The Watchmen

[Sven]

Just curious to see what everyone thinks of Zack Snyder directing The Watchmen. I've been waiting for this to be made into a movie for years.

[Capt Quirk]

I'm not familiar with the story, but comics2film.com says they are pretty far from the comic. I think that means they are screwing up yet another comic film.

[krestofre]

I don't see how that much story can be whittled down to a 2 hour film.

Not everything needs to be a movie. Hollywood needs to remember that.

[Capt Quirk]

I would rephrase that to, it shouldn't be a movie if you're just going to screw it up.

[dekhr]

The Watchmen is my favourite graphic novel, it's amazing. I kindof agree with Alan Moore (the author) though, who said: it was written as a comic, nothing else, to show off what that medium could do...

I like what Zack Snyder did with 300, but that was a much more straight forward and shorter comic, I can't really see how the watchmen could be done.....but then i'm not a succesful director lol, so i'll wait and see.

[MOVIE STUNTS]

Humn... It could be done as a trilogy. Don't get me wrong i liked to comic, but I don't think it was mainstream (fanfare) enough to make enough mulaugh to warrant more than one film, if even one. Sad but true.

[David Jimerson]

It would probably be as dismal an adaption as "V for Vendetta."

[jpeck]

It would probably be as dismal an adaption as "V for Vendetta."

I doubt it.

[Capt Quirk]

I never read the graphic version, but the movie was ok. It lacked something

[Batutta]

Trailer up for the latest Zach Snyder speed ramped slo-mo extravanganza--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-rI7TTz2k&fmt=18

[Mark Harris]

Wow, I had no idea this was coming. I loved Watchmen.

Gotta say, Rorschach looks pretty good...

Now if we can only get Pixar to tackle Cerebus...

[Tom Marshall]

I'm surprised Billy Crudup would do something like this...

[Mark Harris]

Trailer up for the latest Zach Snyder speed ramped slo-mo extravanganza--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-rI7TTz2k&fmt=18

Wow, they're quick. It's gone.

[Batutta]

Wow, they're quick. It's gone.

I'll summarize--

Billy Crudup does something...speed ramp to slo-mo--

Somebody else does something...speed ramp to slo-mo--

A girl walks sexily to camera...speed ramp to slo-mo--

etc...speed ramped to slo-mo--

The End...speed ramped to slo-mo.

[Mark Harris]

I'll summarize--

Billy Crudup does something...speed ramp to slo-mo--

Somebody else does something...speed ramp to slo-mo--

A girl walks sexily to camera...speed ramp to slo-mo--

etc...speed ramped to slo-mo--

The End...speed ramped to slo-mo.


Hmmm, sounds like my Timefest entry...

[Tom Marshall]

Hmmm, sounds like my Timefest entry...

Except you didn't have Billy Crudup...

[saturnin]

yah they are pulling the trailer from everywhere.. hahahahaha

but i'll play with batman so u can see it on the big screen

[Tom Marshall]

It was an OK trailer. I saw the one Batutta posted before it was pulled...

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Hmmm, sounds like my Timefest entry...And the title sounds like mine. :D

[fixitinpost]

Trailer up at Apple: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/

[J.R. Hudson]

:beer:Trailer is up here too.

:grin:



http://www.cineobscure.com/terminator-salvation-teaser-trailer/

[Captain Pierce]

I will say this about the trailer:

It looks just about god damn picture perfect. Snyder has obviously taken the time to study the graphic novel and frame a lot of those shots exactly from it.

It's hard to say if the story will survive the translation to film as easily as the look has, but if he's taken half as much time on the story as he has the look, it could work.

(But this is coming from a guy who thought that "V for Vendetta" was a pretty decent translation to film, so take my opinion with as many grains of salt as you need. :D )

[c.g._eads]

I'm sorry but this looked stupid. Really bad CGI effects. All the characters looked muddy and cheap. People have been saying this is the best comic (or is it graphic novel?) of all time. I wouldn't say the trailer made it look "Andromeda Strain on USA" bad, but pretty close.

[spidey]

lol damn c.g.... have you made a movie recently... I havent seen any of your stuff before I'm just curious.

[J.R. Hudson]

I think Watchmen looks killer.

Zach is a bad dude.

[c.g._eads]

you don't need to be a chef to know when the food sucks :)

(I'm more a writer than filmmaker btw).

did you seriously think this looked good? I guess I can understand if people know the comic book well and bring some knowledge of it to the table. But from someone who knows nothing about it and just saw a movie preview of the thing, it looks really bad. Like someone who just learned how to use After Effects. It just had a cheap feel to it. Don't you think? I may not have been as harsh but for a full year I've been hearing how "The Watchman" with Zack Snyder directing is going to be the best movie ever and then after all that time I see that?? Who knows though? Maybe the story will be good. They didn't really get into it in the trailer.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

you don't need to be a chef to know when the food sucks :)
C.G. doesn't like comic book movies. I'm not sure why he bothers to comment really, other than to incite others. :evil:

This movie looks fantastic! We'll see if they can truly deliver.

Mike

[c.g._eads]

I have no choice. It's the only movies they make anymore. :)

[Batutta]

I have no choice. It's the only movies they make anymore. :)

You have a choice to not go spend your money. I don't know about you, but I hate sushi, and I don't repeatedly keep paying for it because I don't have to.

[c.g._eads]

It's my biggest weakness. I become a victim of marketing and hype. I hate myself for it. I fall for it every time. No matter how many times they say, "This is the greatest comic book movie of all time" and report their "best ever box office numbers", I never catch on. Regardless, as a writer, it's important for me to see what everybody else is seeing. And if this and The Dark Knight are what everybody's seeing and loving - well, I may be in some trouble. Then again, I fall into the theory that the public will go see whatever you put out there (for the most part). So maybe there's still hope.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

You have a choice to not go spend your money. I don't know about you, but I hate sushi, and I don't repeatedly keep paying for it because I don't have to.

Bingo!

[c.g._eads]

Thank goodness. At least I’m not the only one who thinks this movie is a bad idea. The creator himself thinks so! I feel a little better now that I’m in good company.

From: Watchmen creator Alan Moore
Re: Zack Snyder as director of Watchmen
He may very well be, but the thing is that he's also the person who made 300. I've not seen any recent comic book films, but I didn't particularly like the book 300. I had a lot of problems with it, and everything I heard or saw about the film tended to increase [those problems] rather than reduce them: [that] it was racist, it was homophobic, and above all it was sublimely stupid. I know that that's not what people going in to see a film like 300 are thinking about but...I wasn't impressed with that.... I talked to [director] Terry Gilliam in the '80s, and he asked me how I would make Watchmen into a film. I said, ''Well actually, Terry, if anybody asked me, I would have said, 'I wouldn't.''' And I think that Terry [who aborted his attempted adaptation of the book] eventually came to agree with me. There are things that we did with Watchmen that could only work in a comic, and were indeed designed to show off things that other media can't.

Do you think that any good can come of comics movies?
I increasingly fear that nothing good can come of almost any adaptation, and obviously that's sweeping. There are a couple of adaptations that are perhaps as good or better than the original work. But the vast majority of them are pointless.

I echo his thoughts on 300. The thing that I really connect with, however, is the second question. This is how I feel about films in general. Films should be films. Not adaptations of other mediums. Something made in another medium was made because it was right for that medium. Keep it there.

Link: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20213004,00.html

[KyleProhaska]

Some of the greatest movies of all time started as books my friend...created to be a book first and NOT a film.

[spidey]

alan moore hates any adaptation of his work... HE thinks movies are shit anyway.

[Batutta]

Some of the greatest movies of all time started as books my friend...created to be a book first and NOT a film.

The general rule though is that only bad or mediocre books make good films. Watchmen is considered one of the greatest comics ever written, although I have never read it. I think the biggest hurdle is that it features an entire universe of comic book characters nobody has ever seen before. They have to set up and explain all of them and get people to buy into this world for the story to have any resonance. Zach's got his hands full.

[Richard J. Johnson]

It really does not matter to me if the creator of the watchmen thinks it is bad idea or not. Just because he thinks so, it does not mean it will be a bad movie. at the end of the day I just want to be entertained. 300 was very entertaining IMO. I also liked Snyder's dawn of the dead. So he is 2 for 2 and I think the watchmen will be good. Since he created it could'nt he have said no to them making it?

[KyleProhaska]

Lord of the Rings Trilogy
JAWS
Full Metal Jacket
Jurassic Park
Harry Potter Movies
BOURNE MOVIES!!!
Rambo Movies :P
etc.

There are TONS of good movies based on good books, and lots of decent movies based on great books. Some stuff shouldn't be made into films but I like that they give it a shot, if they didn't and there was just a "don't turn this medium into another" blah blah blah....then we wouldn't have some of the greatest films ever made since film started.

Its on a case by case basis as far as I'm concerned. It depends on whether your talking direct recreation or loosly based, or whatever. Books will always be a totally different medium then movies...they work in a different way so technically it should be impossible for any movie to be a 100% to the book without it being too long, too expensive, too rediculous to watch (watching so much articulation in a visual artform), etc.

[c.g._eads]

it's lazy and they only do it cause there's a built in audience. much less risk than developing something original. It's a sad state when they're remaking movies after only five years and that in 30 years nobody will take a chance on anything original. It will just be the same stories told over and over. :(

So what is this Watchmen about anyway? Why is it considered the best comic book of all time? All I know is that one of the characters looked like Batman - but in a much murkier and badly composed frame than Nolan's Batman - which confused me. I wondered if the movie had already started.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

:(

So what is this Watchmen about anyway? Why is it considered the best comic book of all time? All I know is that one of the characters looked like Batman - but in a much murkier and badly composed frame than Nolan's Batman - which confused me. I wondered if the movie had already started.Judging by that last statement and everything that you misunderstood while watching The Dark Knight I would say that it doesn't take much. :huh:

j/k but it's obvious that you just make these statements in order to sway the discussion. Too obvious really.

[c.g._eads]

Huh? I'm staying on topic. Discussion not trying to be swayed.

Anyway, so what is the Watchmen about?

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Huh? I'm staying on topic. Discussion not trying to be swayed.

Anyway, so what is the Watchmen about?That's the point! You don't care. Nor will you like it so why bother?

Sorry, you go into every thread (especially the comic book based movies) and try to bash them. Even when you haven't seen them. You also don't even pay enough attention while watching to keep up with the plot, yet you don't mind bashing it based on mistakes caused by your own lack of attention.

Sorry man, I call them as I see them.

I won't waste anymore of your time though.

[Jared Meyer]

Saw the graphic novel in the bookstore and bought it today. Really digging it so far but it definitely doesn't scream "movie adaptation." It's more political commentary then superhero story. Whatever. God forbid Hollywood do something new.

[c.g._eads]

First of all, this is a discussion board. Not an "everybody agree" board. If I have a strong opinion about something, I'm going to post it. To me, this trailer sucked. I don't see why I have to keep that to myself. Maybe the movie will be great. I don't know. I'd love to be proved wrong. I really *do* want to be entertained. But just the shot alone of Billy Crudup getting turned into ash/smoke or the big gold round thing at the end looked like 1998 CGI. I'm sorry but it did.

True I don't think comic book movies should be made (or any adapted material for that matter), but to say that that doesn't allow me to have an opinion on them is silly. People may not agree with my opinion, but to imply I shouldn't be posting it is ridiculous.

Hey, Batman lost my attention. it was a long movie with a lot going on. I think that my attention span wandered because of that. I'm sure you've watched movies that started to get boring and you couldn't recall the exact details of either. Batman is supposed to be the gold standard for comic book movies- and I'll give pretty much anything a chance if it gets above 90% on rotten tomatoes. That tells me that the movie goes beyond comic book fans and appeals to the general public. I knew I probably wasn't going to like it but that's not to say I didn't give it a chance.

So I'll try to bring this back on topic. For someone who knows the story, what is Watchmen about and why is it thought of as better than any other comic book? I'm really interested to know.

[GageFX]

...the big gold round thing at the end looked like 1998 CGI. I'm sorry but it did.

I would have assumed everyone thought that. Did anyone think that looked good?


As for the story, I've heard it as a combination of Heroes and The Incredibles.

Here is the first paragraph from the IMDB synopsis:

In a gritty and alternate 1985 the glory days of costumed vigilantes have been brought to a close by a government crackdown, but after one of the masked veterans is brutally murdered an investigation into the killer is initiated. The reunited heroes set out to prevent their own destruction, but in doing so discover a deeper and far more diabolical plot.

[Mark Harris]

Wikipedia will tell you everything you need to know to get what's up.

In this case, my excitement for it is definitely tied to my memories of the comic. Just like Dark Knight, and the birth of the "graphic novel," the 80s saw a re-imagining of super-heros, as more adult characters with adult problems.

Of course Marvel had done this long before to a degree. But Watchmen was a comic MEANT for adults. And I think that kind of thing really took off in the 80s. Cerebus, Watchmen, Dark Knight, there are many like them that were not really intended for kids at all.

[GageFX]

Sorry, this is a bit of a sidestep, but Mark mentioning Marvel comics with adult problems made me think of it.

Do you think there is a market for Marvel to produce an adult, R rated comic film that can exist alongside the PG popcorn fare?

[Mark Harris]

Well I dunno about R-rated, but isn't that kind of what we're getting with the Batman re-boot? And possibly Watchmen? And what Ang Lee tried to do with the Hulk? And Sin City?

Or are you asking about Marvel in particular? I dunno.

[Blaine]

Sorry, this is a bit of a sidestep, but Mark mentioning Marvel comics with adult problems made me think of it.

Do you think there is a market for Marvel to produce an adult, R rated comic film that can exist alongside the PG popcorn fare?They're probably worried that an R won't put enough butts in seats. They don't want to give up that 14-17 year-old boy demographic.

[Billy Pilgrim]

I've never read the Watchmen, so it's not like I'm a defensive fanboy. But do you think that the cgi in the trailer is final? There's still about eight or so months left until its release. Perhaps the final rendered versions will be better? I don't know. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and see it anyway, because the concept sounds interesting to me. Maybe I'll pick up the book while I'm at comic-con next week.

[c.g._eads]

That's a good point. Obviously the movie is a long ways away and playing in front of the Dark Knight was an absolute necessity for the marketing department. It would explain why the trailer felt very rushed and kinda unfocused.

Could be.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

First of all, this is a discussion board. Not an "everybody agree" board. If I have a strong opinion about something, I'm going to post it. To me, this trailer sucked. I don't see why I have to keep that to myself. Maybe the movie will be great. I don't know. I'd love to be proved wrong. I really *do* want to be entertained. But just the shot alone of Billy Crudup getting turned into ash/smoke or the big gold round thing at the end looked like 1998 CGI. I'm sorry but it did.

True I don't think comic book movies should be made (or any adapted material for that matter), but to say that that doesn't allow me to have an opinion on them is silly. People may not agree with my opinion, but to imply I shouldn't be posting it is ridiculous.

Not at all. If you can troll the forums with flame bait I can call you out on it. It's really that simple.

You keep bashing movies that you've already stated that you won't even like and I'll keep asking why you even bother. If I were a MAC guy and all I did was troll the MS forums and bash them... that would be trolling. What you are doing is nothing less.

Pretending to show an interest in the story to try and get things back on track after posting that even the creator thinks this movie sucks is a sad attempt.

Looking at your posting history in this forum makes things all too clear for anyone with any doubts.

The comment about Batman was hilarious. You couldn't follow the story and now you're using excuses as to why you missed the switch up by The Joker. You didn't do that initially.

I can agree with someone who critiques movies unbiasedly. With you that's not the case. We already knew what your review was going to be like before you even posted it. That should really tell you something.

EDIT: Taken from the sticky in this forum.

Don’t threadcrap. If someone posts about a film and you don’t like it, feel free to state your reasons why you didn’t enjoy it. However, don’t come blasting with “The Guns of Navarone” and say, “Gee, Jane Whatsherface sucks. She makes me ill. I spit on her.” Not cool. Say it once, back it up, and move on.Your posts in the Hulk thread are a great examples of legendary threadcrapping. :D

Cheers,

Mike

[c.g._eads]

I'm starting to think your attacks are personal. I don't know if it's because you hold these movies too preciously and you're offended when someone doesn't like them or you just don't like me.

Anyway, I'll try to defend myself.

As far as bashing movies I know I won't like ahead of time. We've established that I don't like most comic book movies. But as someone who is involved in the entertainment industry, I do need to watch all of the biggest movies. I mean, could you imagine if I walked into a development executive's office and they asked me, "What did you think of The Dark Knight?" And I replied that I hadn't seen it? The movie with the biggest opening weekend of all time? I'd get laughed out of the room. Either way, I wanted to see this movie (Batman) because out of all the comic book movies, this would be the one that had the best chance of being good (along with that I like Nolan - and it was getting such great reviews). So I saw it. And guess what? I didn't like it. So I post my opinion on the movie. And basically you tell me that I just didn't get it. Whereas I tell you I didn't get it because I was bored. You can believe that I'm dumb and don't understand movies or you can believe that I lost interest and stopped paying attention. Judging from your past posts you'll probably assume the first. I don't think I can change that opinion so I'll stop arguing with you about it.

I really did want to know what Watchmen was about from someone who was passionate about it. I found it interesting that the creator himself didn't want the movie made so I posted the article. Yes, I agree with him. It's on topic (albeit negatively) so there shouldn't be an issue here.

My posting history shows that I'm not a comic-book fan. But I will give comic book movies that look well put together or have elements that I like (cast, director, etc.) a chance. Hellboy 2, on the flipside, is a movie I knew I'd hate. So I didn't see it. That might be a good place for you to post. I will not post there.

No, you knew what my reveiw was *probably* going to be. I went into Batman giving it a chance and - in my opinion - it didn't deliver. I realize that for a lot of people, it did. For me, it did not. So I posted my review and I agreed with you that on that one particular point regarding the rachel/harvey choice (out of my 8 points for why I didn't like it) that there's a good argument for why I was wrong. That doesn't erase the other 7 reasons and make me an idiot for not liking Batman.

This Watchmen deal. It's interesting. I came down hard on the preview because so many people have been talking about how great this is going to be for so long. I was expecting something that would blow me away. I'm sorry but that trailer didn't blow me away. It looked rushed and hackey.

Doesn't mean the movie won't be good. And it doesn't mean I won't see it. And - get ready for this - it doesn't mean I won't post a review of it here. It might happen. Although this may be your dream, I think the worst-case scenario is when I stop reviewing these films. Cause then it means I'm indifferent. At least now they're doing *something* to me.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I'm starting to think your attacks are personal. I don't know if it's because you hold these movies too preciously and you're offended when someone doesn't like them or you just don't like me.
Nope. You are simply breaking a posted rule and I'm bringing it to light.
You don't like these movies and you have no qualms about letting the entire forum know it. Over and over again in most cases. That's where you cross the line.

I don't like all comic book movies. I hated X-Men 3 for example. My post history will back that up as well. Yet I didn't feel the need to fill the thread with my distaste for it over and over again. Once more, that would be against the rules.
You've been challenged on this point by other members, you just ignore it.

I guess I'm just getting sick of it and it really brings this forum down.

Mike

[mcgeedigital]

Moving on......:violin:

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Moving on......:violin:I agree. I'm just as guilty, but as long as he is free to infect every comic book movie thread I should be allowed to point it out.

Get's annoying after a while doesn't it?
Well, try going back to The Hulk thread and see what he did to that one.
I'm hoping a Mod will step in and not allow that to happen here.
I've reported this thread.

Mike

[c.g._eads]

Yes, moving on.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Is this going to fit into a 2 hour movie?
Does any know if they plan on telling this story in parts? Like a trilogy?
Seems like a lot to bite off for one movie.

My memory is vague though, it has been a long time since I've read it.

Mike

[mcgeedigital]

Seems to me like you would almost HAVE to...the story seems very complex.

[Blade Borge]

I really liked the trailer, music was quite complementary. Whoever the blue man is looks coolest.

[ZFarms Productions]

Is this going to fit into a 2 hour movie?
Does any know if they plan on telling this story in parts? Like a trilogy?
Seems like a lot to bite off for one movie.

My memory is vague though, it has been a long time since I've read it.

Mike

Supposedly it's going to be 3 hours! hell yeah. this movie is gonna rock.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Supposedly it's going to be 3 hours! hell yeah. this movie is gonna rock.3 hours! Wow! At least that shows some commitment to tell the story properly.

Mike

[GageFX]

Blaine and Mark, yes, specifically, Marvel. Of course someone might make Sin City or harder, but Marvel has all the kiddie-friendly fare. So the question isnt if they can get butts into the R seats, but if it will hurt their image and take butts OUT OF the PG seats.

[Captain Pierce]

Gage: The 2004 "Punisher" movie was R, and I'd imagine the patented Marvel sequel-with-none-of-the-same-people-in-it coming out this December will be as well. I seem to recall that doing decently at the box office (enough to get the patented Marvel SWNOTSPIT); more than that, it was a pretty good movie and a decent adaptation of the comic. Off the top of my head, I can't think of much else in the Marvel mainstream that would warrant an "R" rating; I think DC and Dark Horse went more for the edgier stuff.

And I didn't think the CG in the trailer looked that bad. One interesting thing is that both of the scenes that c.g. mentioned, Billy Crudup getting zapped and the big gold thing at the end, are two of the scenes that looked to me like they were supposed to be right out of the graphic novel, so it's possible that either the attempt to match them to the comic panels is making them look cheezy to c.g., or I'm not seeing that they look cheezy because I think they look like the comic. :)

[GageFX]

Thanks Capt., I completely forgot about Punisher, AND Warzone - and I know someone working on Warzone.

Thanks for waking me up.

[spidey]

well thing is not many dc character work well enough for series as where marvel one can as long as done right.... I mean DC is batman and superman (even though I HATE SUPERMAN) Marvel is Spiderman then the rest. But watchmen work... it's a great story.

[Capt Quirk]

well thing is not many dc character work well enough for series as where marvel one can as long as done right.... I mean DC is batman and superman (even though I HATE SUPERMAN) Marvel is Spiderman then the rest. But watchmen work... it's a great story.I disagree. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done. There is a vast catalog of DC characters and stories that would be awesome, but somewhere along the line they let some dumbass decide how the character should be reimagined, instead of having a real grasp on the story.

[spidey]

i dunno i've collect books my whole life the man reason why most dc character dont relate very well is most of them are alien origin. where as marvel is mutant origins. I mean look at dc characters (and I mean main stay characters: Flash etc not hellblazers or sandman) name a few that would be good.

Green Lantern is the only one I would be interested in seeing being done that or aquaman but only if they did them seriously. See the main issue with comic films is are you going to take the source material seriously or are you just gonna make something.

I hate the guy who directed daredevil and ghostrider. He said he knows the work but he doesn't.

[Capt Quirk]

Not that many are alien, as opposed to Marvel. Superman, Supergirl, HawkMan and Hawk Girl are, but most of the rest are Earthlings, On the other side, Silver Surfer, Captain Marvel, Thor (I'd say Gods would count as Alien), Venom and Carnage, the Inhumans- a whole slew of Marvel are alien.

DC has Smallville, and had a really good Flash series going for a while, but pulled the plug too soon. They did a Justice League series, but never even showed the pilot, same goes for Aquaman based on the Smallville version. Birds of Prey held promise, but really sort of missed the boat. If they had stayed with the backstory, it would have kicked Nolan's version of Batman all up and down the street.

[triplej96]

I'm excited about the film :) I like the trailer and loved 300 so I will be in the theater seeing this for sure.

[Bill Clar]

The trailer features many different plot points from the comic which is impressive. It appears that Zack isn't going to cut corners. As for the CGI, it looks fine to me.

It is possible to tell the entire tale in 3 hours. A large portion of comic is back story that can be omitted or narrowed down. The characters development may suffer as a result, but it allows us time for the needed pivotal scenes.

[Hawk Teflon]

I just found out this was becoming a movie! I'm SO freaking excited! I feel like a 14 year old girl that was just asked to the senior prom (I just hope nothing happens afterward). I read this back when I was 13, and oddly enough, I just read it again earlier this year (I'm 27 now)! It's an AMAZING graphic novel!!

I agree that some of the CGI looks like it could use some work (when Night Owl's ship comes out of the water), but overall it looks great! Dr. manhattan looks DEAD ON! I'm so excited!!

[GageFX]

(when Night Owl's ship comes out of the water)


Is that what is happening there? As someone that doesnt know the comics, I had no idea what was going on other than someone getting fired for their sh*tty CG skills.

[Hawk Teflon]

Is that what is happening there? As someone that doesnt know the comics, I had no idea what was going on other than someone getting fired for their sh*tty CG skills.

Ha ha ha! Yeah, the ship looks perfect! The CG looks not so good there.

[GageFX]

Yeah, the ship looks perfect! The CG looks not so good there.
Errr? http://www.buddy-icons.info/content/smileys/yahoo_think.gif

[Hawk Teflon]

The CG of the water and everything else moving. Really, that's JUST what the ship looks like, though. That wasn't what made me think of the crappy CG. The way the water moved around and didn't look real was what threw me off.

[GageFX]

He uses a ship that purposefully looks like it's made with bad CG? That's just silly.

That's almost the equivalent of driving around in this:

http://geekrama.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/battlestarcar.JPG

[Capt Quirk]

I kinda like that!

[Hawk Teflon]

I'd drive it

[dvpixl]

i have never heard of this graphic novel until I saw the trailer. Apparently it's more popular than BATMAN I hear.

[spidey]

it was a one shot type series about 1000 pages. It detailed and has a lot. I loved it as a kid and still do. it dark as shit and deals with the real world just if super heroes were part of it and if events in history did other things than what happens. very much a cold war film and comic.

[KOHR]

I'm also pretty psyched about this being made into a film. It seems as though they've pulled frames directly out of the graphic novel and put them into the film. For those commenting on the CGI-- you're wrong about the desintegration of Dr. Manhattan at the beginning, if you get a chance to watch the full trailer they showed at Comic-Con, you get a couple more seconds of the effect (it shows too many bones/organs so they weren't allowed to show it in the regular preview) and believe me-- it doesn't look cheap at all. Also, Dr. Manhattan (the blue guy) and the watch/ship on Mars at the end of the trailer may look slightly cheap to some because what I believe to be a lack of textures, however this is probably an artisitic choice based on the fact that Dr. Manhattan is supposed to be completely perfect, God-like, without any imperfection (no pores) and that the ship at the end is supposed to be made out of a perfect glass-like substance. Don't mistake it for cheap graphics, when you see it all up close I think its going to look pretty sweet. Moving on... the costumes do look a little cheesy, but they are really staying true to the original character designs in Watchmen...except for Silk Spectre II, for some odd reason, because in the original comic, her costume is much more revealing...I just find it strange that they would decide to cover her up more for a more mainstream audience. Rorshach looks pretty sweet, you can't really tell in the short trailer, but they actually have his ink blot mask constantly changing patterns, as if it were made out of the futuristic viscous material, as stated in the comic. Anyway, I'm glad to see that they're sticking so close to the original comic, however, the one shot of Ozymandias seems a little over-done...but it may just be the actor's pose.

edit: usually don't let my inner nerd out this much, but The Dark Knight got me excited about comic-based films again.

[GageFX]

...usually don't let my inner nerd out this much, but The Dark Knight got me excited about comic-based films again.

And I was thinking that The Dark Knight nuked the fridge for comic films.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

And I was thinking that The Dark Knight nuked the fridge for comic films.Nah, that was just the Indy series.

And yes, I get the new jumping the shark/fridge thing. :D

[GageFX]

TDK nuked the fridge for the Indy series? That's just silly.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

TDK nuked the fridge for the Indy series? That's just silly.Now who's being silly. :D
Indy nuked the fridge for its own series. Batman's doing just fine.

What's this thread about again?

:huh:

[GageFX]

That ugly whatever it is rising from the water nuked the fridge for the The Watchmen trailer.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

That ugly whatever it is rising from the water nuked the fridge for the The Watchmen trailer.LOL! :grin:

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Here you go... a nice comparison for you.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DTSboJzUQzk/SIE2y_NfULI/AAAAAAAAB6c/Yu-TinjV2OY/s1600/Watchmen%2B10%2B-%2B11.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DTSboJzUQzk/SIE3jEYLFuI/AAAAAAAAB7c/QboslMEJAHo/s1600/04.png

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

BTW, this is a great comparison between the trailer and the comic panels.
You can find it HERE (http://www.geekanerdblog.com/2008/07/watchmen-movie-trailer-dissected.html)

[Hawk Teflon]

Rorshach looks pretty sweet, you can't really tell in the short trailer, but they actually have his ink blot mask constantly changing patterns, as if it were made out of the futuristic viscous material, as stated in the comic.

I was wondering if they were going to do that. I liked how that happened in the novel, and was curious as to how many masks they'd have to make fo the movie. I figured it'd just be one design.

Also, after looking at the stills vs. the comic, they totally didn't grab the right stills. There's some that are identical to the movie still, but totally grabbed a wrong page. Eh, tomatoes, potatoes.

[KOHR]

I was wondering if they were going to do that. I liked how that happened in the novel, and was curious as to how many masks they'd have to make fo the movie. I figured it'd just be one design.



Search Comic-Con Watchmen extended trailer, there are a couple places that still have the shaky-handycam footage of the trailer that shows a great example of how the mask design actually moves. Its pretty impressive.

This is the best I could find-- you used to be able to find the entire trailer leaked online, but it appears they've pulled it down. Anyway, you get to see some of the motion on his mask---obviously shakey and low res but still cool.

[Hawk Teflon]

This is the best I could find-- you used to be able to find the entire trailer leaked online, but it appears they've pulled it down. Anyway, you get to see some of the motion on his mask---obviously shakey and low res but still cool.

http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/

[KOHR]

http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/

nah. Not the same trailer. Thats still the preview that they show before the dark knight. Comic-Con got an extended one with all the bits and pieces that the studio wouldn't allow through to the general public. It was so fantastic that the crowd made them play it again right after it had finished. haha, an encore for a trailer.

[Hawk Teflon]

Oh man! I gotta see this!!!

[Capt Quirk]

New problems arise- Fox is claiming they have the Rights to Watchmen, and a Federal Judge has set an injunction against WB. http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/urgent-warners-watchmen-in-legal-peril/

[spidey]

oh great.

[capitalP]

A three part interview with Director Zack Snyder about the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c3m-Lc_uU8&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_962191

[Robbie Comeau]

I think Mike Horrigan should've directed this.

Robbie

[alveraz]

I think I should have directed Jaws.

[tlew]

Ive never read the Watchmen comic series, nor was I even familiar with the books until I heard about the movie. That said, from what Ive seen in the trailers, the CGI, especially the scenes depicting some blue energy type character, look incredibly lame. It never ceases to amaze me what these multi-million dollar productions think is good CGI.. or maybe they are aware it looks like shit and dont really care.

[alveraz]

Ive never read the Watchmen comic series, nor was I even familiar with the books until I heard about the movie. That said, from what Ive seen in the trailers, the CGI, especially the scenes depicting some blue energy type character, look incredibly lame. It never ceases to amaze me what these multi-million dollar productions think is good CGI.. or maybe they are aware it looks like shi* and dont really care.

Hmm, that's subjective though, I think the CG work looks awesome. But I'm a Watchmen homer so I would have been cool with a blue sock-puppet.

[spidey]

new trailer is sick!

[Ben Sliker]

Agreed Spidey. After watching the 2nd trailer for this ... immediately went and read the graphic novel. Everyone do yourself a favor and go grab a copy, spend 6-7 hours and read it cover to cover. Watch the trailer again after that and you will spend the next 3 months anxiously awaiting this movie.

there's also a SICK video blog for the movie here:

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Looks great. Can't wait. :)

[jkc123]

I heard they made drastic changes to the ending.

[DarkElastic]

I am looking forward to this film and the trailer looks great. I have got the graphic novel for Crimbo!

[ecking]

I don't understand everyone's hate for the CG in this thread. I think it looks great, the trailer made me go out and buy the graphic novel and now I'm having a great time reading it. Are people honestly upset that things that don't exist in real life don't look 100% real? As human beings it's automatically hard to look at anything like that and believe it as real. For example I hate human flight, it always looks bad to me, it doesn't seem real no matter how it's done, I don't think anyone has nailed it yet. That said it doesn't destroy an experience for me because I understand it in the context it's used in, something important to do in any movie, with CG or not.

It just sounds like people are trying to be dicks for no reason. If between the first and the second trailer you haven't seen any good CG work why has what's been released so far been so well received? Why do such crappy effects artists get work? Why aren't you doing their job? What else in recent memory had an equivalent mix of CG and practical effects that looked so much better?

If you think something is the nadir of suckage, fine state why, state who's done it better, at least make an attempt at sensible criticism.
"Blue guy = laaaaME, are they trying to suck?" Just makes you look stupid.

[Batutta]

It just sounds like people are trying to be dicks for no reason.

Welcome to the internet. :beer:

[Mark Harris]

I don't think the CG looks bad. But I have to admit, trailer 2 dampened my expectations a bit. In that one we see people talk and they chose clips where it looks like everyone is overacting a tad...Still holding out hope!

[triplej96]

CG looks pretty darn good to me I hope the film turns out as good as the trailers!

[Batutta]

Retro-coolness. Learn all about Dr. Manhattan--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cInmK6LQ&eurl=http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39841

[Mark Harris]

Retro-coolness. Learn all about Dr. Manhattan--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cInmK6LQ&eurl=http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39841

That was frickin' AWESOME.

[Batutta]

That was frickin' AWESOME.

I love the 70's era cartoon. Looks very Hanna Barbera.

[Mark Harris]

I love the 70's era cartoon. Looks very Hanna Barbera.

Every detail is so well thought out. I really hope they find the resources to flood the web with this kind of stuff.

[Billy Pilgrim]

That was awesome. Whoever made that did a great job at making it look real. I love that there's even video blur and static at the bottom of the frame, and that it cuts out to blue at the end.

[spidey]

kix ass.

[Batutta]

More viral stuff--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5WsciSNVS0&eurl=http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40005

[spidey]

nice

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Love that last one. Excellent stuff.

[Batutta]

More silly time wasting fun. Put a quarter in video game machine--

http://www.minutemenarcade.com/uk/

[RodThompson]

Zack Snyder is a beast! I can't wait for this flick. Just from the BTS stuff I've seen...he's going for a frame4frame reproduction.

[KyleProhaska]

First reviews are in, they seem positive. They aren't just "it was good" reviews either.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/

[Capt Quirk]

I don't care much for the Theater scene these days, but I'll make an exception in this case. I'm just trying to convince my friend that we should leave the women at home with the kids and go.

[Richard J. Johnson]

Great article about snyder and the film in "USA Today" today.

Its supposed to insanely violent.

Can't wait.

[Steve-O]

This seems like a cool flick, I hope it can hang with the comic book movies of 08 (Dark Knight and Ironman). Can't wait til Thursday at midnight!

[spidey]

iron man was overrated.

[Simon Höfer]

iron man was overrated.
alot!

[Richard J. Johnson]

iron man was overrated.

Man I totally agree. I will be seeing the Watchmen on Thursday night at IMAX then going straight to work. I have never even been in an IMAX theater.

[Batutta]

I have never even been in an IMAX theater.

Dood, you've missed out! Watchmen will only be uprezzed to IMAX resolution, so it's not quite the same as seeing stuff natively shot in IMAX, like the action sequences in Dark Knight. But it's worth it for the sound quality alone. Just don't sit too close. About 1 third down from the back is best if it's a true IMAX theatre. Lately, they've just been outfitting regular sized screens with IMAX projectors so the sense of scale isn't quite the same.

[Nektonic]

IMAX is cool, but it costs double the price to see the film in that format at my local theatre. Unless it is an IMAX shot film, then I'd rather save the money for a soda and Junior Mints and see the film on a normal screen. Although, if this is only available to see in IMAX on Thursday night, I might just splurge if it is not sold out already.

Anybody else going Thursday at midnight? I might just have to since Terminator SCC and Battlestar Galactica are on Friday night, so I've got my entertainment covered.

[Batutta]

At around 64 percent on Rottentomatoes. Not too hot. Roger Ebert gave it four stars, though---

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/

[Richard J. Johnson]

Ity started out at 91%. The fell fast. As long as the splat doesn't show up I still feel good about seeing it.

I'm going to the midnight show. There is now way I'm sitting down for 3 hours on a friday night.

I read most of the negative reviews and a lot of those weren't even that bad.

batutta I will PM you my cell in little while. I want to talk about the derelict when you get a minute.

[Batutta]

LOL!!! You gotta watch this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

[Billy Pilgrim]

Ha, reminds me of the cartoons I watched as a kid. I like that they gave Dr. Manhattan underwear. That was a nice touch. I'm seeing this at midnight tonight.

[Richard J. Johnson]

I just got back from seeing this. If the source material is anything like the film, The Watchmen is not really for me.

The film was long and not too exciting. It looked great and sounded terrific but It was just okay in my opinion. Again I know nothing about the graphic novel.

It had some graphic violence, sex, and Full frontal male nudity which makes for interesting conversation when saying this all happens in a Super Hero Movie. But did not make it good movie or a bad one for that matter. I may have to see it again in Blu-Ray when it comes out. I just didn't feel the watchmen this time around. 300 was a much a better film IMHO.

And about 20 people walked out about before it was half way through. The rest stayed.

[CharlieG]

I did enjoy listening to the Hendrix song.... other than that, oh well

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Roger Ebert gave it four stars, though---

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/I tend to agree with him more often than not so I'll keep my fingers crossed.
I'm seeing it today. :beer:

MAH

[KOHR]

Heres my quick review of the Watchmen for anyone who wants an real-person (as opposed to the snobby critic) perspective--

The Watchmen is very inconsistant and will heavily divide audiences. For every half hour of drawn out storytelling, there are 5 minutes of pure greatness where the film really shines. The visuals are somewhat disappointing for me; they have the effect of creating a music-video feel, as opposed to the more realistic gritty style used in the more appropriately shot "Dark Knight." I would have loved to have seen a more dark, contrasty, graphic-novel feel, as opposed to the summer-blockbuster-hit look. Thats not to say the visuals, being what they are, aren't quite impressive at times, its just that they weren't what I was hoping for in terms of tone. The visual fx are impressive, but I do not see what all the hooplah is about when it comes to the scene on Mars with Dr. Manhattan. It really was not that great compared to some of the other visual fx shots. The action scenes are heavily reminiscent of 300, with the heroes somehow being able to deal with single villains at a time, inflicting gory injuries on single foes while the other criminals apparently just wait on the sidelines for their turn. The action falls somewhere between the two best types, weakening its overall impact (of course, Watchmen is not meant to be about the action anyway!). The fights do not attain the same level of ultra-realism as seen in the "Dark Knight" or the "Bourne" series, nor do they have that "epic" appeal that Snyder showed off so beautifully in 300. The acting is generally off mark, either being too underplayed or over the top (see Nite Owl II's Darth Vader "NOOOO!") considering the context. The writing does the best job it possibly could have to fit basically the ENTIRE story into 2 hrs 45 minutes. It still feels forced at times though, like they are repeatedly shoving plot down the audience's throat. As a major fan of the book, I can say that I was a bit disappointed, but despite all these criticisms, I have to say that I still enjoyed the overall film. There were very remarkable parts and very boring parts-- as I said, a very inconsistant film. I feel that Snyder did the absolute most faithful and best job he could have done with such complex source material and only 3 hours to tell it all in. I'm sure it was difficult, the unfortunate part is that its difficulty shows.

And a personal note: Go see it-- I'll probably go see it again this weekend. I can't say why but it does have a draw in my opinion. Its not a failure, its just

P.S.- My friend who knew NOTHING about the graphic novel who came with us last night to watch it had this to say after it was done - "I feel like I am definately not enough of a geek to have appreciated this. It just seems like there were lots of plot points thrown in there to get the story across. It seemed REALLY rushed. Way too much story for that amount of time. I can see where it was probably great when fully fleshed out, but I didn't really catch it all."

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Reminded me a little of the Heavy Metal magazines I used to read. At least I believe that it tried to resemble them in one way or the other. I may be off base but that's the feeling that I got while watching, in a very subtle way.

I liked it. I think I'll even enjoy it more the second time around.
It could have been better and it dragged a tad at times, but it could have been MUCH worse.

I really enjoyed seeing it come to life.

MAH

[Ezekiel667]

Just got back from seeing it. I haven't read the comic, so I'm not sure how accurate the movie is, pretty accurate from what my friends, who have read the comic, told me after seeing it. I thought it was fantastic. I was never bored or disappointed throughout the entire almost 3 hours I was in the theater. The visuals, the dialogue, and the story were all so breathtaking. The very few flaws i noticed aren't even worth mentioning.

Overall I enjoyed it very much, and definitely plan on seeing it again.

[Batutta]

Saw it. I thought it was kind of great and kind of terrible and ultimately didn't really work. The problem for me was that there was no through line, nothing to pull me through the story. It played like it was all subplot and no main plot. There was no single character I could really identify with or get involved with emotionally. Rorshach was fun but too psychotic. Nite Owl was engagingly played by Patrick Wilson but a little too bland as a character. Dr. Manhattan was fascinating, but by design very cold and distant. There are some great things in it to be sure, but it's all in pieces. And on a basic entertainment level, I think a superhero/action movie should deliver at least a couple good action set pieces, and this film barely had one (The Specter, Night Owl fight in the prison). I know they were being faithful to the source, but it's like paying for a night with a hooker and then all she does is talk to you. Also, in the end, I think the expiration date for this story has passed. I don't think it is nearly as potent as it must have felt in the time it was released, the mid 80's. I think Alan Moore was right to proclaim his graphic novel unfilmable. It's a story that works best in snapshots. Like a comic book.

[Billy Pilgrim]

I liked it. The opening credit sequence was great. Some of the musical choices were odd, or seemed out of place, but that Dylan song worked insanely well. Anyone notice Alan Moore went uncredited?

[Batutta]

Anyone notice Alan Moore went uncredited?

He probably had it in his contract that he DIDN'T want to be credited.

[mcgeedigital]

Going to see it in full IMAX on Sunday.

[Billy Pilgrim]

He probably had it in his contract that he DIDN'T want to be credited.

Exactly what I thought.

[Steve-O]

Moore might have been right about it being unfilmable. It was like they tried to put 15lbs into a 10lb bag. Music selection was odd to me as well. But I still did like it!

[c.g._eads]

Lol. What a joke. 90 minutes to set up the characters! Talk about taking your time. Here's an idea. Call it simple but it's only been used since the dawn of storytelling. When you're setting up your characters, try moving the story forward. You know, instead of flashing back for an hour and a half? I don't care if that's what they did in the comic. This is a movie. Different medium. Jeez. I want my 160 minutes back.

[saturnin]

I just got back from seeing it... never have read the graphic novel.. i enjoyed the film.. some of the vFx on mars were hokey.. i didnt much care for it.. I think they could have done a better job @ making "blue smurf" more lifelike or not.

overall i give it a 7/10..

No one walked out of the theater and no one laughed nervously when they showed full frontal of "blue man group ex member" ha

[Richard J. Johnson]

7 out of 10 here as well.

[Batutta]

I think you're being too charitable. I'd give it at most 6 out of 10. The bottom line for me is that about mid-way through I didn't really give a crap what was going to happen next. A movie has failed pretty profoundly for me when that has happened.

[capitalP]

I liked it, thought it was good. I know nothing about the graphic novel so maybe my opinion might of been different if I did. Overall all I thought it was very enjoyable and I like the twist at the end, I heard the ending in the book was different. My favorite character by far was the smartest man in the world, he was pretty cool.

Not nitpicking, but the only one who was a superhero was Dr. Manhattan, so why in the hell was the rest of them seem like invincible when they were fighting? They must of went to a great super hero fighting training school, I mean, no one could land a punch on those guys...lol

But its a must see, I really enjoyed some of the song selections, especially that gospel song when Spectre is having sex on that flying object, it felt weird at first, but it worked. Zack Snyder is a really gifted filmmaker, bravo.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I think you're being too charitable. I'd give it at most 6 out of 10. No.

He's just giving it a 7 out of 10 based on HIS viewing experience, which is different than yours.

Neither are charitable or biased, they just differ. :beer:

MAH

[Hawk Teflon]

I'm going to see it in an hour. I've waited 16 years for this movie to come out (I first read it when I was 12 or so), and I can't wait. Although, from what I've heard from a few people, it has quite a bit of sex/nudity in it (not including Dr. M). The book didn't have very much, so hopefully they didn't pull a Matrix 2 on this one.

[Batutta]

No.

He's just giving it a 7 out of 10 based on HIS viewing experience, which is different than yours.

Neither are charitable or biased, they just differ. :beer:

MAH

I said that based on his review, which wasn't very positive. A 7 to me is pretty good, but there is some subjectivity there.

[saturnin]

hahahah u guys are funny... i enjoyed the film.. sure there was shit in it that was "ho hum" no prollem... it was a well made film. I'm glad they stayed true-ish to the book(from what i hear). Will i read the graphic novel now? Probably not.....
i think the casting for that Roscharc guy was great!

[Batutta]

Wow. If you want to see how joe-blow moviegoer feels about this read some of these user reviews. Have never seen such hatred towards a movie--

http://www.moviefone.com/movie/watchmen/26998/user-reviews/recent?&page=1

[ChrisHurn]

Saw this on Thursday. Interesting film! I loved the opening montage, I liked hearing the songs in it...I liked bits and pieces but overall I didn't really connect with anything. I don't regret seeing it, but I probably wont see it again. It sounds like it was faithful to the original material though, so it's not so much the film I didn't like, just the overall concept I wasn't a big fan of.

[Batutta]

The best part of the movie, the opening credits, is online--

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/opening-title-sequence

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

The best part of the movie was the cafeteria prison scene. :)

[RodThompson]

Fucking epic! 9 of 10 easy from an enjoyment standpoint.

7 of 10 for adaptive quality.

[jkc123]

I thought it was genius. The most accurate portrayal of a graphic novel to film by far, though Sin City is a close second.

I'm surprised the studio allowed Synder to be as faithful to the material as he was; they had to know that him doing so would turn some folks off.

Alan Moore would be proud; though I doubt it.

[Ezekiel667]

Wow. If you want to see how joe-blow moviegoer feels about this read some of these user reviews. Have never seen such hatred towards a movie--

http://www.moviefone.com/movie/watchmen/26998/user-reviews/recent?&page=1

I cannot believe how incredibly ignorant people are. I understand that there are going to be people who dislike this movie, that's bound to happen, but reading those reviews makes me sick. I weep for anyone who reads them and actual listens to what those people have to say.

[Hawk Teflon]

Wow! As a Watchmen fan from year ago, I was excited to see how WELL they brought it to life. There were a lot of small things I liked that they made sure to include at a time (like the news stand and the guy that was reading that Pirate comic book), but I don't fully understand why they changed the ... "catalyst" (trying to keep this spoiler free for now) used. The other differences were there, but not as noticeable I didn't think.

I loved the fight scenes, mainly due to the time remapping, but as someone said earlier, they seemed a little too clean, with no one getting hit ... by anything. Weird.

Last, I could have done without the extended sex scene in Archi. Things like that don't need to go on. In fact, most of that could have been implied.

8.5/10

PS~~> Saw the Inglorious Basterds trailer. That looks interesting.

[Nektonic]

I cannot believe how incredibly ignorant people are. I understand that there are going to be people who dislike this movie, that's bound to happen, but reading those reviews makes me sick. I weep for anyone who reads them and actual listens to what those people have to say.

That's why when a movie looks good and is one I'm interested in seeing, I don't look at a single review, professional critic or joe shmoe.

[Cheesesailor77]

Awesome opening 20 minutes, great look, and Haley and Crudup do their character's justice. Gratuitous fight sequences and sex scenes, poor acting by the female players, awful musical cues, and an inelegant final act, however, keep this one from being a winner for me.

A missed opportunity.

[Dillon Novak]

from reading the graphic novel, the movie was beautiful in the way it looked. But i think the music choices ruined every scene that they were playing over. Not that the artists were bad, i love most of them! But It's almost like they just used someone's work out playlist for the whole movie. (except the music in the opening sequence with the comedian, that worked well)


Was anybody else turned off by the soundtrack?

[Ezekiel667]

from reading the graphic novel, the movie was beautiful in the way it looked. But i think the music choices ruined every scene that they were playing over. Not that the artists were bad, i love most of them! But It's almost like they just used someone's work out playlist for the whole movie. (except the music in the opening sequence with the comedian, that worked well)


Was anybody else turned off by the soundtrack?

Well it's all a matter of opinion. IMO, the songs they chose worked well, sometimes the message they were trying to deliver was a little in your face, i.e. 'All Along the Watchtower', but if you think about the meaning of the song, and the scene it was over, it worked. Well maybe not 'Hallelujah' haha, but everything else.

[Dillon Novak]

Oh, i defiantly agree with you that the content or title of the songs for the most part were chosen for each scene perfectly, i just think i would prefer the soundtrack to compliment the visual, not really distract me from it.

but i agree.

[mcgeedigital]

Just got back from watching it in IMAX with the wife.

We both thoroughly enjoyed it and would watch it again.

I didn't over analyze it from a film maker perspective.

We just enjoyed the whole experience.

[Sad Max]

The first ten minutes or so (through the end of the opening titles, basically) moved me almost to tears.

The rest of the film was very, very well executed but before long I felt like I was just sitting there waiting to see how faithfully the next sequence would be adapted (which for the most part was *very* faithfully).

I think part of the problem was that it's an ensemble story where only two members of the ensemble (Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan) are really compelling.

I can't decide whether the references to Apocalypse Now, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Dr. Strangelove were effective, or not. They didn't detract, for me; I'm just not sure that they necessarily added anything.

Jackie Earl Haley was really outstanding. Spending most of your time acting from behind a mask, and making the character live like that can't be easy. On the other hand - sorry - Matthew Goode was hideously mis-cast, something that he reportedly worried about himself...Crudup was very good. Not an easy character to play either, I bet.

...pity they re-jiggered the story to the degree that they did. Most of the jiggery was minor, but I still wonder what decided them on revising the whole Dr. Manhattan/Ozymandias plot they way they did...

Also, people dropping to their knees, clenching their fists, baring their teeth and screaming "NOOOOOOOOO!" toward the heavens has outlived its cinematic usefulness. Shame on you, Zack, you should have known better.

Overall a technically well-done adaptation of difficult source material, that only partially worked.

C+

[They Live]

The movie made me appreciate the book more. That doesn't mean I thought it was a good movie.

Why is Zac Snyder billed as a "visionary director" when there was nothing visionary about this? The Watchmen is a visionary book, but not a visionary film. I understand the need to be 'faithful' to the source material, but I think that's more important in terms of the attitude and general atmosphere of the source material. Using the book as a storyboard, and pulling nearly every line of dialogue straight from it is not being visionary. And a graphic novel is not a movie. They are 2 completely different mediums. What works in one doesn't necessarily work in another. It was not reshaped to work on the big screen as good as it could've been.

On top of that, despite the dogged attempt to stay super faithful to the book, major elements were changed, creating a weird sort of cognitive dissonance and detachment from the movie version I just couldn't get over.

I do think the opening sequence was very very well done, and I think Rorshach was perfectly cast. But overall, I do not think the film was good. It just didn't work for me, and I think it stinks that people who have not read the book might have this film create their lasting impression of The Watchmen.

[Sad Max]

I wonder if someone who didn't read the book would be able to even entirely track what's going on.

[Batutta]

I wonder if someone who didn't read the book would be able to even entirely track what's going on.

I know many who couldn't, but the real problem I think is that there is no emotional point of entry for the audience, no place where they can connect with what the characters are going through. We're kind of thrown in towards the end, and then filled in with scattered flashbacks along the way, which fill in plot details but not emotional ones. I think it's the same thing that happened to David Lynch's Dune. Too much narrative and incident but not enough actual drama to get people invested. It's also the result of telling a non-linear story, which obviously can be done well, but you run the risk of losing A connects to B connect to C and can end up with scatterered parts that don't really resonate off each other. I think the comic leaned on people's familiarity with the comics medium, which allowed readers to fill in and make connections themselves to give it more resonance, and let's face it, people who read comics tend to read a lot of them so it's not an unfair expectation. But films appeal to a wider spectrum, and there isn't much here for the casual moviegoer to latch onto other than some pretty visuals.

[Sad Max]

I dunno. I connected with Rorschach.

Of course, I always have.

*edit* for me the only part of the film with which I connected emotionally was the through the end of the opening titles. After that...not much.

[Batutta]

I dunno. I connected with Rorschach.

Of course, I always have.

He is the most interesting character, but I actually found the portrayal here to be a little one note. We never got under his skin. Also, to be honest, I found it to be kind of a two-dimensional remix of Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, and I prefer the genuine article, as the same pathology is explored in much more depth and detail in that movie.

[Sad Max]

I always suspected that on at least one occasion Rorschach rode in Bickle's cab.

[Ian-T]

I connected with Rorshach also….maybe because I recognized him as the bad boy from “The Bad News Bears.” Lol

Seriously though the movie I thought was great…long….but great. There were moments that dragged (I found myself looking at my watch at least once) but it still managed to keep me in. I never read the story but I’m glad I came into it with an open mind. Rorshach was definitely the coolest individual to follow along with. The end pissed me off….story wide. I didn’t find the story difficult to follow at all… I also liked the Comedian….he…other than R. was one of the more interesting characters.

[Billy Pilgrim]

The first ten minutes or so (through the end of the opening titles, basically) moved me almost to tears.

The rest of the film was very, very well executed but before long I felt like I was just sitting there waiting to see how faithfully the next sequence would be adapted (which for the most part was *very* faithfully).

This seems to be a pattern with Zack Snyder films: brilliant first ten minutes/opening credits, then downhill from there.

[Sad Max]

First time, for me. 300 and Sin City held my attention and kept me involved all the way through.

YMMV

[Billy Pilgrim]

I dug Watchmen all the way through, but I thought your comment was interesting, because that's how I feel about the Dawn of the Dead re-make. I honestly can't remember much about 300 past "This is Spahtah!"

[Sad Max]

For some reason when I think about 300 I'm more prone to remembering bits of the South Park parody, than the original movie itself.

I don't know...I guess I always thought they'd sort of...scissor?

[Billy Pilgrim]

Haha, that was a good episode. As if 300 wasn't silly enough...

[Sad Max]

Mr. Garrison could see that his lesbos were tired. They needed...

...coffee.

(electric guitar and slow motion)

Bwah-da-da, bwah-dada, DA DA! Bwah-da-da, bwah-dada, DA DA!

[chris f]

Just watched this film yesterday. Never read the book(s), just saw the previews and thought it looked pretty good. But I was pretty disappointed. I'm going to go on a hunch here and assume that they tried to put the entire history of the story in one movie which is why I thought the movie was unfocused, trying to tell and explain too much, boring at times.

**spoiler alert?**

The only interesting parts of the movie I thought were the story of the Comedian and the character of Rorschach. Also, Rorschach was the only character that seemed to have redeeming qualities that I as a viewer could connect with. The rest of it seemed to just be a soap opera full of compromise and lack of responsibility.

I really liked the opening scene in the Comedian's apartment, but after that I felt like the rest of the movie was spent on explaining the why they were doing everything. It's the movies, Show don't Tell.

[nouou]

I thought this was sick up until the girl who might as well had not been in the film at all, is banging the guy who looks like a kid in a halloween mask while "Hallelujah.... hallelujah.... halleluuuuuujjjjjjjjjaah" plays in the background. After that I didn't like the rest.

[Ezekiel667]

I wonder if someone who didn't read the book would be able to even entirely track what's going on.

I have not read the comic, and I understood everything. The one or two questions I did have were quickly explained to me by my friend who had read the comic.

I think if the viewers who haven't read Watchmen beforehand just pay attention, not focus on the lack of action scenes, and listen to the dialogue instead of talking to their friends the whole time, it's pretty simple to understand.

[Sad Max]

So you understood everything...

...except the stuff that had to be explained for you by someone who had read the book.

Right.

[BryantStanton]

I had to think over how I felt about this movie since I saw it on opening night quite a bit.

Having never read the novel, I didn't really know what to expect outside of the wikipedia summary I had read for the book. Basically, I felt that, at 3 hours, the movie succeeded and failed in several respects.

As an action movie (which, incidently, I think a good majority of people I knew going to see the film were expecting) it failed, not because the fight scenes weren't awesome, but because they were too few and far between.

As a character study/drama/whatever else you want to call it, it failed slightly in my eyes, mostly because, despite some quite interesting thematic elements, nothing seemed fully developed. It was like they introduced these great ideas, and then got around to developing some of them, but definitely not all of them.

I knew it wasn't going to be an action-fest, and I'm ok with that. I just felt that even the non-action portions were only halfway, or two thirds of the way to being where they wanted to go.

Rorschach was a badass though. The prison scene was awesome.

Also, the introduction was fantastic I thought.

Still a bit on the fence at the this point, but overall I'd probably give the movie a B- or C+.

As an aside, everyone else I went with, and it was a large group, pretty much hated it. I've had a hard time recommending it to people because although I thought it was entertaining enough, I don't want to be at the recieving end of the "Why did you make me waste my money" argument...

[David Jimerson]

The biggest problem with the movie was . . .

The story doesn't have the impact it had in the '80s. It's dated.

Sure, there are timeless themes involved. But it's a Cold War story. The ending would have meant something in 1985 that it just doesn't have now.

Now, does that mean I wanted the story changed? No, and the tinkering with it was relatively minor. I like faithful adaptions.

I just think someone going into it cold might not connect. I think that's been shown to be true.

[Sad Max]

I'm not sure that should have been a problem...after all, there are Cold War-era movies that are still compelling, even though the Cold War is long over - because they're compelling movies.

[Batutta]

I'm not sure that should have been a problem...after all, there are Cold War-era movies that are still compelling, even though the Cold War is long over - because they're compelling movies.

True, but this is an alternate history movie, and it would have seemed more potent and relevant to people in the 80's because it was revising history that just occurred. Since we're at a distance now it doesn't have the same emotional wallop. I don't think that's the biggest problem, because as you said if the film satisfied on other more basic levels it wouldn't have mattered, but it's another factor for me of why the film doesn't work.

[David Jimerson]

I'm not sure that should have been a problem...after all, there are Cold War-era movies that are still compelling, even though the Cold War is long over - because they're compelling movies.

But they weren't released in 2009. I'm just saying, the outcome of the Cold War was not at all apparent in the 80s; the idea of rapprochement and lasting peace seemed far-fetched, yet it was the hopeful outcome of the day. It would have been more satisfying then.

I'm betting not many people aged 25 or younger connected much with it. (And I know not one of them is going to appreciate how crazy it is to see a movie where Lee Iacocca takes one between the eyes. :) )

In all, though, much better movie, and much better adaption, than V for Vendetta.

[Sad Max]

I'm not getting the logic; this seems to suggest that Saving Private Ryan should have diminished impact because after all we all know how WWII turned out...

...regarding the scene with Iacocca, etc - yeah, that was a strange choice, to insert material that wasn't in the original story and which was not an improvement in terms of telling the story.

Maybe ol' Zack had a bad experience with his Chrysler.

[Batutta]

Wow. You know the filmmakers are worried when the screenwriter writes an open letter to a website pleading for people to go see the film--

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40409

I think his plea comes off as desperate and futile. In it, he states the film was made by fans and for fans, and I think this is exactly the problem. Sorry, but fanboys only make up a small portion of the moviegoing audience. Most people don't care about the source material. Most people don't even go to websites like AICN. Most people can't even name three Hollywood actors. They just go see a film because it either has an interesting premise, a star they like, or heard it was good from a friend. If you make a film primarily for a small fanboy audience you shouldn't be surprised when your gross doesn't meet expectations.

[Sad Max]

Most production professionals aren't exactly flattered to be called fanboys, either.

Even if they actually are.

[David Jimerson]

I'm not getting the logic; this seems to suggest that Saving Private Ryan should have diminished impact because after all we all know how WWII turned out...

Well, no, because the resolution of that story wasn't the outcome of the war.

[MattinSTL]

Saw Watchmen last night... in my honest opinion, it sucked. Generously, I'd give it 1 of 4 stars.

Very dissatisfied with this. There were some cool scenes and concepts, but overall very very weak.

Poor story with virtually no arc... and big LOGIC errors... conceptual logic errors... and some childish action sequences mixed in with some good action sequences. I was particularly disturbed by character development used to define the character, and then a total abandonment of the persona that I finally got used to. Simply put, there were a lot of "he'd never do that" moments.

There were a lot of FX sequences that served no purpose other then eye-candy... Dr. Manhattan flies around Mars in a Digital Juice JUMPBACK... and on that subject, if you have a thing for blue genitalia then you are going to LOVE this character.

The main villain was like Michael McDonald from Mad TV... no really.

http://www.pnaw10.com/graphics/022108-stuart.png

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Watchmen/matthew_goode_as_ozymandias_watchmen_movie_image.j pg

[Sad Max]

Note the re-purposing of Darth Vader's breastplate as Ozymandias' codpiece...

...since I don't watch MAD TV, he reminded me more of David Spade...

[Batutta]

... and on that subject, if you have a thing for blue genitalia then you are going to LOVE this character.

He gave new meaning to the term blue balls...Personally, the nudity didn't really bother me, but I don't understand the purpose of it. It's just going to be a distraction for most of the audience so why include it? I'd rather have people focused on the scene and not looking at the swinging blue d*ick.

[Sad Max]

The nudity toes into the character; something in the novel not depicted in the film is Manhattan's starting out wearing a little costume (black briefs, and a ridiculous little helmet with a 50's atom graphic on it); he rejects the helmet and graphic (which immediately precedes what they did show in the film; his burning the hydrogen atom symbol into his own forehead, which he finds more appropriate) and eventually dispenses with the clothing since he's lost any sense of modesty (not being human, any more, what need of it?)

Actually, they *did* sort of cover the business with the briefs; in the Vietnam Ride of the Valkyries sequence he's wearing them, and in one or two other places, too.

Anyway, it's not gratuitous nudity. It's motivated by the character's persona and his ongoing loss of contact with his human past, even if that doesn't come through very well in the movie.

Even though the genitalia is there, it's kind of blurry and indistinct compared to the rest of him, most of the time. At least, that was my wife's complaint.

[Batutta]

The nudity toes into the character; something in the novel not depicted in the film is Manhattan's starting out wearing a little costume (black briefs, and a ridiculous little helmet with a 50's atom graphic on it); he rejects the helmet and graphic (which immediately precedes what they did show in the film; his burning the hydrogen atom symbol into his own forehead, which he finds more appropriate) and eventually dispenses with the clothing since he's lost any sense of modesty (not being human, any more, what need of it?)

Actually, they *did* sort of cover the business with the briefs; in the Vietnam Ride of the Valkyries sequence he's wearing them, and in one or two other places, too.

Anyway, it's not gratuitous nudity. It's motivated by the character's persona and his ongoing loss of contact with his human past, even if that doesn't come through very well in the movie.

Even though the genitalia is there, it's kind of blurry and indistinct compared to the rest of him, most of the time. At least, that was my wife's complaint.

But it's just human nature to be distracted by such things. It does not contribute anything to the story and just detracts from the main focus of the scene, even if there is an explanation for it (which was not covered in the film).

[Sad Max]

The mistake was not giving any sort of clue, in the film. If you know that little bit about the character, it immediately stops being gratuitous and distracting and becomes a dimension to the person being depicted.

[Batutta]

it immediately stops being gratuitous and distracting

It would be distracting no matter what. Humans are just wired that way. It would be like have a scene where some woman with double D breasts is walking around topless in the background. It could be perfectly plausible depending on the location, but I guarantee if you asked any guy what the scene was about, they'd say "I don't know, I was staring at the huge knockers in the background!"

[Sad Max]

Well...neither my wife nor I found it distracting; I had read the book while she hadn't.

It's an individual thing. Some people find nudity weird/unusual/distracting, while some don't. I guess I'm in the latter category; I know what the nude human body looks like and it's a non-issue.

[Captain Pierce]

Actually, they *did* sort of cover the business with the briefs; in the Vietnam Ride of the Valkyries sequence he's wearing them, and in one or two other places, too.

Having not seen the film yet (probably tomorrow), I don't know if this comes off, but in the graphic novel, the amount of clothing Dr. Manhattan wears decreases steadily over the years, from a full suit when he's first introduced to the public, through a couple of intermediate steps, to the full nudity in 1985. I've always taken this as a metaphor for his increasing "loss of contact with his human past," as Sad Max put it (quite well :) ).

[Ezekiel667]

It would be distracting no matter what. Humans are just wired that way. It would be like have a scene where some woman with double D breasts is walking around topless in the background. It could be perfectly plausible depending on the location, but I guarantee if you asked any guy what the scene was about, they'd say "I don't know, I was staring at the huge knockers in the background!"

In all seriousness, I wouldnt be distracted by huge breasts in the background. I'd see them, note them, and move on with my life. The DVD is for pausing and zooming. :beer:

As for Manhattan's junk, I knew it was going to be there, the first scene that actually had him full frontal, I saw it, cringed a little, and then it never bothered me again.

I guess it is just an individual thing.

[MattinSTL]

So in his higher evolved state he still hooks up threesomes for the woman he loves, doesn't understand why it creeps her out, still focuses on several tasks at the same time, and yet suffers various short-term memory as it relates to the woman he loves, and yet doesn't love, but then loves again.

Whatever.

I had no problem with the swinging blue monster... but in one scene it swung a little much, and there's NO WAY that every pair of eyes in the theater was NOT fixed on his hoo-hoo in that scene. (I wonder who's job it was to determine the amount of sway? "Bob, you moron, for the last time. Look at me... WATCH! See... his junk wouldn't move that much.")

[Sad Max]

Check out the credits. Look for Dr. Manhattan Junk T.D.

I thought the wacky-multiple-Manhattans-in-bed scene was effective at conveying that he's really losing touch with what she wants, and sort of taking random stabs at ways to please her. That fact that he's so far off and gets it so wrong is symptomatic of his progressive loss of human perspective. As far as love goes (like fear, anger, or any other recognizable human emotion), he's forgetting what it is.

I suspect this is a very American sort of response: we have a collective fixation on naughty bits and nudity that's kind of childish compared to what a lot of other cultures would notice. I mean, how do any of us navigate a locker room?

[MattinSTL]

So why does he then get it again... and decide to save the world... for love, after seeing a few tears? (It ends with you crying?) I felt like the movie was a conglomeration of plot devices that were floating along down a stream, but not really connected... just passing by in order.

And so the comedian wants to bang his own daughter? (just wondering)

Also... that multiple "detached" bedroom scene has been done to death... that must be a common fantasy, to please a woman without trying? It reminded me of that stupid S. King movie "Lawnmower Man"...

[Ezekiel667]

So why does he then get it again... and decide to save the world... for love, after seeing a few tears? (It ends with you crying?) I felt like the movie was a conglomeration of plot devices that were floating along down a stream, but not really connected... just passing by in order.

And so the comedian wants to bang his own daughter? (just wondering)


It wasn't so much love as him finding out that Blake is Laurie's father, which makes him realize "miracles" are possible, and that humanity shouldn't be condemned for all its bad when things like Laurie's birth are possible.

And no, Blake didn't want to have sex with Laurie, well, maybe he did, who knows really. He just knew she was his daughter and underneath all his cynicism and jokes, just wanted to know her, as a father.

[MattinSTL]

It wasn't so much love as him finding out that Blake is Laurie's father, which makes him realize "miracles" are possible, and that humanity shouldn't be condemned for all its bad when things like Laurie's birth are possible.

And no, Blake didn't want to have sex with Laurie, well, maybe he did, who knows really. He just knew she was his daughter and underneath all his cynicism and jokes, just wanted to know her, as a father.


About Dr. Manhattan and Laurie... dude that's got to be the weakest plot point ever... especially since we're supposed to believe this guy is of God-like intellect... the concept of one single good thing coming out of apparently chaotic circumstances is the basis for a lot of science... and it shouldn't take a genius to grasp that it's possible that a beautiful woman, raped by a handsome man, may have a beautiful daughter... so... hmm...

I was also slightly befuddled by some of the actions of the other characters... such as Blake's pumping shells into the protesting crowd... sure they only show the one guy get hit in the back with a gas cannister... but before that they show a huge crowd, the comedian jumps down, and starts jacking shells into the crowd... and if he wasn't gunning people down then I guess that flower stuck in the end of the guns that fired wasn't gunning people down either?

It's just stuff like that... there were just too many contradictions and conflicting logic... and it started to feel like there were several "agenda" type of ideas... goofy stuff like heroes that rape other heroes... etc. etc... I love the idea of flawed heroes... but it just didn't work for me.

I just thought that in that context... in that world... you better have some pretty tight story telling with a clear story arc... and I just didn't feel it.

[BryantStanton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

Don't know if anyone else posted this yet, couldn't recall and didn't feel like searching through 22 pages.

Anyway, I got a kick out of this, thought I'd share.

[Capt Quirk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

Don't know if anyone else posted this yet, couldn't recall and didn't feel like searching through 22 pages.

Yep...








http://files.myopera.com/Idonotlikebroccoli/albums/3758/thumbs/noob.jpg_thumb.jpg

[BryantStanton]

Really?

Christ man I'm not scouring 22 pages before posting a link that people can feel free to ignore. And I knew for sure it wasn't in any of the most recent pages.

Maybe my intense hatred for that overused photo prompted me to reply, but jesus man, it seems a lot more "noobish" and space wasting for you to write "yep" and then post that picture than me accidentally double posting a link.

[Captain Pierce]

Finally got to this today, and really enjoyed it.

This is, believe it or not, my first Zach Snyder movie, so I can't really comment on his rep as a "visionary," but I have to say there's one thing he did (or rather didn't do) in this that I really appreciated--he didn't edit the action sequences in ADD-Vision like so many people want to these days. As I said to my wife on the way out, it's nice to actually be able to see who's kicking whose ass. :D

There were also a lot of little touches that really made the movie for me. Stuff like the Silk Spectre (I) pinups in Blake's apartment at the beginning, or the Muzak playing in the background of Veidt's meeting with Lee Iacocca (a particularly syrupy rendition of "Everybody Wants to Rule the World"). Speaking of the Iacocca meeting, and some of the other additions (like the McLaughlin Group bit, or adding "99 Luftballons" to the soundtrack, or stuff like that), I thought they helped to sell the 80's vibe in a way that the graphic novel really didn't need to because it was still the 80's when it came out. (Although I have to admit that I missed some of the "celebrity cameos" that I saw listed i n the credits, like Dick Cavett and Mick Jagger...) Similarly, when I first saw the New York they'd built for the movie, and the cars they'd chosen, I was a little surprised that they were using "real" 80's cars rather than the electric cars of the graphic novel, but again, it helps sell the 80's setting, and I think there's another reason, too, but I'll get into that a bit later...

I thought all the casting was well done, particularly (and this is a totally minor role to be bring up, but it was one of those "Is that really--?" moments) Matt "Max Headroom" Frewer as Moloch.

As for the end, and the changes... well, I may as well go with the SPOILER WARNING for both the movie and the graphic novel, but... I don't see anyway they could have made the graphic novel ending work in the movie. The graphic novel had more time, and more opportunities, to set up Veidt's "monster" and all the people "kidnapped" to help create it and its backstory. And even then, quite frankly, it comes across as surprisingly comic-booky in a comic book that is trying desperately not to be comic-booky, to show more "real" people behind the masks (hah, if this had been the late 90's, there could have been a VH-1 show called "Behind the Masks" :D ). The movie's ending, in a way, actually takes one of the graphic novel's ideas--that Doctor Manhattan is capable of creating amazing technology (like the aforementioned electric cars that aren't in the movie)--and skews it in another direction. There is one problem I have with it, though--it seems a little too much like it was crafted to fit the idea that Manhattan would leave Earth anyway. Yeah, Veidt was positive that the IF Subtractor would work, but that's kind of a dumb mistake for the "smartest man in the world" (even in the graphic novel, where he at least admits, "I really wasn't sure that would work"). Veidt's use of Manhattan's energy signature ensures that the Doctor and his CGJ have no place on Earth, and I hate to think what would have become of Adrian if Doc hadn't decided to switch galaxies...

All in all, I thought it was a damn good interpretation of the source material, mostly faithful in spirit when it couldn't be otherwise.

[Captain Pierce]

You know, I missed that link before, and I wish I'd missed it this time... that is so wrong on so many levels... :D

[MattinSTL]

Um, that link ROCKS... big time. Give that guy his props for a great job! :)

About the little touches like muzak "everybody wants to rule the world"... to me those moments felt like VH1 breaks from the rest of the movie. I enjoyed the songs, but in those moments I felt the movie took a back-seat to the music. Showing a group of powerful men while playing "everybody wants to rule the world" hit me with the same subtlety as showing guys on a stake out and playing Hall and Oats "private eyes".


Spring (2007) I had a film friend who talked non-stop about Watchmen... and so I also anticipated this for the last 2 years.

I hate to jump into a discussion of fans talking about a movie for fans... but I can't wait to see what they do with the new Star Trek (and Terminator)... and I'm going to be honest then too.

So... is this a one-time deal? They killed off what was BY FAR the two most interesting characters. I could have watched an entire movie about Rorschach. (Even the flashback moments with Dr. M and Blake had me wishing that the movie had more time on that... THAT'S the movie I want to see.)

[Kirk Gillock]

Finally got to see this and really enjoyed it.

MattinSTL - Sent you a PM. Check your messages. :)

[Blade Borge]

Anybody see this?


http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Complete-Digital-BD-Live-Blu-ray/dp/B001QFYLKS/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1237140166&sr=8-4

It's great for folks like me that don't like following word bubbles

[David Jimerson]

The best part of the movie, the opening credits, is online--

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/opening-title-sequence

Yeah, it was pretty short-sighted of Warner Bros. to get everyone to pull the credits.

It might be the most brilliant opening credit sequence, ever. At the very least, anyone who watches it is going to be charged up to go see the movie, and if they aren't, they were never going to pay to see it anyway.

WB walked away from a ton of free publicity.

[btownproductions]

Anybody see this?


http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Complete-Digital-BD-Live-Blu-ray/dp/B001QFYLKS/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1237140166&sr=8-4

It's great for folks like me that don't like following word bubbles

Having never read the book. After watching the trailer on that link. I think it's incredible how much effort snyder put into staying faithful to the source material (at least in the few scenes that are in that trailer). But for those few scenes, the movie followed it shot for shot! I thought that was pretty cool. It doesn't really happen very often in film adaptations like this.

[Captain Pierce]

Um, that link ROCKS... big time. Give that guy his props for a great job! :)

Sorry, didn't mean to deny props... just cause it's "wrong" doesn't mean it's not good... :D


About the little touches like muzak "everybody wants to rule the world"... to me those moments felt like VH1 breaks from the rest of the movie. I enjoyed the songs, but in those moments I felt the movie took a back-seat to the music. Showing a group of powerful men while playing "everybody wants to rule the world" hit me with the same subtlety as showing guys on a stake out and playing Hall and Oats "private eyes".

I took it as a little background joke... but I could barely even hear the music, and it took me a long time to be sure I was actually hearing what I thought I was. Maybe in a different theater it was more obvious...


I hate to jump into a discussion of fans talking about a movie for fans...

Well, and that 's the thing that I can't judge. As a guy who's read the graphic novel a bunch of times, I can only judge it from that POV. I understand that it plays totally different for somebody who's never read it, and that's a perfectly valid POV to come at it from.


So... is this a one-time deal? They killed off what was BY FAR the two most interesting characters. I could have watched an entire movie about Rorschach. (Even the flashback moments with Dr. M and Blake had me wishing that the movie had more time on that... THAT'S the movie I want to see.)

I sure as hell hope it's a one-time deal. Attempting to a sequel/prequel to this, IMO, would be at least as bad an idea as for the Matrix, Highlander, or Star Wars...

[Sad Max]

It might be the most brilliant opening credit sequence, ever.

Word. The opening credits moved me much more than the actual narrative that followed.

Can't recall ever having seen such a disparity between the opening titles, and the feature that came after.

[MattinSTL]

Out of curiosity I started reading some online reviews... when I think a movie is bad and the consensus is that it's good, I have to know what's wrong with me.

Can a movie that's spawned from an enthusiastic fan base ever be isolated from that fan base and judged on it's own merit outside of the original subject matter? Maybe that's what I've attempted to do.

I thought Doom3 was the most intense and brilliant game ever (back in the day... it was almost too scary for me to play before bed)... and then the Doom movie comes out... The movie was probably a reasonable adaptation of the game, and yet not so good on it's own merits.

Bad analogy perhaps?

I don't know... in Watchmen it seems like almost every character has dramatic contradictions of themselves throughout... like almost every character is schizo... not in the secret vs. real identity, but in the super-hero identity... in one scene a hero is timid and a couple scenes later he's an uber-cocksman... the same guy that cries his eyes out guns down pregnant women and rioting crowds... etc. A woman's a freak, then super sensitive, then right back to freaky on a new guy in only days. Is all this logical story telling or is the original novel that disjointed?

[Jared Meyer]

Only got about 100 pages into the graphic novel before seeing the movie. The novel seemed ok - never really grabbed me to the point where I had to finish it.

Anyway my expectations were pretty low for the movie based on reviews I'd read so I am surprised to say I absolutely loved it. Can't stop thinking about it actually, which for me is $7.50 well spent.

As I get older, the scenes of over-the-top gore are starting to make me wince a little. I wish there wasn't that ever-present desire to shock on the part of certain directors but other than that, the movie was beautiful. Need to go finish the book.

[Capt Quirk]

Mattin, Doom 3 was a great game, and the movie was awful in comparison, not even close to the original game. It does seem similar to the latest incarnation of the game, but I only played maybe one level of the Demo.

As far as what's wrong with you... that might be another thread in itself. But where the movies are concerned, some folks like something, some folks don't. Nothing to worry about there. I still can't understand why some people rave over Superman Returns or The X Men. As far as I was concerned, they were garbage. But, that is why they make Vanilla and Chocolate, ya know?

[Sad Max]

Sure, they make both vanilla and chocolate.

That doesn't alter the incontrovertible fact that people who prefer vanilla are bad and wrong and will have to be dealt with.

[Capt Quirk]

Sure, they make both vanilla and chocolate.

That doesn't alter the incontrovertible fact that people who prefer vanilla are bad and wrong and will have to be dealt with.
Sad Max's new motto- F*ck diplomacy! LMAO!

[Sad Max]

What's "new" about it...?

[Capt Quirk]

Old, new, what's the difference? Still funny :)

[dr jones]

being a lontime fan of the graphic novel, and watching the movie twice in the theatre, i can say that this critic sums it up pretty well.

"Snyder hasn't so much made a film of Watchmen as he's performed taxidermy on it."

the movie is trite, pretentious, bloated, and the script is lacking. visually, it is pleasing. but it lacks any kind of real substance. same goes for 300.

[Capt Quirk]

I'm a Marvel, I'm a DC- Watchmen and Wolverine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlqCaqmrto4&feature=dir).

[Captain Pierce]

Out of curiosity I started reading some online reviews... when I think a movie is bad and the consensus is that it's good, I have to know what's wrong with me.

Matt, as a guy who truly hates the Spiderman movies and Ron Moore's alleged "Battlestar Galactica," I feel your pain on this one, and I am certainly not going to say that anything's wrong with you for not liking the flavor of the month.


Can a movie that's spawned from an enthusiastic fan base ever be isolated from that fan base and judged on it's own merit outside of the original subject matter?

Probably not.


I thought Doom3 was the most intense and brilliant game ever (back in the day... it was almost too scary for me to play before bed)... and then the Doom movie comes out... The movie was probably a reasonable adaptation of the game, and yet not so good on it's own merits.

Bad analogy perhaps?

Probably. :) As somebody on another forum said when the Doom movie came out, "They only needed to get two things right. Mars and Demons. The movie has neither." :)


I don't know... in Watchmen it seems like almost every character has dramatic contradictions of themselves throughout... like almost every character is schizo... not in the secret vs. real identity, but in the super-hero identity... in one scene a hero is timid and a couple scenes later he's an uber-cocksman... the same guy that cries his eyes out guns down pregnant women and rioting crowds... etc. A woman's a freak, then super sensitive, then right back to freaky on a new guy in only days. Is all this logical story telling or is the original novel that disjointed?

The original is somewhat disjointed, yeah; but I think part of its intent is to show these alleged "superheroes" more as antiheroes, to show that these people in costumes are at least as screwed up as the rest of us--or, more likely, more screwed up than the rest of us, because the rest of us don't feel the need to dress up in costumes. :D The movie mostly attempts to cover about 25 years of history, from Jon Osterman (Dr. Manhattan's) conversion around 1960 to the "present" of 1985, but with a few flashbacks to the "Minutemen" days of 1939-1949. So, for example... the Comedian guns down his pregnant (and presumably teenaged) "girlfriend" in 1971, and jacks 12-gauge rounds into that rioting crowd in 1977 (and just for the record, I don't know what Snyder was thinking having him firing that Mossberg indiscriminately into the crowd, that's not in the original)... but his scene crying in front of Moloch Headroom is 1985 (and just for the record, I think that scene works a little better in the graphic novel after you've read the intricate plot that Veidt had concocted and how the Comedian actually stumbled across it. In the movie, there's really no indication of how the Comedian actually could have known anything about their version of Veidt's plot, so it does lose something). Similarly, Laurie first meets Doc M. in 1966 (the same time she first meets Dan Dreiberg), and so has almost twenty years to get tired of his non-human act. OK, yeah, she jumps into bed with Dan a little prematurely, and then seems a bit eager to "get her ass to Mars" with Jon later; but I've always felt that the first can be excused by her "sleeping with an H-bomb" for almost twenty years, and watching him drift away from humanity the whole time, and the second can be excused by the fact that, hey, she has spent twenty years with him and can't quite bring herself to throw that all away just yet (especially when she thinks that he can save the world single-handedly).

And the thing is, I've read the graphic novel about a dozen times, so I can't really separate the insights I've gleaned from rereading it from what the movie didn't adequately explain but I just assumed from the original. And that's another reason that I can't say anything's "wrong" with somebody who didn't like the movie, because I just don't know, aside from asking my wife if everything made sense to her.

She said yes, but she could have just been humoring me.... :D

[Batutta]

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/103610d1237188968-funny-strange-random-pics-watchmen.png

[Sad Max]

^ yeah.

BTW I don't know that this is particularly the place to note it but Batutta, I really dig your sig line.

[David Jimerson]

I think, as much as it's unreasonable for some hard-core fans to want every micron of every panel to be 100% accurate, it's equally unreasonable to lament that an adaption of a work with a large fanbase can't be "separated" from the source.

And with Watchmen in particular, one of the stated goals of the production was making a faithful adaption, so it's only fair to judge it on those grounds.

On that score I thought it came out fine. I like Watchmen, the comic. I'm not one who thinks it's the greatest ever, and I don't even put in the top half of Alan Moore's work. But I like it and respect it, and the film was acceptable, and a pretty good example of only making the changes you have to make to translate it from medium to medium. If it is true that the story is unfilmable, as Moore contended, then maybe it shouldn't have been filmed.

[Mark Harris]

I have not read it since high school and intentionally did not go back to it before the movie.

I dunno if it was because it was IMAX, or if it was because I was a little tipsy and we had a good group of friends gathered to see it, or because it plugged into good memories of it from my teen years, or what, but I was mesmerized the entire time. I just sat transfixed the whole time.

I'm almost afraid to see it again to see if it actually holds up...

The guy doing Rorchach was so close to what was in my head, it's scary. Though I don't know how come he could do a good gritty voice and batman couldn't. I assume Christian Bale got paid more. Beyond that, the guy did a frickin' kick ass job with the part. Blew everyone else off screen. I guess he had to, but still, wow.

What I did like was everything that looked bad in the trailer and BTS looked fine on the screen. The city looked less like a set than I thought it would. Dr. Manhattan looked unbelievable. Mars looked completely real and awesome, I thought. I really am going to stop watching anything on a computer. It just sucks.

And yeah, the title sequence was brilliantly imagined and executed.

Also got give it up for Max Headroom making the little part...Love me some Matt Frewer.

[Chad_from_Chad]

To start, I still have yet to read the books, but right away I was irritated with his shooting... again. Then the Bob Dylan song played over the great looking but obnoxious opening credits. And I knew that no matter how deep the story was going to be, it was going to play out as shallow as Michael Bay's attention to plot holes. He chose the song just for the chorus, but had the entire thing play out. Again, without ever reading the books, within about ten minutes I said to myself, "this thing should have stayed a comic book". The soundtrack was misused, the cinematography was unintelligible (I'm all for crossing the line, but it has to serve a purpose, not just be an oversight) The action seens were top notch brutally, but lacked motivation and direction along with really messing up character development continuity. It simply felt like Zak had no idea what the story was actually about, and phoned it in.

My condolences to those of you who categorize 300 as entertainment.

[Sad Max]

If you can't recognize the cinematic greatness in a bunch of oily beefed-up guys leaping around in little leather speedos to crashing guitar riffs, well, you just don't know what's good.

[Ezekiel667]

To start, I still have yet to read the books, but right away I was irritated with his shooting... again. Then the Bob Dylan song played over the great looking but obnoxious opening credits. And I knew that no matter how deep the story was going to be, it was going to play out as shallow as Michael Bay's attention to plot holes. He chose the song just for the chorus, but had the entire thing play out. Again, without ever reading the books, within about ten minutes I said to myself, "this thing should have stayed a comic book". The soundtrack was misused, the cinematography was unintelligible (I'm all for crossing the line, but it has to serve a purpose, not just be an oversight) The action seens were top notch brutally, but lacked motivation and direction along with really messing up character development continuity. It simply felt like Zak had no idea what the story was actually about, and phoned it in.

My condolences to those of you who categorize 300 as entertainment.

You felt like Zak had no idea what the story was about...when you yourself had no idea what the story was about. That doesn't make sense.

Now I'm not bashing you for your opinion, but I strongly recommend you read the graphic novel, then see the movie again. At least give it that respect. If your opinion of the movie overall doesn't change, then that's that, but I suspect it will.

[Sad Max]

You felt like Zak had no idea what the story was about...when you yourself had no idea what the story was about. That doesn't make sense.

I don't think that's unfair.

Haven't you ever sat in a theater thinking I don't know what the hell this is about, and it feels like the director probably didn't, either?

[Capt Quirk]

I don't think that's unfair.

Haven't you ever sat in a theater thinking I don't know what the hell this is about, and it feels like the director probably didn't, either?Nope, never. When there really isn't much of a story, I realize that it isn't about the art, it is about getting my money. I feel so dirty...

[Sad Max]

Quirk, everything is about getting your money. Even the art.

[Capt Quirk]

Even that Woman standing on the sidewalk? She said she loved me...

[David Jimerson]

It's not just the chorus which is relevant to the opening montage.

[Sad Max]

I think I mentioned before that the opening montage under The Times They Are a Changing was the only part of the film that really moved me. It's almost divorced from the rest of the film; there seemed to be more story communicated during the opening titles, than during the remainder of the show.

[easternkey]

hey i haven't read the novel but i have seen the film...and it is fairly entertaining which one can expect out of it. definately not the best film .....i just have a feeling compared to his previous film 300 which portrayed a huge scale it was somewhere missing in watchmen
It does seem that the director looks bit cramped working on actual sets.

[Chad_from_Chad]

You felt like Zak had no idea what the story was about...when you yourself had no idea what the story was about. That doesn't make sense.

Now I'm not bashing you for your opinion, but I strongly recommend you read the graphic novel, then see the movie again. At least give it that respect. If your opinion of the movie overall doesn't change, then that's that, but I suspect it will.
Not only do I disagree with you, but I completely and utterly disagree with you! Because I have an impression from what you wrote that you have no idea what I'm talking about. Reading or not reading the graphic novel has nothing to do with my impression on ZS and his lack of brain matter. It's the same issue with stars like Jessica Alba, she's speaking the words, but she has no idea what they mean or their purpose in the scene.

[Batutta]

Man, this movie did not hold up to a second viewing at all. Saw it again on blu-ray and kind of hated it this time. Much less interesting to watch. Even things I liked about it before, like Rorshach, seemed irritating. The dialogue felt forced, the acting stood out to me as being phony and superficial, and the storytelling clunky. Saw the director's cut and like all director's cuts what was added were mostly redundant scenes or needless additional gore. It's been a while since I had this violent a change in opinion of a film, and while I didn't think it was a success before, I at least thought it was an interesting failure. Now I think it's kind of awful. The Dr. Manhattan stuff is the film's only saving grace.

[jkc123]

I totally disagree. The directors cut blew me away. It addressed all of the issues that I had with the theatrical version of the film (i.e. the characters motivations were expanded upon). In particular the silk spectre, which I thought was the weakest part/character in the film.

Then again, I'm a huge fan of the book so maybe my opinion is biased.