WATCHMEN Movie Discussion (book SPOILERS)

[CelticPredator]

Its still one very fun movie.

 

[Darklord Dave]

My reaction was more to the Manhattan imagery, though I didn't feel they went overly badass in the trailer. But of course, if it follows typical Hollywood fashion they could do just that. Like I said, it's all speculation for now.
I also haven't seen 300, so I can't speak to that. I'm not the Frank Miller fan I used to be and all those greased up bearded guys aren't my cup of tea.

As has been pointed out - Ozymandias' rubber suit has nipples - and it's a very movie superhero type suit (in a bad way). Which of course, fits the character as an exploitive manipulator.

Comedian is supposed to look badass and does. I still don't get why they cast so young for Silk Spectre II and Night Owl, but since they have to carry the audience identification, I can see why they might be tuned up a bit to be sexier and more interesting to watch on screen.

 

[barbelith]

I still don't get why they cast so young for Silk Spectre II and Night Owl, but since they have to carry the audience identification, I can see why they might be tuned up a bit to be sexier and more interesting to watch on screen.

But if they really think their audience is that pathetic why bother making a Watchmen movie at all?

 

[Buttmunch]

Anyone else hoping Hot Toys picks up the license to counter the awful DCD 13" figures? I'd love a Hot Toys Rorschach at the very minimum, and from what I can tell his movie outfit is probably even closer than Spider-Man's was in Spider-Man 1 to the comic book costume, so it would basically double as a comic figure.

Dr. Manhatten, not so much. Especially his usual "outfit."

 

[Memnoch]

Anyone else hoping Hot Toys picks up the license to counter the awful DCD 13" figures? I'd love a Hot Toys Rorschach at the very minimum, and from what I can tell his movie outfit is probably even closer than Spider-Man's was in Spider-Man 1 to the comic book costume, so it would basically double as a comic figure.

Dr. Manhatten, not so much. Especially his usual "outfit."

Believe Irish said it as not announced but HT would be doing Watchmen.

 

[Buttmunch]

Believe Irish said it as not announced but HT would be doing Watchmen.

Sweet!

Hopefully Rorschach will come with a few different faces to wear

And if they do make Manhatten, please, please, please at least give him the speedo!

 

[CelticPredator]

*drools*
KOOOOOVVVVVAAAAACCCCCSSSS.....

Oh and he NEEDS to have another head with his face, and he NEEDS the sandwich board "THE END IS NIGH" sign too....

 

[IrishJedi]

The Book is probably in my top 3 comic book I ever read ( And I've been into comics for 25 years)...And this book is spectacular at every page you read, but for me, the Comedian steals the spolight in every scene he is in...I just hope the actor who plays him,make this character shine like in the book...and by shinning, I mean being the most bad ass and the biggest a-hole at the same time...The Comedian understood the big farce, the big trajedy of our own miserable life..I wanna see this on the big screen.

Absoutely, man. I agree 100%. That's also why he's my favorite character as well. And it looks/sounds like Jeffrey Dean Morgan is going to nail it in the movie. Blake is a grade A nihilistic a-hole, but he's also one of the only characters in the whole story who ultimately has a conscience deep down.

As has been pointed out - Ozymandias' rubber suit has nipples - and it's a very movie superhero type suit (in a bad way).

It's symptomatic of what this movie is all about. As the graphic novel was a kick in the nuts and a deconstruction of the classic superhero comic genre, WATCHMEN the film is being designed as a deconstruction of superhero movies. Hence, the familiar aesthetics. They want the average moviegoer to think this looks like the latest Batman flick... because it's going to punch them square in the face.

Afterall, this is the story that basically takes all of the classic superhero archetypes and exposes them for their unrealistic and juvenile nature. In WATCHMEN, Superman (Dr. Manhattan) could care less about humanity because he's a god, Batman (Night Owl II) is so into his secret life as a crime-fighter that he's completely worthless... and can't even get it up... unless he's in costume, Wonder Woman (Silk Spectre II) has self-esteem issues and uses her sexuality to get attention, and Captain America (The Comedian) is a nihilistic bastard who will gun down a woman pregnant with his own child out of anger just to reach a punchline and prove a point. These aren't your everyday superheroes... because they're more like REAL people: fragile, flawed, weak, and vain. Of course, Ozymandias and Rorschach are cans of worms on their own.

If Snyder pulls this off... man, I don't know. But I do know that the people who think movies like X2, SPIDER-MAN 2 and THE DARK KNIGHT are as "deep" and mature as these movies can be are in for a pretty big surprise. And I like those flicks as much as the next person (just as I enjoy the funny books as well). But WATCHMEN makes a lot of that stuff seem so banal on so many ways.

Believe Irish said it as not announced but HT would be doing Watchmen.

Yep. I got the wink-wink, nudge-nudge from DC Direct folks as well as a Warners rep at SDCC.

 

[CelticPredator]

The Comedian was badass. Although, I liked Rorschach the best....im a sucker for outcasts in trenchcoats...

 

[barbelith]

It's symptomatic of what this movie is all about. As the graphic novel was a kick in the nuts and a deconstruction of the classic superhero comic genre, WATCHMEN the film is being designed as a deconstruction of superhero movies.

But is it really? Because deconstructing a text takes a lot more than nipples on a superhero suit and for this to become a consideration of film rather than comic books would require a pretty substantial rewrite of the story - not least because superhero movies have their own set of storytelling conventions far more restrained and "realistic" than those of the funny books. Doctor Manhattan doesn't even work as a film Superman parallel for starters!

 

[IrishJedi]

But is it really? Because deconstructing a text takes a lot more than nipples on a superhero suit and for this to become a consideration of film rather than comic books would require a pretty substantial rewrite of the story - not least because superhero movies have their own set of storytelling conventions far more restrained and "realistic" than those of the funny books. Doctor Manhattan doesn't even work as a film Superman parallel for starters!

Sure he does. He's pretty much immortal, is a "god" among humans with meta powers, and can leave Earth to experience the cosmos first hand. The difference, of course, is that Manhattan was once human (Jon Osterman) and lost his humanity when he rebirthed himself after the accident, while Superman is an alien who was raised as a human with midwestern values. But at the core, in both what we're dealing with is a character with near limitless power. And Moore is basically saying that the Superman boy scout routine is B.S. and that someone with that much power and ability would eventually become detached from humanity. It's an interesting deconstruction.

And I think WATCHMEN can work just fine as a send-up of superhero movies without a substantial re-write. That starts by making it LOOK like the superhero movies we're used to seeing, which has apparently been achieved.

 

[King Darkness]

Sure he does. He's pretty much immortal, is a "god" among humans with meta powers, and can leave Earth to experience the cosmos first hand. The difference, of course, is that Manhattan was once human (Jon Osterman) and lost his humanity when he rebirthed himself after the accident, while Superman is an alien who was raised as a human with midwestern values. But at the core, in both what we're dealing with is a character with near limitless power. And Moore is basically saying that the Superman boy scout routine is B.S. and that someone with that much power and ability would eventually become detached from humanity. It's an interesting deconstruction.

Jon is by far the most complex character and most interesting to me. The fact that he knows the future, yet is absolutely powerless to change it, despite seemingly endless power, is pretty wild. I think that is a large reason for his detachment from life, when your existence is robbed of any unpredictability or surprise, what point is there to existing at all. He is simply going through the motions.

I think it will be hard to convey the totality of his character on screen though.

 

[barbelith]

Sure he does.

Not really. The film Superman is pretty far removed from the comic book Superman. He's never been presented as an immortal "god" among humans to the cinematic audience. There's no cosmic strain to his film adventuring and his powers have always been fairly restrained compared to the comics thanks largely to budget and the banal draw of "realism" (even as recently as Superman Returns this is a guy who can't casually toss around cars).

Dr Manhattan works as a Superman analog in the comic but audiences have never seen that version of Superman. Having Lois & Clark and Smallville floating around only makes Dr Manhattan as a deconstruction even more problematic - the pop culture Superman presented in those series has virtually nothing to do with the aspects of the comic book Superman Dr Manhattan is meant to discuss.

It gets more complicated. Audiences never seen what Rorshach and the Comedian represent in the first place. In fact they've barely seen superhero teams at all, especially as known to comic readers before 1986. Meanwhile they've already had the deconstruction of film superheroes in the form of the second Superman and Spider-Man movies and the eviscerating of costuming and other comic tropes thanks to Singer's take on the X-Men.

We're dealing with two very different storytelling milieus here, and adding a slap of paint to the deconstruction of one says nothing about the other. You can't take Batman apart without examining his role as world's greatest detective ... an element that doesn't even exist in the seven films made since the '60s. A deconstruction of the comic book X-Men would be incoherent to an audience that has only ever seen the films, because they operate on completely different storytelling terms.

 

[IrishJedi]

Jon is by far the most complex character and most interesting to me. The fact that he knows the future, yet is absolutely powerless to change it, despite seemingly endless power, is pretty wild. I think that is a large reason for his detachment from life, when your existence is robbed of any unpredictability or surprise, what point is there to existing at all. He is simply going through the motions.

I think it will be hard to convey the totality of his character on screen though.

You're probably right. There are some facets to many of the characters that would be very difficult to convey in a movie completely. But as long as the core of each character comes through, we'll be happy. And from everything that's been said so far, I think they're gonna pull that off at the very least.

Yeah, I love how Manhattan deals with and views the whole notion of time. Everything (past, present, future) is happening at once. He can see the future, but because he's in the present it has no context to him. He knows what will happen, but not why... because it hasn't happened yet on his current plane. Fascinating stuff. I love that whole sequence on the Mars Watchtower where he's trying to explain this to Laurie and she's just getting more and more frustrated because she can't even grasp what he's saying.

 

[King Darkness]

Not really. The film Superman is pretty far removed from the comic book Superman. He's never been presented as an immortal "god" among humans to the cinematic audience. There's no cosmic strain to his film adventuring and his powers have always been fairly restrained compared to the comics thanks largely to budget and the banal draw of "realism" (even as recently as Superman Returns this is a guy who can't casually toss around cars).

Dr Manhattan works as a Superman analog in the comic but audiences have never seen that version of Superman. Having Lois & Clark and Smallville floating around only makes Dr Manhattan as a deconstruction even more problematic - the pop culture Superman presented in those series has virtually nothing to do with the aspects of the comic book Superman Dr Manhattan is meant to discuss.

It gets more complicated. Audiences never seen what Rorshach and the Comedian represent in the first place. In fact they've barely seen superhero teams at all, especially as known to comic readers before 1986. Meanwhile they've already had the deconstruction of film superheroes in the form of the second Superman and Spider-Man movies and the eviscerating of costuming and other comic tropes thanks to Singer's take on the X-Men.

We're dealing with two very different storytelling milieus here, and adding a slap of paint to the deconstruction of one says nothing about the other. You can't take Batman apart without examining his role as world's greatest detective ... an element that doesn't even exist in the seven films made since the '60s. A deconstruction of the comic book X-Men would be incoherent to an audience that has only ever seen the films, because they operate on completely different storytelling terms.

I fully understand where you are coming from, for the average jackass who has never read a comic this movie will probably go right over their head.

The general public sux ass.

 

[King Darkness]

Yeah, I love how Manhattan deals with and views the whole notion of time. Everything (past, present, future) is happening at once. He can see the future, but because he's in the present it has no context to him. He knows what will happen, but not why... because it hasn't happened yet on his current plane. Fascinating stuff. I love that whole sequence on the Mars Watchtower where he's trying to explain this to Laurie and she's just getting more and more frustrated because she can't even grasp what he's saying.

Most of the scenes with Jon are my favorite, his character just fascinates the shat out of me.

My fav chapter is IV, his total detachment to the world around him is written so well, yet there a few panels were Moore hints at Jons suffering (or at least that how I interpret it) due his reality that only he can understand.

Its brilliant.

 

[barbelith]

My fav chapter is IV, his total detachment to the world around him is written so well, yet there a few panels were Moore hints at Jons suffering (or at least that how I interpret it) due his reality that only he can understand.

I like that Moore recognizes Dr Manhattan is not better than us. That would have been an easy trap to fall into, but ultimately Laurie vindicates humanity and contextualizes his remoteness. He sees more than we do but seems to understand less.

 

[King Darkness]

I dont know that he understands less, or just sees the futility in investing and real emotion in anything.

One line in the book that Jon says "The morality of my activities escapes me.", speaks volumes about his character.

The dialog can be interpreted differently I am sure.

 

[DarkArtist81]

I think it's also interesting that throughout his entire life he has been "steered" in directions that he himself would not have taken. His Father pushed him into science, the government dictated his actions after he became what he is... so much that they even named him. He was completely out of the loop for deciding anything on his own. It's amazing that a man so powerful would be so lost. A very poetic character...

 

[barbelith]

I dont know that he understands less, or just sees the futility in investing and real emotion in anything.

One line in the book that Jon says "The morality of my activities escapes me.", speaks volumes about his character.

But that's one of the signs that he understands less. Jon can cope with facts and figures but he can't deal with anything abstract and in the end he can't weigh judgments or contextualize. It takes Laurie to show him that on Mars. Jon knows almost everything but he doesn't know how to determine that A is more important than B. He can do almost anything but he doesn't know how to determine that X is good action and Y is bad action.

In the end, Laurie is smarter than Dr Manhattan. His detachment makes him irrelevant and, in his own way, as psychotic as Rorshach, who is his mirror image.