Verne story is still good even when we know technology didn't turn out that way, because it's clearly built into the story that we're not using real technology. But what is the point of Watchmen if we're not using real people?
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Back from theater. Review will come later. Errands to run.

Reader's Digest: almost walked out. Snyder ruined the experience for all of us. Structure, story, dialogue, changes had nothing to do with its failure. All cinematographic and directorial. Tire tread on legendary graphic novel's legacy. Thanks Snyder.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Lithrael said:
Well for starters, not slapping undies on Dr. Manhattan. Perhaps you'd like to point out some other mainstream movies with lots and lots of full frontal male nudity.

Oh, so that's why it's so brave and courageous. That's the kind of thing that was really important to keep in the story, that mattered above all. The reason to go see the movie more than once, in order to have the "faintest grip" on it. That's what we need in order to see more quality movies/adaptations/whatever. Genitals. Gotcha. Funnily enough, there's actually a lot more of it in the movie than in the book. His junk wasn't hidden, but it wasn't showcased either and admittedly wasn't very important. Maybe your point is that the MPAA has historically been far too strict with male nudity, but honestly that's not what Watchmen's story is about. It's not something that makes this movie a particularly good adaptation, in fact I'd say it's far nerdier and trivial than the squid. By the way, notice how a lot of references to smoking have been cut (aside from a couple shots of the Comedian and his cigar)? How daring.

So anyway, since that was for starters, what's next? The Nite Owl/Silk Spectre sex scene maybe? Great orgasm allegory with the flamethrower.

Lithrael said:
Heheh, of course not. The 'elitism' comment was directly to this:

Well I stand by my comment. Sorry but I don't think this movie is heroically fighting the Hollywood status quo. It's still a commercial movie made first and foremost to earn as much money as possible, and not only that but it was dubiously marketed ("from the people who brought you 300!"), so much that of all the people around me who went to see it (none had read the GN) came back disappointed and said it was "boring and messy". Now I know this isn't representative or anything, but I do think a lot of moviegoers aren't going to get what they expected.

Lithrael said:
I didn't intend to reduce it to that, I was just responding to it since I've seen plenty of fans bring it up. And, uh... sorry for not liking the squid?

That's pretty much the only thing you addressed, though. As for not liking the squid, it doesn't matter to me, but it also doesn't lend much credit to you saying "lack of squid is nothing even vaguely deal-breaking to me". Yeah I bet it isn't if you "never got it".

Lithrael said:
I'd be interested to hear your opinions on that. I'd certainly agree that a lot of reinforcement of the themes was cut. But I don't see much I'd call significant.

The weird music choices? The annoying slow motion, fight choreography and general overdramatization? The portrayal of characters and events that differ from their original selves? The desire to cram a lot of stuff in the movie without providing any coherent background for it (so that only people having read the comic book really get it)? Mostly I'd say the characters are not consistently depicted like they are in the book. They ruined Ozymandias to me. And Nite Owl is supposed to be pot-bellied, not badass. Same with Rorschach and the dog, or how they accelerated his meetings with the psychiatrist. And aside from the squid and all, I like the book's ending better (Manhattan's reaction to Veidt's plot and how it spoils his fun). Then there's always the sex scene. Ah and the way Silk Spectre II learns that the Comedian is her dad made little sense to me. Lastly, what you're talking about concerning the way people think and feel in that alternate world. All the prejudices (seen through Captain Metropolis, for example), or the way the Cold War looms over everything, the unrest in NYC, making the costumed heroes murders seem completely insignificant.

I could list more stuff, but no one wants that, right? Besides, if nothing significant is missing for you, I doubt it would change anything. To me, all those small details and background events are, once cumulated, a large part of what makes Watchmen great.

Lithrael said:
Possibly? It'd be helpful if you came up with a closer analogy, since 1984 still works great.

So does Watchmen. It still works great. That was my point. Or are you saying that 1984's post-WWII superstates work perfectly in the current geopolitical context whereas the squid doesn't? Because I'd have to disagree with that.

Lithrael said:
That doesn't mean you can make the audience suspend its knowledge of how the world reacts when put to such a test, once it's gained that knowledge - at least not without spending a lot of time establishing that people in that universe aren't like people in the real one.

So people would react to a giant alien monster killing half of New York City using telepathic powers and giving survivors crazy visions the same way they would to 9/11? That's what you're saying? If so I think you're oversimplifying things here and missing the point entirely. The point in question being that a new, unknown threat exists and that it's not humans vs humans anymore but humans vs something else. You talk about 9/11 but really, I don't think the new ending helps with that at all. The threat of bombing is a lot more similar to terrorism than a giant alien monster would be, especially when it can be identified as coming from a certain group of people. Really, the only real difference is that in the movie, many cities are bombed and not just NYC. And that could have been done with the squid (or several squids). I guess it was just too Sci-Fi? Too out there? Too hard to pull off correctly? Sorry but I don't think your argument stands. It's just mixing up things that have little in common. I don't think people would have been unable to suspend their disbelief just because NYC has been attacked before, given the difference of scale and origin of the attack. Now the question actually is: is the threat of Dr. Manhattan better and more believable (one uncontrollable superhuman being that's identified and can't really be stopped nor fought against because he's both way too small scale, being a single man, and way too powerful) from a scenaristic point of view as opposed to dangerous aliens that are completely unknown and will always be? Yet that come from a different world, can be prepared against and can be killed? I personally don't think so. Part of the greatness of the original was that the aliens were a fictional threat, entirely made up. And so unlikely, so shockingly strange that it'd stop global war in its tracks. On the contrary, Dr. Manhattan is supposed to have been accounted for on both sides all along.

Lithrael said:
You can say a Jules Verne story is still good even when we know technology didn't turn out that way, because it's clearly built into the story that we're not using real technology. But what is the point of Watchmen if we're not using real people?

In Watchmen the people live in a different context. I think the movie like the comic book make this pretty clear. We're not facing Nuclear War right now, does that make the threat less believable to people? Can they not suspend their disbelief because the Cold War is over? Is Dr Manhattan supposed to be credible? Or Nite Owl? Or Ozymandias? And Jules Verne's novels certainly don't imply that the technology isn't real. The technologies used in his works were actually quite credible at the time.
 

Lithrael

Remember, always hold your apple tight
Ah, thanks for pulling the posts out to its own thread. :guts:

[quote author=Aazealh]Maybe your point is that the MPAA has historically been far too strict with male nudity, but honestly that's not what Watchmen's story is about. It's not something that makes this movie a particularly good adaptation, in fact I'd say it's far nerdier and trivial than the squid.[/quote]

Fair enough. Sorry I didn't guess where your goalposts were. You did ask what they kept that they could have removed without it being detrimental to the story.

[quote author=Aazealh]Sorry but I don't think this movie is heroically fighting the Hollywood status quo. It's still a commercial movie made first and foremost to earn as much money as possible, and not only that but it was dubiously marketed ("from the people who brought you 300!")[/quote]

I'm not actually arguing with you there. I just think it's a couple notches above most other comic book movie adaptations so far, and not some kind of awful travesty of the Watchmen. There are some things they changed that it would have been better if they kept, yeah - I didn't say it was perfect, or even the best it could be, I just think it's a pretty damn good stab at it.

[quote author=Aazealh]As for not liking the squid, it doesn't matter to me, but it also doesn't lend much credit to you saying "lack of squid is nothing even vaguely deal-breaking to me". Yeah I bet it isn't if you "never got it".[/quote]

Er.. ok? Would you be interested in trying to explain it to me, or would you rather bask in the warm glow of my ignorance?

[quote author=Aazealh]The weird music choices? The annoying slow motion, fight choreography and general overdramatization? The portrayal of characters and events that differ from their original selves? The desire to cram a lot of stuff in the movie without providing any coherent background for it (so that only people having read the comic book really get it)?[/quote]

I think what we have here is a difference of opinion.

[quote author=Aazealh]I like the book's ending better (Manhattan's reaction to Veidt's plot and how it spoils his fun). Then there's always the sex scene. Ah and the way Silk Spectre II learns that the Comedian is her dad made little sense to me.[/quote]

Agreed on the first, confused on the second, disagreed on the third. For me the movie version of the paternity reveal made more sense and read much clearer than the book version.

[quote author=Aazealh]Besides, if nothing significant is missing for you, I doubt it would change anything. To me, all those small details and background events are, once cumulated, a large part of what makes Watchmen great.[/quote]

Yeah, difference of opinion. I don't need the broad facts of what people can be like in a slightly dystopian metropolis pointed out for me. I assume that sort of confused shades-of-gray grab at life is the backdrop, when I'm given that kind of a visual feel for the city.

[quote author=Aazealh]Or are you saying that 1984's post-WWII superstates work perfectly in the current geopolitical context whereas the squid doesn't? Because I'd have to disagree with that.[/quote]

Well... yeah. A lot of 1984 is double scary now because of how close to the truth its themes turned out to be. I'm still not following you.

[quote author=Aazealh]The point in question being that a new, unknown threat exists and that it's not humans vs humans anymore but humans vs something else.[/quote]

I disagree. The way I read it, Dr. Manhattan is something else. He is new and unknown. A huge theme of the book was how inhuman he appeared to those around him. Just because he was human once and controllably useful for a time, doesn't take away the fact that he becomes inhumanly terrifying once the world believes this once-human thing with godlike powers has decided it's going to start smiting humanity for acting badly, without regard to any of the allegiances it once had.

[quote author=Aazealh](...) as opposed to dangerous aliens that are completely unknown and will always be? Yet that come from a different world, can be prepared against and can be killed?[/quote]

But this is why I don't understand the squid. I don't see how it can be prepared against when it wasn't even prepared itself; killing it obviously doesn't help. In every way it looked like a one time accidental abberation. The thing in showing up accidentally kills itself all over NYC. I thought the whole point of it in the book was to show 'there's something bigger than all of us out there' rather than 'there's something we need to come together to fight against.' The psychic sting was all about pure otherness. And it still cracks me up, the idea of some surreal imagery and Phillip Glass being otherdimensionally weird. And Ozy's got a whole nother round of conspiracy mongering ahead of him explaining why the thing's structure and tissues seem to be derived from earthly life. And how long can he keep up the sense of wonder and fear when another one doesn't show up? Will he have to do it all again in another generation?

[quote author=Aazealh]And Jules Verne's novels certainly don't imply that the technology isn't real. The technologies used in his works were actually quite credible at the time.[/quote]

We're talking right across one another. Of course they were credible at the time. As was the squid. The concept of Jules Verne's technologies proved wrong but it doesn't matter because it's still a fun what-if and it's still credible in context, even though we know we went in a different direction. I feel humanity's reaction to the squid's been made highly dubious and it does matter because while it's still a fun what-if it's not sufficiently credible to invest the rest of the story, with such a good grasp of humanity, in it. Our knowledge of technology has changed, and technology itself has changed. Our knowledge of humanity has changed, but humanity itself has not changed.
 

Rhombaad

Video Game Time Traveler
I saw it again in IMAX last night, which was a cool experience, but the movie didn't hold up as well for me the second time around. If anything, it made me wish I had seen The Dark Knight in IMAX when it was out. :void:
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Fair enough. Sorry I didn't guess where your goalposts were. You did ask what they kept that they could have removed without it being detrimental to the story.

Can't help it if you truly think that's what Hayter's letter is about. Anyway, I'm still waiting for the rest of the incredibly courageous stances taken in this movie. The stuff that deserves to be paid for twice.

I'm not actually arguing with you there. I just think it's a couple notches above most other comic book movie adaptations so far, and not some kind of awful travesty of the Watchmen. There are some things they changed that it would have been better if they kept, yeah - I didn't say it was perfect, or even the best it could be, I just think it's a pretty damn good stab at it.

Then what are you doing if you're not arguing with me? Other than saying my opinion stinks, I mean. Anyhow, I also didn't say it's an awful travesty, I just don't think it's especially good. Sure, many scenes closely mimic those in the comic, but it takes more than that to make a good adaptation. Especially given the direction, character development and story-telling that I didn't find all that great. When you consider how bad comic book adaptations are in general, being better than the worst of them doesn't amount to much. An example of a pretty good adaptation to me would be Sin City. Anyway, to sum up my opinion I'll quote something I read on rottentomatoes.com: "Snyder hasn't so much made a film of Watchmen as he's performed taxidermy on it." That's from a certain Ken Hanke. I think it's well put.

Er.. ok? Would you be interested in trying to explain it to me, or would you rather bask in the warm glow of my ignorance?

What's hard to get? You don't care about the absence in the movie of something you never liked in the GN. Doesn't that sound normal to you? But you were using this lack of care as a lever to assert that its absence didn't matter. You're biased, basically. I also don't care about things I don't care about, but that doesn't make for a very good point in a discussion.

Agreed on the first, confused on the second, disagreed on the third. For me the movie version of the paternity reveal made more sense and read much clearer than the book version.

It made more sense that Manhattan showed it to her on the pretense of making her understand how he sees things? Seemed nonsensical to me. What's the relation? As for the sex scene, I just found it embarrassing. Too slow, too long. And the music? Come on... Ah, another thing about the ending: the kiss between Jon and Laurie at the end. Seriously, where did that come from?

I don't need the broad facts of what people can be like in a slightly dystopian metropolis pointed out for me.

Oh, is that so? But I thought Watchmen's original ending couldn't possibly work in the movie precisely because it was absolutely needed to "spend a lot of time establishing that people in that universe aren't like people in the real one".

Well... yeah. A lot of 1984 is double scary now because of how close to the truth its themes turned out to be. I'm still not following you.

If you think people couldn't possibly enjoy the original ending of Watchmen because of 9/11 then by all means, the idea of having 3 superstates ruling the world and having absolute control over information falls under the same problem. Terrorism has shown the world that even the last superpower in existence is far from being safe as long as a few determined individuals mean to hurt it, and the concept of a superstate itself has shown its flaws. And the Internet, cellphones and the advent of the Age of Information make the idea of a ministry of truth completely outdated. Really, do you want to argue about this?

I disagree. The way I read it, Dr. Manhattan is something else. He is new and unknown. A huge theme of the book was how inhuman he appeared to those around him.

If you disagree that he was taken into account by the US and the Russians then in my opinion you're wrong. He was and it's clear both in the GN and in the movie. In fact they make constant references to it. He was the reason they weren't already at war. As for being new and unknown, not that new and not that unknown either. He was studied and he collaborated with people, he fought in wars, etc. And of course he was originally human. It really can't be compared to the squid.

Just because he was human once and controllably useful for a time, doesn't take away the fact that he becomes inhumanly terrifying once the world believes this once-human thing with godlike powers has decided it's going to start smiting humanity for acting badly, without regard to any of the allegiances it once had.

He was already terrifying before. Once more, he was the reason the world wasn't already at war. Now, let me ask you. Since Manhattan left the earth, and since they can track his radioactive signature or whatever, how is he going to remain a threat? Is there going to be a man-hunt for him that'll last decades? I just don't think it makes much sense. And I don't think he's portrayed as smiting humanity for acting bad as much as just going crazy because of his ex-girlfriend (getting pissed on TV, all that).

But this is why I don't understand the squid. I don't see how it can be prepared against when it wasn't even prepared itself; killing it obviously doesn't help. In every way it looked like a one time accidental abberation. The thing in showing up accidentally kills itself all over NYC. I thought the whole point of it in the book was to show 'there's something bigger than all of us out there' rather than 'there's something we need to come together to fight against.' The psychic sting was all about pure otherness. And it still cracks me up, the idea of some surreal imagery and Phillip Glass being otherdimensionally weird.

People would research it, try to find ways to explore space and other worlds. Work together to find how the psychic blast functions and how to counter it. That sort of stuff. To unite against what's out there, basically. The point of it in the book was definitely to shock people into working together to research and protect themselves against the unknown instead of warring against one another, not that a godly race of squids would smite them if they didn't behave. It's a staple of Sci-Fi. You can find the same basic scenario in Ender's Game, for example. The human nations are on the bridge of war, but the threat of the buggers keeps them at bay. Exact same thing.

And it's not limited to the squid either. It basically tells humanity that it's not alone. Who knows what else could there be apart from the squid? That doubt alone would suffice to prevent global war for a very long time. As for it being a one-time accidental thing, says who? Why couldn't it happen again, if it happened once? And do you think people would be Ok and would just go back to their business even if they knew it for sure?

And Ozy's got a whole nother round of conspiracy mongering ahead of him explaining why the thing's structure and tissues seem to be derived from earthly life.

Hahaha, don't make me laugh. Why do you assume he didn't plan for this as well? He's the smartest man in the world. And I don't even think the tissues or structure are a problem. There's no reason carbon-based life should be exclusive to the planet Earth, and a giant modified squid isn't any weirder than little grey men.

And how long can he keep up the sense of wonder and fear when another one doesn't show up? Will he have to do it all again in another generation?

Same question about Manhattan. Changing the ending like they did makes no difference in that regard. Only the fact the squid is supposed to be from another world makes the idea of researching means to travel through space and time and whatever more likely to last. More concrete. It had never happened before, so it could be decades or more before it does again. But they'd have to be ready. To find out before it happened. That sort of things. Can't say that with Manhattan once he'd have disappeared.

In the end, even if you're convinced that the Manhattan threat is equally believable, it's still the lesser of the two choices for the simple fact that it's an unneeded change to the story.

We're talking right across one another. Of course they were credible at the time. As was the squid.

Hahaha, are you serious? No, the squid wasn't more credible when Watchmen was written than it is now. Please, let's be serious. Same for Dr Manhattan or Ozymandias stopping a bullet with his bare hand.

The concept of Jules Verne's technologies proved wrong but it doesn't matter because it's still a fun what-if and it's still credible in context, even though we know we went in a different direction. I feel humanity's reaction to the squid's been made highly dubious and it does matter because while it's still a fun what-if it's not sufficiently credible to invest the rest of the story, with such a good grasp of humanity, in it.

Well I disagree with you. First off, a lot of Verne's concepts were actually incredible anticipations of modern technology. His works describe cars, TV, the Internet, helicopters, submarines and even air conditioning... And all that back in the mid-19th century. Second, about the squid, honestly I don't think humanity's reaction in that alternate world has been made highly dubious at all. Rather, remember how 9/11 united every single American under the banner? How all of Europe and really, most of the world rallied the cause instantly? For a moment, every dispute was forgotten. Everyone sympathized with the USA and proposed their help. So I'd say that if anything, real world events have made the ending of Watchmen more credible. As for it not lasting, I don't think changing the squid to Manhattan helps with that. But beyond this debate, the fact world peace might not last all that long is also part of the story. It's part of Ozymandias' fears, and it's what makes Manhattan's last words to him so powerful.

So in conclusion I guess our opinions do differ. :SK:
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Well, it was shit, but not for the reasons I would have thought. After countless posts discussing how I was dreading the experience, the one thing that struck me after seeing Watchmen in theaters wasn't the liberties they took with the script -- it was how overblown Zack Snyder chose to shoot the movie. At the same time, it's an amazing feat. He successfully made the movie over-the-top AND boring at the same time!

The graphic novel is framed in very small panels, often 9 to a page. But the movie turned these scenes that were once carried by dialogue and emotions conveyed compactly in very subtle ways into FWOOOOOOOOM and SWOOOOOOOOOOSH sound effects and special effects. The Snyder treatment, as it were. Truly, it was his bad form, bad decisions and over-the-top shit directing that fucked over this whole train wreck, and from what I heard afterward, many others' experience in the audience (literally: "Man, glad that's finally over." - an older couple).

Let me give you a prime example of the problem. Here's a 1.5 minute clip of the movie, a fight scene in a jail. http://www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/40200 Now, click here for the comic's rendition. Note how much Snyder milked this one panel, and not only that, changed the way the scene is portrayed. It's not flashy moves or over-the-top. It's just a fucking kung-fu chop from Nite Owl.

nitefoul.jpg


The blame really can't be placed on the shoulders of the actors. Most of them were at least TRYING to come close to their graphic novel counterparts. Except of course for Veidt. I have a feeling that the only direction he got from Snyder was: "You are a Bond villain," a complete misreading of the graphic novel's character. But, I expected nothing less from Snyder at that point.

After reading Lith's post just prior to the movie, I was prepared for the new ending to fulfill some kind of cultural void that I expected would hit audiences more directly than the original. But no, it's far less meaningful.
Instead of humanity having some kind of cosmic realization about the futility of violence, it's all Dr. Manhattan's fault -- him and his nuclear stuff and girlfriend troubles nuked Manhattan. Bravo. Bra-fucking vo.
The power of the graphic novel's outlandish ending has nothing to do with the reader's awareness and fear from the Cold War, which was then a very real fear. I read Watchmen for the first time in 2002 (yes, after 9/11) and it still had a huge impact on me. So why change it? Why change the use of one of the primary characters just to patch up what was an otherwise perfectly awesome ending?

It was truly Snyder that ruined the experience for me, he manufactured the overblown presentation that irked me to the point of wanting to walk out of the theater about 45 minutes in. By the end of it all, I quickly walked out -- not wanting to be seen in association with the movie. ("hahahh, oh wow, you saw THAT?") Snyder, what have you done? :sad:
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Well damn all of you g[als]uys had it tough. Except for me of course! I got free tickets and was drinking when I saw this movie.  :troll:

Walter said:
Let me give you a prime example of the problem. Here's a 1.5 minute clip of the movie, a fight scene in a jail. http://www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/40200  Now, click here for the comic's rendition. Note how much Snyder milked this one panel, and not only that, changed the way the scene is portrayed. It's not flashy moves or over-the-top. It's just a fucking kung-fu chop from Nite Owl.
Well I have nothing wrong with a bit of an extended fight, but the slow motion really killed me after it was used the first time [I mean the remake of Dawn of the Dead].
 
E

emorace

Guest
saw the movie yesterday in a "normal" cinema, i didn´t know anything about the comic, so i had an objective perspective to see the movie as it is, and not to compaire between comic/movie.

after watching the movie, i was interested into reading the comic let me say first, so the movie gave me a good inspiration!

But, it´s curios, thinking about the movie now leds me to what how Walter have said: the movie was over-the-top but AT SOME scenes kind of boring.

and i would understand, if there where many people out there watching the movie, who think that the movie is ... "too much" ...

but as i can speak for me, without knowing the comic, i think about the movie now like its an masterstroke.
Becouse there was soo much in it, the nice characters, the nice plot/flick, the music ... for me, the movie was more complete then ... "The Dark Knight" for example, becouse in this movie "The Joker" was on top of everything, and while watching the movie, the possible main character batman was so boring to me ... dont know, thats my personal opinion, at the end there where less characteristic signs in it in comparison to "Watchmen" ... besides that "The Dark Knight" is an masterstroke too, but in a different way ^^
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom