The Watchmen

[jeffpugh]

Okay I just saw the movie. I decided to comment on it while it's still fresh. Basically, I went in knowing this was a graphic novel, and that there would be some sex and lots of violence, but I was like "okay, I'll just look away when appropriate". Also, I went in knowing that the Watchmen were a dark satire on the whole superhero thing. I found lots of irony in the movie here and there. Some I could really deem as cleaver. What was not cleaver was the graphic stuff with how they would emphasise the fact that Silk Spectre II had fallen into the same mistakes her mother made: ie, slept around. Well, twice with the same guy (Night Owl). Aside from that, I tried to look for some sort of redeeming qualities in this movie, like the directors subconscious leanings toward some Christian virtues. Didn't find any. I just saw lots of broken humans. Heck, Dr. Manhatten was the most broken of them all. I got the message that great power doesn't necessarily lead you to God. Despite his abilities, he was still leaning athiestic (probably because he was so rationalistic -- wanted to categorise everything). I think the real protagonist was the crazy one... Cobra/Roshak. He stuck to his principals through the whole thing. Everything about him was broken. The only thing that held him together was his hidden identity. Even that was taken away. [spoiler]The biggest injustice happened at the end with his death.[/spoiler] I suppose there's more I want to say. Maybe not. I really liked the Night Owl though. He was sort of my favourite Character going in (read about some of the characters in the promo site). I think the director could have cut the sex instead of pandering to the types that "enjoy" that sort of thing. Heck, I found it utterly distasteful. I'll conclude my review/rant with "I should really read the graphic novel, cause I was told it is much better".

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1800134' date='Mar 7 2009, 10:49 PM']I heard a reviewer mention "far-left undertones". Is that a legitimate point?[/quote]
Yeah. They made Nightshade a lesbian in the beginning. There were a few other "brave new world" type things in there too. And how the Communists and the Americans dropped their weapons so they could "fight a common good", aka try and kill the 'immortal' Dr. Manhattan.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Sacred Music Man

[kujo]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1800309' date='Mar 8 2009, 04:00 AM']Okay I just saw the movie. I decided to comment on it while it's still fresh. Basically, I went in knowing this was a graphic novel, and that there would be some sex and lots of violence, but I was like "okay, I'll just look away when appropriate". Also, I went in knowing that the Watchmen were a dark satire on the whole superhero thing. I found lots of irony in the movie here and there. Some I could really deem as cleaver. What was not cleaver was the graphic stuff with how they would emphasise the fact that Silk Spectre II had fallen into the same mistakes her mother made: ie, slept around. Well, twice with the same guy (Night Owl). Aside from that, I tried to look for some sort of redeeming qualities in this movie, like the directors subconscious leanings toward some Christian virtues. Didn't find any. I just saw lots of broken humans. Heck, Dr. Manhatten was the most broken of them all. I got the message that great power doesn't necessarily lead you to God. Despite his abilities, he was still leaning athiestic (probably because he was so rationalistic -- wanted to categorise everything). I think the real protagonist was the crazy one... Cobra/Roshak. He stuck to his principals through the whole thing. Everything about him was broken. The only thing that held him together was his hidden identity. Even that was taken away. [spoiler]The biggest injustice happened at the end with his death.[/spoiler] I suppose there's more I want to say. Maybe not. I really liked the Night Owl though. He was sort of my favourite Character going in (read about some of the characters in the promo site). I think the director could have cut the sex instead of pandering to the types that "enjoy" that sort of thing. Heck, I found it utterly distasteful. I'll conclude my review/rant with "I should really read the graphic novel, cause I was told it is much better".


Yeah. They made Nightshade a lesbian in the beginning. There were a few other "brave new world" type things in there too. And how the Communists and the Americans dropped their weapons so they could "fight a common good", aka try and kill the 'immortal' Dr. Manhattan.[/quote]

[spoiler]For starters, I'd like to point out that this movie was about 95% faithful to the original material. This was, in my opinion, one of the best assets of this film, though I also feel it is it's greatest weakness. The Watchmen, for those who have read the graphic novel and/or have seen the movie, is a very subversive, sardonic, ironic, dark tale that is not supposed to be "uplifting" and is not supposed to possess "Christian undertones." It's supposed to be a satire of that exact sort of thing--how "traditional" comic book heroes are all "perfect" beings--powerful, intelligent, morally-upright, true Americans. What Alan Moore and Co. wanted to do was to turn this image (what I like to call the "Superman typology") on its head and to examine the sort of psychology (psychosis?) of a less-than-ideal masked hero. So we see that one character is shy and lacks confidence (Nite Owl), one character is constantly trying to live up to the expectations of her mother (Silk Spectre II), the "intelligence" of two characters lead them to detach from humanity, in one form or another (Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan). The list goes on.

Now, the sex scene just cracked me up. I dunno...it was probably the contrast between what was going on on screen and that god-awful rendition of Hallelujah. I just found myself laughing hysterically. It was so awkward and weird. As far as Dr. Manhattan's penis thing, I thought it was handled discretely, but straightforward. They didn't make a big spectacle of it, nor did they shy away from it. You could see it, but, once you got past the initial shock, you could kinda just ignore it. But I guess I can see the merit behind being slightly uncomfortable with an IMAX-sized blue penis on the screen.

I thought that Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt characters were fascinating. Two highly intelligent, purely rational, all-knowing men who could do extraordinary things. Some would argue that they was "perfect." But they both lacked the emotional attachments brought about by normal humanity. This was manifested in Dr. Manhattan's monologue about "everything on earth could die, and the universe would never notice" and Ozy's plan to "save" humanity. Such rationale is devoid of "imperfect," irrational things like love and compassion. Is this really "perfection?" I think Alan Moore was playing with this idea a lot.

Finally, politically, everything was as over-the-top as the costumes of the heroes themselves. I felt that everyone was either far-left or far-right until Ozy's attack. This brings about an and to the ideology of separation; however, at what cost? Some would say this was "compromise in the face of armageddon" (i.e.- Rorschach) while others saw it as a necessary evil, the only way to save humanity from the brink of annihilation. There is definitely some "ends justify the means" stuff here, but the death of Rorschach kind of mitigates that stuff. As a whole, I think there was certainly enough criticism of "left" and "right" to go around. [/spoiler]

EDIT: Wow, I just realized that virtually my whole post has spoilers in it. Ugh....

Edited March 8, 2009 by kujo

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[spoiler]Just saw it myself and there definately is some far-leftism involved, as far as the portrayal of the far-rightism is you need only pay attention to how Nixon is portrayed in the film, who is both an American Hero and also veiwed as the Devil if you pay attention to some of the graffetti, with no wise cracks related to watergate, (this actually surprised me), Sacrificing the few for the needs of the many for a world peace that definately will not last? Thats what went through my head after Ozy nuked millions of the world's population. I thought it was odd to choose this character to do it as he is presented as the typical progressive, openly homosexual, enviromentalist, etc, etc.

One of the great tragedies of the film was Rorsach, (forgive the spelling), who as was mentioned before, was completely broken and flawed, but at the same time extremely principled. If you pay attention to his narrative of the film you will notice he is of the conservative ilk bordering on the condemnatory side. However, his open and obvious disgust for the whole of humanity who he veiws as evil is tempered by his unswerving principles to protect it and to tell the truth. Strangely enough this is what endeared him to me more then any of the other characters, he goes out to tell the truth of what is going on towards the end, and is killed for it as he threatened the 'Peace based upon a lie', yet he is vindicated for it later as his journals reach a press agency.

Its actually quite a confusing movie as there are so many ideas and philosophies thrown about, nihilism, liberalism, conservatism, 'ends justify the means', Justice>Peace in terms of telling the truth. There are also a number of 'change of hearts' going on, as with the comedian, possibly the most hateful character in the film, utterly cracks up when he hears of Ozy's plan and confides in his archenemy for solace. (Irony) Altough he is the character who most avidly swears humanity is scum incarnate and doesn't deserve to exist. The Nihilism of Dr.Manhatten is shattered by the miracle of an individual's very existence from order chaos. (This almost strikes of pro-life), possibly Rorsach is the only character to 'stick to his guns' in the entire film, his methods are disagreeable, but his reasons are almost justifiable.

Altough I did get sick of seeing a blue penis for half the film.[/spoiler]

This from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the comics.

[filiusInFilio]

[quote name='kujo' post='1800384' date='Mar 8 2009, 10:30 AM'][spoiler]For starters, I'd like to point out that this movie was about 95% faithful to the original material. This was, in my opinion, one of the best assets of this film, though I also feel it is it's greatest weakness. The Watchmen, for those who have read the graphic novel and/or have seen the movie, is a very subversive, sardonic, ironic, dark tale that is not supposed to be "uplifting" and is not supposed to possess "Christian undertones." It's supposed to be a satire of that exact sort of thing--how "traditional" comic book heroes are all "perfect" beings--powerful, intelligent, morally-upright, true Americans. What Alan Moore and Co. wanted to do was to turn this image (what I like to call the "Superman typology") on its head and to examine the sort of psychology (psychosis?) of a less-than-ideal masked hero. So we see that one character is shy and lacks confidence (Nite Owl), one character is constantly trying to live up to the expectations of her mother (Silk Spectre II), the "intelligence" of two characters lead them to detach from humanity, in one form or another (Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan). The list goes on.

Now, the sex scene just cracked me up. I dunno...it was probably the contrast between what was going on on screen and that god-awful rendition of Hallelujah. I just found myself laughing hysterically. It was so awkward and weird. As far as Dr. Manhattan's penis thing, I thought it was handled discretely, but straightforward. They didn't make a big spectacle of it, nor did they shy away from it. You could see it, but, once you got past the initial shock, you could kinda just ignore it. But I guess I can see the merit behind being slightly uncomfortable with an IMAX-sized blue penis on the screen.

I thought that Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt characters were fascinating. Two highly intelligent, purely rational, all-knowing men who could do extraordinary things. Some would argue that they was "perfect." But they both lacked the emotional attachments brought about by normal humanity. This was manifested in Dr. Manhattan's monologue about "everything on earth could die, and the universe would never notice" and Ozy's plan to "save" humanity. Such rationale is devoid of "imperfect," irrational things like love and compassion. Is this really "perfection?" I think Alan Moore was playing with this idea a lot.

Finally, politically, everything was as over-the-top as the costumes of the heroes themselves. I felt that everyone was either far-left or far-right until Ozy's attack. This brings about an and to the ideology of separation; however, at what cost? Some would say this was "compromise in the face of armageddon" (i.e.- Rorschach) while others saw it as a necessary evil, the only way to save humanity from the brink of annihilation. There is definitely some "ends justify the means" stuff here, but the death of Rorschach kind of mitigates that stuff. As a whole, I think there was certainly enough criticism of "left" and "right" to go around. [/spoiler]

EDIT: Wow, I just realized that virtually my whole post has spoilers in it. Ugh....[/quote]


good post...i basically agree with everything you said

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1800309' date='Mar 8 2009, 03:00 AM']Okay I just saw the movie. I decided to comment on it while it's still fresh. Basically, I went in knowing this was a graphic novel, and that there would be some sex and lots of violence, but I was like "okay, I'll just look away when appropriate". Also, I went in knowing that the Watchmen were a dark satire on the whole superhero thing. I found lots of irony in the movie here and there. Some I could really deem as cleaver. What was not cleaver was the graphic stuff with how they would emphasise the fact that Silk Spectre II had fallen into the same mistakes her mother made: ie, slept around. Well, twice with the same guy (Night Owl). Aside from that, I tried to look for some sort of redeeming qualities in this movie, like the directors subconscious leanings toward some Christian virtues. Didn't find any. I just saw lots of broken humans. Heck, Dr. Manhatten was the most broken of them all. I got the message that great power doesn't necessarily lead you to God. Despite his abilities, he was still leaning athiestic (probably because he was so rationalistic -- wanted to categorise everything). I think the real protagonist was the crazy one... Cobra/Roshak. He stuck to his principals through the whole thing. Everything about him was broken. The only thing that held him together was his hidden identity. Even that was taken away. [spoiler]The biggest injustice happened at the end with his death.[/spoiler] I suppose there's more I want to say. Maybe not. I really liked the Night Owl though. He was sort of my favourite Character going in (read about some of the characters in the promo site). I think the director could have cut the sex instead of pandering to the types that "enjoy" that sort of thing. Heck, I found it utterly distasteful. I'll conclude my review/rant with "I should really read the graphic novel, cause I was told it is much better".[/quote]
I thought Zack Snyder wallowed a bit too much in the sex/violence aspects of the story (present in the book, but not as graphic or glamorized). The violence (while I thought it was fun) was actually more stylized and cartoony than in the book. The movie's action sequences went for "cool" violence in a Miller/Tarantino vein, while the book kind of de-glamorized the "comic-book violence" and had a more cerebral tone (its "heroes" are presented more as regular people in silly costumes than as supermen).

Overall, the movie was almost religiously close to the source book (except for some plot changes with the climax, necessary to keep the movie within three hours without an overabundance of side-plots).
The book did not have any kind of "uplifting" theme not found in the movie, but is generally deeply cynical about the human condition and most ideologies.



[quote]Yeah. They made Nightshade a lesbian in the beginning. There were a few other "brave new world" type things in there too. And how the Communists and the Americans dropped their weapons so they could "fight a common good", aka try and kill the 'immortal' Dr. Manhattan.[/quote]
The book's author, Alan Moore, is a British self-described anarchist, who, judging by his writings, despises all things "right-wing," yet also has little use for conventional liberalism.
[i]Watchmen[/i] expresses a general cynicism towards all standard political ideologies (right and left), and as expressed by the theme "Who watches the watchmen?" shows a distrust of those (such as in government) who set themselves up as protectors or saviors over the rest of us.

Interestingly, I read that director Zack Snyder was asked by someone if the movie would be irrelevant now that Obama was elected president. He replied, "You have an extremely optimistic view of the world."
With people looking up to Obama as a kind of savior in time of need, I'd say the message if anything is more relevant now than ever.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Socrates

[Socrates]

I thought Kujo's post was basically spot-on in it's observations.

Here's my take.

As I've said, the movie generally very closely follows Alan Moore's 1986 graphic novel. It seems to me Moore is basically a far-left British "anarchist" deeply unsettled by American global dominance, and the book is a deconstruction of various American pop-culture archetypes as expressed by the "superhero" characters (who are for the most part shown to be unheroic).

Rorschach (far-away my favorite character - surprise, surprise) is basically the pulp-fiction hard-boiled detective/urban vigilante archetype. In places he reminds me a lot of [i]Taxi Driver[/i]'s vigilante/nutcase Travis Bickle. A vaguely "right-wing" character, he's a rigid believer in justice and "traditional" morality, seeing the world (as his mask) in black-and-white. He has no tolerance for liberal social bs, and sees from harsh personal experience the reality of evil and the need to fight it. However, he has a strongly pessimistic "Calvinist" view of humanity as totally depraved, and his thirst for justice untempered by compassion makes him a murderous psychopath (though a damned cool character).
I probably have a lot more empathy for this character than his creator, though he shows how a thirst for absolute justice untempered by compassion can cause one to lose his humanity.

The Comedian, on the other hand, has no sense of justice or morality, but has adapted a totally nihilistic philosophy, seeing human existence as just a sick joke. He has become nothing more than an amoral mercenary killer and general scumbag (as well as parody of the left-wing view of the "American imperialist pig").

Dr. Manhattan embodies rationalist scientism and technology. He is a nuclear scientist turned by an accident into an atomic being with god-like powers. He becomes essentially a living embodiment of science and technological might itself. However, he gradually loses touch with his humanity and human concerns.
This character reflects the dangers of a purely rationalistic mindset and science/technology detached from human values. Science for many in modern times has become the new god. While Dr. M is given god-like power, he becomes detached from issues of human morality and life itself. Scientific knowledge and technological power in itself, detached from morality, cannot save us, despite the claims of the "scientific" techno-utopians.

Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II are the most "normal" characters, but Nite Owl's superhero gig has a fetishistic side (he's literally impotent out of costume), and Silk Spectre was unwillingly pushed into the superhero role by her overbearing mother.

The character of Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias I felt was the most changed from book to movie.
In the book, he was not so obviously creepy and homosexual, but was a charming, handsome, charismatic figure in the Kennedy vein, embodying optimistic secular humanist liberal ideals (despite being a capitalist). He is the ultimate self-made man, training his mind and body to perfection, and becoming a successful businessman and self-improvement guru.
Unlike some of the other misfits and psychos, he seems at first a model of physical and mental health.
He's Rorschach's polar opposite, a believer in the perfectibility of man, and possessing the utilitarian philosophy [spoiler]that the ends justify the ends. Thus, he is willing to "save" humanity by killing millions.
I thought that his portrayal in the movie was the weakest, especially as he is changed from book to movie into an obviously creepy limp-wristed fop, making a more obvious villain, than in the book, where he has more seemingly attractive qualities, and the reader doesn't immediately suspect him as the "bad guy."[/spoiler]

While not Christian, I think [i]Watchmen[/i] inadvertently does show the problems inherent in worldviews lacking Christianity's redemptive morality and of attempts to "save" humanity without Christ.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Socrates

[Bubblicious]

Saw the movie last night with Socrates, and though he’s far more the expert on this book/movie than I am, here are my two cents. First, I found the movie entertaining, and yes, I’m a chick. Seems like I’ve been seeing a lot of doom and gloom movies lately (thanks, Soc).

I think the utter chaos portrayed in the film is eerily similar to the world we see outside our doors. This is far more depressing than the movie. The movie is by no means a God is great, God is good, flick. In fact, God was nowhere to be found [spoiler](though Dr. Manhattan was referred to as a god/god like)[/spoiler]. Yet another reflection on today's society. The film clearly demonstrates the way the world tries to save itself from evil by creating more evil. Like diet soft drinks delivering us from regular soft drinks.

Sex and violence was unbridled. No need in my book, but it sadly boosts ticket sales.

Like Galloglasses, I did pick up on a pro-life thread in Dr. Manhattan’s miracle revelation. Not sure that was intentional, from what I know about Moore, it certainly wasn’t; but it works!

Nixon’s physical appearance was comical and exaggerated. I laughed every time he was on screen.

My favorite character, and apparently I’m not alone in this one, is Rorschach. He stands by what he believes in and does not compromise. He may not go about avenging evil in the best of ways, but he’s definitely one of the good guys. [spoiler]I also liked his “Rorschach-ed” remains in the snow.[/spoiler]

As mentioned in previous posts, the movie is very true too the book. Even to the smallest detail. I haven’t read the whole thing but skimmed through a few scenes and looked up some things for Soc. (I’ve got the book here and he’s in VA.) Perhaps I’ll post more after I finish it.

Oh, and this idea of “Who’s watching the Watchmen?” Totally relevant.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Bubblicious

[Socrates]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1800396' date='Mar 8 2009, 11:01 AM']you need only pay attention to how Nixon is portrayed in the film, who is both an American Hero and also veiwed as the Devil if you pay attention to some of the graffetti, with no wise cracks related to watergate, (this actually surprised me)[/quote]
In the alternative history of the tale, Watergate never happened.

[kujo]

I agree with Soc and Bub.

[MStar]

I will not go and see it. My roommate saw it last night, and told me about it this morning. She went knowing barely anything about it except that it was violent, and I think she was in shock after seeing it. She struggles with depression and she has not let herself become desensitized to violence and evil, and it really, really bothered her. She told me she burst into tears after leaving the theater, because it was such a very hopeless movie, as well as graphic, violent, and, she thought, pretty much the embodiment of a world without God and without hope. It made me mad to see how it affected her, mad at the makers of the film who would put such hopelessness into a clear portrayal with no redeeming message at all. She nearly cried just telling me about certain scenes in it. So, while I was interested in seeing it when I first saw the trailer, now I figure it's a waste of money. I don't need those things in my mind, and I don't need to see the world that way, even if I know that it isn't the truth. I really like superhero themes usually, because they don't ever pick the evil choice, even when it seems like you have to choose the lesser of two evils. They are supposed to embody goodness, that's why they're super heroes. So superhero's portrayed as hopeless, just isn't something I'm interested in. I guess I'm missing what the worth of the story would be, so I don't see any point in seeing the movie. Obviously the story must have some worth, I assume, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people excited about it?

[Matthew91]

Oh man guys, dont even get me started on Watchmen, I loved the graphic novel, but the movie was so bad to me....especially the changed ending. Here is my list of pros and cons...


PROs-

-Rorschach
- the score


CONS

They completely ruined the ending. The ending of the actual story was amazing, I cant believe they got away with changing it.

- Nudity, I dont wanna see some naked reject from blue man group, its disgusting there was like one nude pic of him in the novel, in the movie they showed him nude like around 10 times. and i dont wanna see the graphic sex scenes, which were much more graphic than in the book it took away from the story.

- The story had no flow. it was very choppy, and lacked the progression and mystery style of story telling that the novel had.

-They didnt go through all of Rorschachs past. Rorschach is by far the most interesting character, and they dumb him down for the audience by making him look simply like a troubled kid who is exacting revenge on the world.

- The idiotic graphic novel style of the filming. The story is in graphic novel format, when being converted into a movie, you should take the effort to make it look realistic, which is how the story should be imagined. If you dont know what i mean, think of 300 where the film was all tinted yellow, and it had that obivous comicy feel to it.

- They completely neglected to show a world in chaos. in the book hollis is killed by an angry mob, you get the feel that the word is tearing itself apart, and decaying day by day until midnight on the dooms day clock. The whole tone of the novel was that of a world that would be destroyed at any moment, the movie lacked this completely.

- not showing the commentary of the non essential characters. in the book there are scenes with the newstand guy, and the newspaper editor, and they really added that doom and gloom element to the book, the movie sorely needed this.

- the original score was good, but they chose the stupidest vocal songs for certain scenes, it really annoyed me.

- leaving out huge portions of the original story which made the ending mind blowing.

- Ruining the funniest scene in the book, where rorschach kills "big figure" the book version was hilarious, the movie version stunk.

this all i can think of right now. in short I couldnt stand it, Id only watch it again for the rorschach scenes.

[jeffpugh]

Just wanna give props to Galloglasses, Soc, and Kujo for their reviews. I'd say they are quite fair, and I agree, though my initial thoughts somewhat stand. I had a bit of a talk with some friends who saw it, and they said a few of the things Gallo and Soc mentioned.
[quote name='MStar' post='1800991' date='Mar 9 2009, 12:21 AM']I will not go and see it. My roommate saw it last night, and told me about it this morning. She went knowing barely anything about it except that it was violent, and I think she was in shock after seeing it. She struggles with depression and she has not let herself become desensitized to violence and evil, and it really, really bothered her. She told me she burst into tears after leaving the theater, because it was such a very hopeless movie, as well as graphic, violent, and, she thought, pretty much the embodiment of a world without God and without hope. It made me mad to see how it affected her, mad at the makers of the film who would put such hopelessness into a clear portrayal with no redeeming message at all. She nearly cried just telling me about certain scenes in it. So, while I was interested in seeing it when I first saw the trailer, now I figure it's a waste of money. I don't need those things in my mind, and I don't need to see the world that way, even if I know that it isn't the truth. I really like superhero themes usually, because they don't ever pick the evil choice, even when it seems like you have to choose the lesser of two evils. They are supposed to embody goodness, that's why they're super heroes. So superhero's portrayed as hopeless, just isn't something I'm interested in. I guess I'm missing what the worth of the story would be, so I don't see any point in seeing the movie. Obviously the story must have some worth, I assume, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people excited about it?[/quote]
I agree with your room mate. I walked out of the theatre in a sort of dark shock. It was very much the way she described it. Still sorta trying to shake it off. It's just a movie though.

[quote name='Matthew91' post='1801000' date='Mar 9 2009, 12:26 AM']...
- Ruining the funniest scene in the book, where rorschach kills "big figure" the book version was hilarious, the movie version stunk.

this all i can think of right now. in short I couldnt stand it, Id only watch it again for the rorschach scenes.[/quote]
I agree here. They really made the death of "Big Figure" unfunny. Heck, even sickening. And yeah, I'd watch it again for Rorschach only. Otherwise, I wouldn't care to see the film again.

[kujo]

[quote name='MStar' post='1800991' date='Mar 9 2009, 01:21 AM']I will not go and see it. My roommate saw it last night, and told me about it this morning. She went knowing barely anything about it except that it was violent, and I think she was in shock after seeing it. She struggles with depression and she has not let herself become desensitized to violence and evil, and it really, really bothered her. She told me she burst into tears after leaving the theater, because it was such a very hopeless movie, as well as graphic, violent, and, she thought, pretty much the embodiment of a world without God and without hope. It made me mad to see how it affected her, mad at the makers of the film who would put such hopelessness into a clear portrayal with no redeeming message at all. She nearly cried just telling me about certain scenes in it. So, while I was interested in seeing it when I first saw the trailer, now I figure it's a waste of money. I don't need those things in my mind, and I don't need to see the world that way, even if I know that it isn't the truth. I really like superhero themes usually, because they don't ever pick the evil choice, even when it seems like you have to choose the lesser of two evils. They are supposed to embody goodness, that's why they're super heroes. So superhero's portrayed as hopeless, just isn't something I'm interested in. I guess I'm missing what the worth of the story would be, so I don't see any point in seeing the movie. Obviously the story must have some worth, I assume, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people excited about it?[/quote]

Your roommate probably should've been more prudent in her movie selections if she struggles with depression. While you and I can go see a movie purely "because it looks cool," she clearly made a poor choice in seeing this one. If she'd done any research on it, the darkness of this tale would've been pretty evident. It stinks that it upset her so much.

I think this graphic novel/movie set out to kind of examine, analyze and offer a critique of the mythology behind our superheroes. This criticism takes both ironic and humorous tones (like the scene in the graphic novel where Nite Owl II says that he once lost a criminal because of the time it took for him to remove his costume in order to use the bathroom), but also a more serious, sober view into the psychological processes that go into the making of a "hero." I find that imperfection very interesting. That's why I was never into Superman...he's just so perfect and ideal. There's no character growth in that. But you look at Batman or Rorschach and you see so much more depth in their character which makes for a more holistic experience, at least for me anyway. I am more intrigued by REAL people having to make REAL choices, some of which are bad ones, in a complex world than to see a perfectly virtuous guy in red underwear flying around. But maybe that's just me.

[quote name='Matthew91' post='1801000' date='Mar 9 2009, 01:26 AM']CONS

They completely ruined the ending. The ending of the actual story was amazing, I cant believe they got away with changing it.

- Nudity, I dont wanna see some naked reject from blue man group, its disgusting there was like one nude pic of him in the novel, in the movie they showed him nude like around 10 times. and i dont wanna see the graphic sex scenes, which were much more graphic than in the book it took away from the story.

- The story had no flow. it was very choppy, and lacked the progression and mystery style of story telling that the novel had.

-They didnt go through all of Rorschachs past. Rorschach is by far the most interesting character, and they dumb him down for the audience by making him look simply like a troubled kid who is exacting revenge on the world.

- The idiotic graphic novel style of the filming. The story is in graphic novel format, when being converted into a movie, you should take the effort to make it look realistic, which is how the story should be imagined. If you dont know what i mean, think of 300 where the film was all tinted yellow, and it had that obivous comicy feel to it.

- They completely neglected to show a world in chaos. in the book hollis is killed by an angry mob, you get the feel that the word is tearing itself apart, and decaying day by day until midnight on the dooms day clock. The whole tone of the novel was that of a world that would be destroyed at any moment, the movie lacked this completely.

- not showing the commentary of the non essential characters. in the book there are scenes with the newstand guy, and the newspaper editor, and they really added that doom and gloom element to the book, the movie sorely needed this.

- the original score was good, but they chose the stupidest vocal songs for certain scenes, it really annoyed me.

- leaving out huge portions of the original story which made the ending mind blowing.

- Ruining the funniest scene in the book, where rorschach kills "big figure" the book version was hilarious, the movie version stunk.

this all i can think of right now. in short I couldnt stand it, Id only watch it again for the rorschach scenes.[/quote]

I think the sex/nudity was stylized and, as I said, earlier, humorous and over-the-top. Didn't really bother me from a cinematic sense, though, from a comic book purist perspective, it wasn't true to the source material.

And the omission of certain plot lines was necessary in order to keep the movie at a sensible duration, particularly newspaper stand guy and the kid reading The Black Freighter. It's just not important to the overall story, though it provides useful, interesting and entertaining side stories. Beside which, there's an animated-short on iTunes with that stuff in it. But I will agree with you--they should've included the death of Hollis Mason. I think that's what drove Nite Owl II back into the costume, not his impotence!

And dude! You didn't like the visual style of the movie? It's purposely comic booky to give the viewer the effect of watching a comic book on screen. I loved the 300 and Sin City because they didn't try to make the stories look "real," instead making it look exactly how the writers/artists intended them to be seen.

As a whole, I think you are a bit too critical of the movie. I mean, it's not like you [i]can't[/i] read the book and enjoy stuff that wasn't included in the movie. I think we should just enjoy the movie for what it is: one director's interpretation of the best graphic novel of all time.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Matthew91' post='1801000' date='Mar 9 2009, 12:26 AM']Oh man guys, dont even get me started on Watchmen, I loved the graphic novel, but the movie was so bad to me....especially the changed ending. Here is my list of pros and cons...


PROs-

-Rorschach
- the score


CONS

They completely ruined the ending. The ending of the actual story was amazing, I cant believe they got away with changing it.

- Nudity, I dont wanna see some naked reject from blue man group, its disgusting there was like one nude pic of him in the novel, in the movie they showed him nude like around 10 times. and i dont wanna see the graphic sex scenes, which were much more graphic than in the book it took away from the story.

- The story had no flow. it was very choppy, and lacked the progression and mystery style of story telling that the novel had.

-They didnt go through all of Rorschachs past. Rorschach is by far the most interesting character, and they dumb him down for the audience by making him look simply like a troubled kid who is exacting revenge on the world.

- The idiotic graphic novel style of the filming. The story is in graphic novel format, when being converted into a movie, you should take the effort to make it look realistic, which is how the story should be imagined. If you dont know what i mean, think of 300 where the film was all tinted yellow, and it had that obivous comicy feel to it.

- They completely neglected to show a world in chaos. in the book hollis is killed by an angry mob, you get the feel that the word is tearing itself apart, and decaying day by day until midnight on the dooms day clock. The whole tone of the novel was that of a world that would be destroyed at any moment, the movie lacked this completely.

- not showing the commentary of the non essential characters. in the book there are scenes with the newstand guy, and the newspaper editor, and they really added that doom and gloom element to the book, the movie sorely needed this.

- the original score was good, but they chose the stupidest vocal songs for certain scenes, it really annoyed me.

- leaving out huge portions of the original story which made the ending mind blowing.

- Ruining the funniest scene in the book, where rorschach kills "big figure" the book version was hilarious, the movie version stunk.

this all i can think of right now. in short I couldnt stand it, Id only watch it again for the rorschach scenes.[/quote]
While the movie was not totally without its problems, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on most of this.

I honestly didn't have much of a problem with the change to the ending. The gist of the story/theme wasn't really changed. Some even liked the movie's ending better. The comic book "giant squid" ending was interesting, but the subplots leading up to it would've required way too much screen time and probably caused the movie to drag a bit.

To have everything you wanted, the movie would have to be at least five or six hours, and would probably try the patience of the average "mainstream" audience.

With [i]any[/i] novel-to-movie adaptation, there's going to be certain amount cut out, and changes, and yes some things will be lost or reduced in the translation.
However, this was one of the most faithful book (or comic book) film adaptations ever made. Most adaptations of literary works change (or butcher) the source material A LOT more.
Overall, despite the minor problems I previously mentioned, this movie did a remarkable job of being true to the book. I actually wasn't expecting them to be able to translate the story to a film this well.

Regarding the nudity, you're obviously not remembering the graphic novel - Dr. Manhattan was naked in the book, and for a lot more than one scene. He only wore clothes when required to for public appearances on tv and such. Not really a sexual thing, but probably to illustrate how detached he had become from normal human society; he neither needed nor was concerned with clothing. I think the effect was somewhat different seeing real (or realistic cgi anyway) nudity on the big screen, rather than a line drawing in a comic book.
Whether the movie nudity was in good taste/necessary can definitely be debated, but it definitely was not a deviation from the source, but another instance of following it religiously.

I really enjoyed most of the music selection, and thought this added to the fun. I liked Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are a Changing" played to the (excellent) opening credit sequence, and how this was given an ironic double meaning. Nat Cole's "Unforgettable" gave mood and class to the murder sequence, and Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" was quoted in the book where they play Hendrix's cover in the movie.

Overall, I also liked the visual look of the movie - reminded me a bit of [i]Bladerunner[/i] in spots - and didn't really care if it wasn't 100% "realistic", but that's all a matter of personal taste.

Btw, good to see another conservative on here!

Edited March 10, 2009 by Socrates

[Matthew91]

[quote name='kujo' post='1801232' date='Mar 9 2009, 05:36 AM']And dude! You didn't like the visual style of the movie? It's purposely comic booky to give the viewer the effect of watching a comic book on screen. I loved the 300 and Sin City because they didn't try to make the stories look "real," instead making it look exactly how the writers/artists intended them to be seen.[/quote]

Well while reading Watchmen, I did not visualize it occurring in that graphic novel style of filming.
Like certain comic book movies are able to pull off the "real world" feel, like the dark knight, and I think Watchmen should have been filmed in that same way. despite the sci fi aspect, its a story grounded in the real world, rooted in history of the era, even though it was altered. I did happen to like the appearance of nixon, henry kissinger and pat buchanan though....i found that hilarious.