The Watchmen

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.
 
Anybody see this?


http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Comp...e=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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
103610d1237188968-funny-strange-random-pics-watchmen.png
 
^ yeah.

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