WATCHMEN Movie Discussion (SPOILERS allowed)!

[Entropy]

The book was set up in an alternate universe to power the engine of the story but it was released at the height of the Cold War and about the Cold War as much as it was about superhero comics

It think the subtext is less about the cold war and more about the deeper fear, anger and 'othering' that helped bring about the cold war. Those aspects of human nature will never change and are only magnified with the greater power and capacity for destruction mankind acquires.

And who knows how long the peace and world unification lasts in the novel? We never see if things resolve in the manner Ozy intended or not.

 

[Scar]

But only because that's how Moore viewed tragedy on that scale, which is the main reason the book is ultimately naive. In fact one of the reasons the film doesn't work in the end is because changing the climax underscores how unrealistic a unified humanity actually is. Your argument about 9/11 doesn't change that, because there will always be factions who think whatever happens is justified or sanctioned by a deity (the new ending of the film is especially susceptible of this problem). Moore was naive in proposing a scenario where this wouldn't happen, although in his defense he did pick the most credible of all possible scenarios on which to hang his hypothesis.



Right. Another nail in Ozymandias' plot. We stop caring once the media orgy ends. Your "cynical but true" is one of the things pointing to the naivete of the book.



History proves otherwise. That's certainly one response, but it's not the only response. Look at the Nazi occupations. Some joined together to resist the threat. Others became sympathizers. Others fled. Still others just kept their heads down and carried on as normal. It's a nice Hallmark card thought but it just isn't borne out by the facts. A real life squid event would be fractious at worst and result in temporary unity at best as evidenced by all other tragedies. The fundamentalists would have a field day, for one. Rapture!

Ah but you can't present theoretical uncertainty as certainty. The very fact that there hasn't ever been a real life squid event is testament to the fact that it could be galvanizing or it could be divisive. We see such threads running through the human character as to fear what is unknown, and either of us could be correct as to the outcome, but using probability as certainty isn't something anyone can be prepared to assert.

9/11 is again not comparable. You make the point that individuals will always view actions as justified, but their actions have been taken out of the equation by a threat that could rear it's head anywhere at any moment and cut a bloody swath throughout civilization. Individuals are collected in nations and the leaders of those nations would respond to the doubtless overwhelming fear of the public. It's an omnipresent externalized unknown that's the factor. We simply don't have any comparable event which is what leads to the speculation in perpetuity of which we are examples.

Again, you can't use Naziism and Hitler's Germany as the common unifying threat. It's humanity. Externalizing the threat is what is crucial. You take the element away from humanity and you have a tangible factor around which to organize a response. Moore's point was that you aren't going to have human sympathizers with a giant interdimensional psychic squid, and that such an event is simply not going to happen; it's an allusion to the fact that there is no true moral good and that one school differs greatly from the next concerning what is and what is not morally justified action. Peace is never possible without bloodshed, and even then it is short-lived and tenuous, no matter how well-designed and orchestrated. Humanity is capricious; it's not naive to say all solutions to peace are temporary. If it were proposed that the squid would work and humans would never again enter into conflict, then it would be naive. It's argued to the contrary at the conclusion.



Also, starting to watch the motion comic through right now. Used the rebate coupon for the midnight show ticket. The motion comic is the true gem to come out of all of this.

 

[Odowankenobi]

And who knows how long the peace and world unification lasts in the novel? We never see if things resolve in the manner Ozy intended or not.

But of course it won't. That was the point. "Nothing ever ends." This may cause peace for now, but that will be unraveled eventually.

 

[Scar]

It think the subtext is less about the cold war and more about the deeper fear, anger and 'othering' that helped bring about the cold war. Those aspects of human nature will never change and are only magnified with the greater power and capacity for destruction mankind acquires.

And who knows how long the peace and world unification lasts in the novel? We never see if things resolve in the manner Ozy intended or not.

My thoughts exactly.

But of course it won't. That was the point. "Nothing ever ends." This may cause peace for now, but that will be unraveled eventually.

Ultimately the fate of the world resides in a fat guy holding a Journal.

 

[barbelith]

Ah but you can't present theoretical uncertainty as certainty.

And you can't disprove the existence of leprechauns.

We see such threads running through the human character as to fear what is unknown, and either of us could be correct as to the outcome, but using probability as certainty isn't something anyone can be prepared to assert.

I really couldn't disagree more. The entirety of human history and its reaction to similar threats (as similar as can be without descending into science fiction) allows us to make educated guesses and discuss probabilities. More to the point, the novel actually makes this argument in the long term, suggesting the peace might only be temporary anyway.

9/11 is again not comparable.

Of course it is. It's actually directly comparable on a smaller scale, and even we the victims were immediately divided on how to react.

You make the point that individuals will always view actions as justified, but their actions have been taken out of the equation by a threat that could rear it's head anywhere at any moment and cut a bloody swath throughout civilization.

Some people of course would welcome that.

Individuals are collected in nations and the leaders of those nations would respond to the doubtless overwhelming fear of the public.

The way France did on the eve of the Nazi invasion? The way the US did after 9/11? Neither response led to peace nor galvanized the world. Now I know you want to dismiss 9/11 and the Nazis and any actual real-world example on the arbitrary basis that an external threat is somehow different (although last time I checked Saudi Arabia and Germany were external to the US and France). But that just winds up undermining the end of the film, since Dr Manhattan is one of us, even if only obliquely. There's no credible reason to suppose we couldn't all be Dr Manhattans if we walked into those boxes. And in any event collecting around a fear of Dr Manhattan or alien squids or any of those things isn't fundamentally different than collecting around a fear of anything else.

Peace is never possible without bloodshed

Of course it is. Iowa hasn't shed any blood with Wisconsin last I checked.

It's argued to the contrary at the conclusion.

It's toyed with at the conclusion, but I don't think the book actually makes the argument. And a good thing too, because it would explicitly undermine the moral checkmate aspect of the book. If it all really was pointless, there's no moral check. Dan can just say, "Look, this guy did it," and that's that. Back to the status quo.

Ultimately the fate of the world resides in a fat guy holding a Journal.

Even if it were published it'd probably be dismissed as a fake coming from a fringe crank paper.

 

[barbelith]

Anyway, at least we get to have this conversation. How many comics achieve that?

 

[tomandshell]

Anyway, at least we get to have this conversation. How many comics achieve that?

 

[The Mike]

Even if it were published it'd probably be dismissed as a fake coming from a fringe crank paper.

What is funny is even though people were aware of Rorschach's existence and the journal would make sense the general public would probably regard it as a hoax. Its the cynical nature of humanity these days. If a man really flew to the aid of a man who was in a burning building, people would be quoting conspiracy notices of a hollywood hoax or publicity stunt not to mention that particular hero would probably be sued.

I never thought about how difficult it'd be to actually be a superhero in modern times.

 

[barbelith]

Tomandshell wins life!

 

[Scar]

And you can't disprove the existence of leprechauns.

Nor the Loch Ness Monster, nor the Yeti. But in the debate over the existence of such creatures, the burden is upon nay-sayers to prove with utmost certainty that such things do not exist. Not the point and it's another debate entirely; that argument is a manufactured straw man. What it's really like is if I say in organizing a rebellion to overthrow a government, I would undoubtedly win if I had operatives within the government. When you're trying to make a case for something based upon speculation, it's a leap to declare speculation as fact.

I really couldn't disagree more. The entirety of human history and its reaction to similar threats (as similar as can be without descending into science fiction) allows us to make educated guesses and discuss probabilities. More to the point, the novel actually makes this argument in the long term, suggesting the peace might only be temporary anyway.

You made my point for me. There are no similar threats. There are no comparable events throughout human history. You can argue until the doomsday clock ticks down, but it doesn't change the fact that humanity has never had to rally against a threat not already extant within itself.

There's a self-refutation in deeming the conclusion to languish in naivete being that it rests upon Moore's conception of world peace, but then to point out that Moore's commentary through Jon at the end that such a prospect is temporary. Moore acknowledges world peace is an unattainable ideal, but one which people continue to work towards regardless of its inevitable failure. So where's the naivete other than buried within the human spirit?

Of course it is. It's actually directly comparable on a smaller scale, and even we the victims were immediately divided on how to react.

Externalizing the threat outside of humanity. 9/11 was a disaster perpetuated by humanity; it's condition as a disaster is the only similarity. The 1871 Chicago fire could also be deemed comparable if we were basing similarity only on disaster as the criterion. The comparison remains subjective. Externalize the threat.

Some people of course would welcome that.

Rather than one they could deify or control? It's the nature of humanity to seek to control. Even gods aren't above our scrutiny. Case in point -> Jesus Christ.

The way France did on the eve of the Nazi invasion? The way the US did after 9/11? Neither response led to peace nor galvanized the world. Now I know you want to dismiss 9/11 and the Nazis and any actual real-world example on the arbitrary basis that an external threat is somehow different (although last time I checked Saudi Arabia and Germany were external to the US and France). But that just winds up undermining the end of the film, since Dr Manhattan is one of us, even if only obliquely. There's no credible reason to suppose we couldn't all be Dr Manhattans if we walked into those boxes. And in any event collecting around a fear of Dr Manhattan or alien squids or any of those things isn't fundamentally different than collecting around a fear of anything else.

You're relying on the ambiguity of the term "external" to refute the argument when I made the direction of the term explicit. Again, it's a straw man. Dr. Manhattan is no longer one of us. What constitutes one as a member of the human race? Can Jon successfully interbreed with a human female as Dr. Manhattan and produce viable offspring? We can't be certain of that and again any answers would be subjective. The same as what the reaction of the entirety of H. sapiens would be to an alien squid or a god born from man to begin eradicating humanity whether accidentally or whimsically.

There's also no credible reason to believe the experiment ever could be replicated. If we could all be Dr. Manhattans, why was the experiment never replicated to create a race of supermen? Just a thought that I think many, many people would jump at the opportunity to ascend from man to god.

Of course it is. Iowa hasn't shed any blood with Wisconsin last I checked.

And the Montana Freemen assembled just for kicks. Being snarky for the sake of it doesn't advance the discussion, though there really is nothing to advance. It isn't within human nature to have permanent peace; peace is the absence of conflict, upheaval, and change. Some people deem an eternity of peace to be heaven, but to exist eternally in a state devoid of change would likely be the very definition of hell for most. As you said, the conception is naive.

It's toyed with at the conclusion, but I don't think the book actually makes the argument. And a good thing too, because it would explicitly undermine the moral checkmate aspect of the book. If it all really was pointless, there's no moral check. Dan can just say, "Look, this guy did it," and that's that. Back to the status quo.

The being who sees moments in time, past, present, and future, as a consistent whole, explicitly stating "Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends." isn't conclusive enough?

Even if it were published it'd probably be dismissed as a fake coming from a fringe crank paper.

Subjective, but would be the ultimate irony of the life of Rorschach.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

The Times They Are A-Changin'

By Ryan B. Jeri (Not a professional critic, just a movie fan)

Yesterday, March 2nd, 2009, I was privileged enough to see an advanced screening of Zach Snyder’s Watchmen. Despite my passes warning that me that it was not a guarantee I would actually get it, my friends and I were still sure to get to the theater over three hours early, not thinking it would be too hard to get seats. How wrong I was. The congested crowd lined the walls of the massive multiplex as we arrived, and more were to follow. By the time we moved up to the auditorium, the line was cut soon after my friends and I got in, so we were thankful (though it is sad, cause a person in a great Rorshcach costume didn‘t make it in, and was the only one in costume.) We still had to wait about an hour to get seats, as the theater was packed, and most of the middle rows were reserved for members of the distinguished press. Mostly middle-aged men, little white-haired old ladies and younger artsy types. Wonder how many of them have bought the action figures and posters?

Now to the actual film. The film opens silently, with the Paramount, Legendary Pictures, Warner Bros and DC Comics logos in black, against a bright yellow background that zooms out to reveal the now iconic smiley face pin on old man Edward Blake’s bathrobe, as he sits comfortably in his plush Manhattan apartment. Starting moments before the graphic novel begins, we are introduced to this alternate world of 1985 come 1984 on Blake’s TV screen, catching the casual viewer up to the (obviously fictionalized) historical context of the film. Moments later, a familiar “friend” comes knocking and a brutal, highly stylized fight ensues, ending of course, with the older man being thrown out of a window. And thus begins Zach Snyder’s Watchmen, the long-awaited and much hyped adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons seminal graphic novel.

As a big fan of comics, and even bigger fan of comic-based films and media, I first (and finally) got around to reading the book last summer after learning of the then-upcoming film. I was always sort of aware of WATCHMEN, and had heard of it mostly mentioned in the same breath as THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and Gaiman's SANDMAN. Needless to say, once I finished it, I was blown away, and quickly sought the ABSOLUTE EDITION, which made me understand the story better and appreciate Dave Gibbons' fantastic artwork even more. Without a doubt, it's the finest comic book/graphic novel ever written, and when spaced out over a period of time, re-readings only help the reader discover something new. Despite the specific period setting and when it was written, the fact that much of its message is still relevant is a testament to the talent and foresight of Moore and Gibbons. I have since skimmed through the book every once in a while and most recently read through the whole thing again the week before I saw the film.

I was a fan of Snyder’s work on 2004’s Dawn of the Dead, but found 300 hilariously bad, almost as if it was intentional. Artistically, it was extremely well-made and great to look at, but the actual message and story was so shallow, a five year old could swim in it without being supervised. But, the man didn’t write the script, and only brought what he could to it. At least the action and visuals were good. But what could this relatively new feature director do if he had a solid story? Enter Watchmen.

As for the movie, I have mixed feelings. I do have nits to pick, but there were just things included in the film that I felt brought down it’s integrity. Many scenes were indeed so cartoonishly, and unnecessarily violent, in certain parts, They made their comic book equivalents look like something from a Roger Moore Bond film. I read that the violence was meant to be unattractive and repulsive; Maybe if it was more realistic and gritty, but as shown in the theatrical cut, it seems almost as glorified as in the last Punisher and Rambo films (funny, since John makes a cameo). The slow motion effects only enhance it, and only reminded me of Snyder’s roots as a music video/commercial director. That ^^^^ might work in something like 300, but in a much more dramatic piece like Watchmen, it almost doesn’t slide. One can tell the exagerated action is only there to keep the younger teens and general masses awake, and "pumped" and from a business perspective, I don‘t blame him from including it. It’s his style, so I’m not going to complain.

The film is also so crammed with information, that like the novel, it isn’t light viewing. Casual moviegoers don’t need to go in expecting Spider-Man or even The Dark Knight. Like any grand epic, it has to be watched in the right mindset and mood to be fully enjoyed. Despite there beiing a lot of stuff happening to often keep the pacing up, it does feel like a two hour and forty minute film. I feel the part that slowed the film down the most was Dr. Manhattan’s origin. Honestly, I found it and his character boring in the book, but I do realize it’s importance to the story and to newcomers, so it was essentially kept in (though if you must, I recommend taking that restroom break during that part.) For me at least, the book took a few days to read comfortably, so I found it a bit jarring getting it's massive story crammed into a single sitting.

Thankfully, I have to say that in this case, the good points at least outweigh the bad. The acting from all fronts is phenomenal. Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s charismatic, natural, and confusingly likable but ultimately brief portrayal of the Comedian ranks up there with Heath Ledger as the Joker and Christopher Reeve as Superman in the pantheon of iconic comic book performances. Jackie Earl Haley also played Rorschach to a tee. though his voice almost got to Christian Bale Batman proportions at times, it suited the character fine, and was slightly less annoying (but then Rorschach is supposed to be off-putting, so it works.) Patrick Wilson was extremely likable and relatable as Dan, preserving the shy, geeky nature of the comic book character, while amping it up with the right degree of toughness ( the scene where he’s so pissed that he wails on Ozymandias was noting short of badass.) At times, he even reminded me of Michael Keaton for some reason. Malin Akerman as Sally was also much more likable than in the book, where I often found her cold and ^^^^^y (and she’s obviously very easy to look at.) Matthew Goode as Ozymandias certainly got the job done despite looking a little frail, but his cold fanaticism suited the character well, and he looked great in costume. Last of the titular Watchmen/Crime Busters but certainly not least, was Billy Crudup as Dr. Mannhattan. What can I say? He was creepy, emotionally detached and… blue, just like in the comic.

Visually, the film is also quite amazing, as it looks just like the comic come to life; and its tone is heightened by the fantastic selection of 60’s through 80’s songs on its soundtrack. As for the screenplay, most of the dialogue is ripped straight from the novel, to the point that big fans will certainly feel like they’ve seen it before ( I know I did.) That’s how faithful it is to the comic. Yes, the ending’s trigger is completely changed, but the effect and message is preserved, so no need to worry about that. One thing I personally loved, is that it does take the material seriously, while also carrying over the book’s sense of humor, so that we have a comic book film that is often dark, without being completely self-righteous and morose (like that other big DC Comics film from last year)

Overall, from my one viewing, Watchmen was a solid, albeit different kind of superhero film. Is it better or worse compared to the novel? A stupid question to ask. Both are two completely mediums. The story works as an amazing comic book read over time, and the film works as an entertaining, though sometimes overwhelming, and visceral experience that preserves the same message, despite feeling a little too “Hollywood“ towards the end. The graphic novel is in my mind the greatest ever written, and the film is one of the best comic book movies ever made.

If the sprawling epic comic has to be faithfully condensed into a two and a half hour (or so) movie, Watchmen (the theatrical cut), is as good as it’s going to get, even though it still has its flaws. In my mind, a big-budget, twelve episode miniseries on HBO would have done the episodic story much more justice, but the film still works as an entertaining “Watchmen’s Greatest-Hits” reel. I’m sure the Ultimate Director’s Extended Box Set Jesus Edition Blu Ray will improve most of the movie’s flaws, and I'm more sure to enjoy the prospective four hour version more in the comfort of my own home. Bottom line: real fans probably won’t be disappointed, if they can get past some of Snyder’s cartoony excess. At least it’s stylish without getting rid of the substance.

I look forward to seeing it again in the near future.

Watchmen: Theatrical Cut: 3.75/5

 

[barbelith]

Nor the Loch Ness Monster, nor the Yeti. But in the debate over the existence of such creatures, the burden is upon nay-sayers to prove with utmost certainty that such things do not exist.

That's certainly a ... unique claim. Good luck finding a class in logic that lets you proceed under that assumption!

You made my point for me. There are no similar threats. There are no comparable events throughout human history.

Well in fact there are, but I suspect the problem here is that we're defining the squid differently. I'm looking at the threat and you're looking at the tentacles. Which is fair enough, but even going by tentacles I don't see how that's fundamentally different than any other "other."

There's a self-refutation in deeming the conclusion to languish in naivete being that it rests upon Moore's conception of world peace, but then to point out that Moore's commentary through Jon at the end that such a prospect is temporary.

Not really, because I don't think Moore actually winds up on the side of temporary peace in the end. That would undermine the entire book and in any event the novel doesn't actually come out and make that argument. It's more like Moore is struggling with a niggling doubt, which manifests in subtle ways in the penultimate chapter. He seems (through Jon, and through Dan, and through Laurie, and even through Rorshach) to be choosing peace but also reflexively doubting whether that's naive. Otherwise there's no moral checkmate in the book. None at all. And since the entire climax hinges on the moral checkmate, he's obviously casting a vote, albeit one laced with a hint of self-doubt.

Externalizing the threat outside of humanity.

Right. A completely arbitrary demarcation.

Rather than one they could deify or control?

I don't see where this "rather" enters into it. All religions are based on myths to "explain" things beyond our control.

Dr. Manhattan is no longer one of us.

I disagree. He still has human memory. Human form. Human feeling (check out his final panel watching Laurie sleep. He's happy because she's found a measure of happiness). He doesn't even abandon the earth - he takes a side in the moral checkmate and murders Rorshach. In any event there's nothing explicitly stopping any of us from becoming Dr Manhattan, which significantly changes what he represents into an evolutionary possibility. The very fact that you're calling him Jon says it all.

There's also no credible reason to believe the experiment ever could be replicated.

There's nothing in the book that says it can't be. I don't know how you're defining "credible" but the gear is there, it worked, and we're not told anything changed after the fact. Actually I think Moore dropped the ball on that one; it could have been addressed in a single sentence.

And the Montana Freemen assembled just for kicks. Being snarky for the sake of it doesn't advance the discussion, though there really is nothing to advance.

It's not snark; it's truth. When was the last time you and your neighbor got into a fight that drew blood? Literally? I haven't been in a fight in my entire life. To say that peace only comes through blood is just factually untrue.

The being who sees moments in time, past, present, and future, as a consistent whole, explicitly stating "Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends." isn't conclusive enough?

Nope. In fact, it doesn't even make any literal sense. If nothing ever ends then the new peace won't end. Oh. And in any case it makes a mockery of Dr Manhattan's decision to kill Rorshach. Why bother?

Subjective, but would be the ultimate irony of the life of Rorschach.

Poor guy. I do find it interesting that he's often held up as the only one that sticks to his principles, when those principles threaten world peace. It's a gray world.

 

[Scar]

And you can't disprove the existence of leprechauns.



I really couldn't disagree more. The entirety of human history and its reaction to similar threats (as similar as can be without descending into science fiction) allows us to make educated guesses and discuss probabilities. More to the point, the novel actually makes this argument in the long term, suggesting the peace might only be temporary anyway.



Of course it is. It's actually directly comparable on a smaller scale, and even we the victims were immediately divided on how to react.



Some people of course would welcome that.



The way France did on the eve of the Nazi invasion? The way the US did after 9/11? Neither response led to peace nor galvanized the world. Now I know you want to dismiss 9/11 and the Nazis and any actual real-world example on the arbitrary basis that an external threat is somehow different (although last time I checked Saudi Arabia and Germany were external to the US and France). But that just winds up undermining the end of the film, since Dr Manhattan is one of us, even if only obliquely. There's no credible reason to suppose we couldn't all be Dr Manhattans if we walked into those boxes. And in any event collecting around a fear of Dr Manhattan or alien squids or any of those things isn't fundamentally different than collecting around a fear of anything else.



Of course it is. Iowa hasn't shed any blood with Wisconsin last I checked.



It's toyed with at the conclusion, but I don't think the book actually makes the argument. And a good thing too, because it would explicitly undermine the moral checkmate aspect of the book. If it all really was pointless, there's no moral check. Dan can just say, "Look, this guy did it," and that's that. Back to the status quo.



Even if it were published it'd probably be dismissed as a fake coming from a fringe crank paper.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

By Ryan B. Jeri (Not a professional critic, just a movie fan)

Yesterday, March 2nd, 2009, I was privileged enough to see an advanced screening of Zach Snyder’s Watchmen. Despite my passes warning that me that it was not a guarantee I would actually get it, my friends and I were still sure to get to the theater over three hours early, not thinking it would be too hard to get seats. How wrong I was. The congested crowd lined the walls of the massive multiplex as we arrived, and more were to follow. By the time we moved up to the auditorium, the line was cut soon after my friends and I got in, so we were thankful (though it is sad, cause a person in a great Rorshcach costume didn‘t make it in, and was the only one in costume.) We still had to wait about an hour to get seats, as the theater was packed, and most of the middle rows were reserved for members of the distinguished press. Mostly middle-aged men, little white-haired old ladies and younger artsy types. Wonder how many of them have bought the action figures and posters?

Now to the actual film. The film opens silently, with the Paramount, Legendary Pictures, Warner Bros and DC Comics logos in black, against a bright yellow background that zooms out to reveal the now iconic smiley face pin on old man Edward Blake’s bathrobe, as he sits comfortably in his plush Manhattan apartment. Starting moments before the graphic novel begins, we are introduced to this alternate world of 1985 come 1984 on Blake’s TV screen, catching the casual viewer up to the (obviously fictionalized) historical context of the film. Moments later, a familiar “friend” comes knocking and a brutal, highly stylized fight ensues, ending of course, with the older man being thrown out of a window. And thus begins Zach Snyder’s Watchmen, the long-awaited and much hyped adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons seminal graphic novel.

As a big fan of comics, and even bigger fan of comic-based films and media, I first (and finally) got around to reading the book last summer after learning of the then-upcoming film. I was always sort of aware of WATCHMEN, and had heard of it mostly mentioned in the same breath as THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and Gaiman's SANDMAN. Needless to say, once I finished it, I was blown away, and quickly sought the ABSOLUTE EDITION, which made me understand the story better and appreciate Dave Gibbons' fantastic artwork even more. Without a doubt, it's the finest comic book/graphic novel ever written, and when spaced out over a period of time, re-readings only help the reader discover something new. Despite the specific period setting and when it was written, the fact that much of its message is still relevant is a testament to the talent and foresight of Moore and Gibbons. I have since skimmed through the book every once in a while and most recently read through the whole thing again the week before I saw the film.

I was a fan of Snyder’s work on 2004’s Dawn of the Dead, but found 300 hilariously bad, almost as if it was intentional. Artistically, it was extremely well-made and great to look at, but the actual message and story was so shallow, a five year old could swim in it without being supervised. But, the man didn’t write the script, and only brought what he could to it. At least the action and visuals were good. But what could this relatively new feature director do if he had a solid story? Enter Watchmen.

As for the movie, I have mixed feelings. I do have nits to pick, but there were just things included in the film that I felt brought down it’s integrity. Many scenes were indeed so cartoonishly, and unnecessarily violent, in certain parts, They made their comic book equivalents look like something from a Roger Moore Bond film. I read that the violence was meant to be unattractive and repulsive; Maybe if it was more realistic and gritty, but as shown in the theatrical cut, it seems almost as glorified as in the last Punisher and Rambo films (funny, since John makes a cameo). The slow motion effects only enhance it, and only reminded me of Snyder’s roots as a music video/commercial director. That ^^^^ might work in something like 300, but in a much more dramatic piece like Watchmen, it almost doesn’t slide. One can tell the exagerated action is only there to keep the younger teens and general masses awake, and "pumped" and from a business perspective, I don‘t blame him from including it. It’s his style, so I’m not going to complain.

The film is also so crammed with information, that like the novel, it isn’t light viewing. Casual moviegoers don’t need to go in expecting Spider-Man or even The Dark Knight. Like any grand epic, it has to be watched in the right mindset and mood to be fully enjoyed. Despite there beiing a lot of stuff happening to often keep the pacing up, it does feel like a two hour and forty minute film. I feel the part that slowed the film down the most was Dr. Manhattan’s origin. Honestly, I found it and his character boring in the book, but I do realize it’s importance to the story and to newcomers, so it was essentially kept in (though if you must, I recommend taking that restroom break during that part.) For me at least, the book took a few days to read comfortably, so I found it a bit jarring getting it's massive story crammed into a single sitting.

Thankfully, I have to say that in this case, the good points at least outweigh the bad. The acting from all fronts is phenomenal. Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s charismatic, natural, and confusingly likable but ultimately brief portrayal of the Comedian ranks up there with Heath Ledger as the Joker and Christopher Reeve as Superman in the pantheon of iconic comic book performances. Jackie Earl Haley also played Rorschach to a tee. though his voice almost got to Christian Bale Batman proportions at times, it suited the character fine, and was slightly less annoying (but then Rorschach is supposed to be off-putting, so it works.) Patrick Wilson was extremely likable and relatable as Dan, preserving the shy, geeky nature of the comic book character, while amping it up with the right degree of toughness ( the scene where he’s so pissed that he wails on Ozymandias was noting short of badass.) At times, he even reminded me of Michael Keaton for some reason. Malin Akerman as Sally was also much more likable than in the book, where I often found her cold and ^^^^^y (and she’s obviously very easy to look at.) Matthew Goode as Ozymandias certainly got the job done despite looking a little frail, but his cold fanaticism suited the character well, and he looked great in costume. Last of the titular Watchmen/Crime Busters but certainly not least, was Billy Crudup as Dr. Mannhattan. What can I say? He was creepy, emotionally detached and… blue, just like in the comic.

Visually, the film is also quite amazing, as it looks just like the comic come to life; and its tone is heightened by the fantastic selection of 60’s through 80’s songs on its soundtrack. As for the screenplay, most of the dialogue is ripped straight from the novel, to the point that big fans will certainly feel like they’ve seen it before ( I know I did.) That’s how faithful it is to the comic. Yes, the ending’s trigger is completely changed, but the effect and message is preserved, so no need to worry about that. One thing I personally loved, is that it does take the material seriously, while also carrying over the book’s sense of humor, so that we have a comic book film that is often dark, without being completely self-righteous and morose (like that other big DC Comics film from last year)

Overall, from my one viewing, Watchmen was a solid, albeit different kind of superhero film. Is it better or worse compared to the novel? A stupid question to ask. Both are two completely mediums. The story works as an amazing comic book read over time, and the film works as an entertaining, though sometimes overwhelming, and visceral experience that preserves the same message, despite feeling a little too “Hollywood“ towards the end. The graphic novel is in my mind the greatest ever written, and the film is one of the best comic book movies ever made.

If the sprawling epic comic has to be faithfully condensed into a two and a half hour (or so) movie, Watchmen (the theatrical cut), is as good as it’s going to get, even though it still has its flaws. In my mind, a big-budget, twelve episode miniseries on HBO would have done the episodic story much more justice, but the film still works as an entertaining “Watchmen’s Greatest-Hits” reel. I’m sure the Ultimate Director’s Extended Box Set Jesus Edition Blu Ray will improve most of the movie’s flaws, and I'm more sure to enjoy the prospective four hour version more in the comfort of my own home. Bottom line: real fans probably won’t be disappointed, if they can get past some of Snyder’s cartoony excess. At least it’s stylish without getting rid of the substance.

I look forward to seeing it again in the near future.

Watchmen: Theatrical Cut: 3.75/5

EXCELLENT, very thorough review! I'm happy to hear about the acting, especially JDM (it seemed like he'd nail the role but I've been waiting for more confirmation on that). The over-the-top violence seems to the the problem that most people are having with it, and the Rambo, Punisher, and Roger Moore comments make me nervous... that remains my second-biggest fear for the film, behind the watering down and bowdlerization of favorite scenes. Very balanced review, man! And from the sounds of it, I'll probably land with a similar outlook.

 

[barbelith]

I'm happy to hear about the acting, especially JDM (it seemed like he'd nail the role but I've been waiting for more confirmation on that).

He's great!

The over-the-top violence seems to the the problem that most people are having with it

I've been avoiding commenting on the violence, because (believe it or not) I'm really trying to stay positive. But this is one of the things that annoys me about the film, as if "adult" meant nudity and gore rather than complexities like Rorchach's shrink. I think people will like it if they go in with certain expectations and allowances.

 

[BadMoon]

I was just given the new Bluray of the graphic nove. It is awesome! Never saw a comic book done on DVD. I like it!

 

[Entropy]

I was just given the new Bluray of the graphic nove. It is awesome! Never saw a comic book done on DVD. I like it!

Yup. As others have said, I think it's the best thing to come from the movie being made.

 

[Scar]

That's certainly a ... unique claim. Good luck finding a class in logic that lets you proceed under that assumption!

Try the Hurley text beginning the chapter elucidating fallacies. Philosophy department at the University of Scranton where I received my undergrad uses that text. Took intro and symbolic there.

Well in fact there are, but I suspect the problem here is that we're defining the squid differently. I'm looking at the threat and you're looking at the tentacles. Which is fair enough, but even going by tentacles I don't see how that's fundamentally different than any other "other."

You're looking at the word "threat" rather than the nature of the threat itself. The concept of the Other as put forward phenomenologically by Heidegger was that we always inevitably understand the Other as a subject of our own experience. When projecting the image of the Other upon other humans, we understand our own humanity through the humanity of other humans. It's why objects and animals are always foreign and beyond one's Dasein. You understand them only through involvement with them in circumspective concern, but you'll never be able to understand your own humanity better through them. When the threat is externalized, distant, foreign, and so utterly "other" that we cannot relate or project upon it, and when that object becomes a threat, there should be little else which causes as much fear and apprehension. Just phenomenological theory, but it holds.

Not really, because I don't think Moore actually winds up on the side of temporary peace in the end. That would undermine the entire book and in any event the novel doesn't actually come out and make that argument. It's more like Moore is struggling with a niggling doubt, which manifests in subtle ways in the penultimate chapter. He seems (through Jon, and through Dan, and through Laurie, and even through Rorshach) to be choosing peace but also reflexively doubting whether that's naive. Otherwise there's no moral checkmate in the book. None at all. And since the entire climax hinges on the moral checkmate, he's obviously casting a vote, albeit one laced with a hint of self-doubt.

How does it seem doubtful? It seems like there is an inevitable reluctance to wrestle with the reality that peace is finite, which even Veidt comes to suspect. Rorschach doesn't have doubt concerning man's capacity for violent behavior, rather he embraces that a tendency towards violence and evil within the human character can become manifest, and when that happens, violence must rise to oppose but he finds his actions to be in the name of good. An equal and opposite reaction, though running along the same violent path. Rorschach was killed for that same reason, believing one individual acting to murder hundreds of thousands constituted evil, whereas Dr. M deduced even a brief period of peace was still a period with the absence of massive conflict; if only temporary, it was desirable to the alternative.

Right. A completely arbitrary demarcation.

Wrong. It's the linchpin of the plan. It's why they needed the squid, or at least Dr. M, and didn't use some contrived human culture existing on some island chain, hell-bent on eradicating the rest of the world to establish their own utopia.

I don't see where this "rather" enters into it. All religions are based on myths to "explain" things beyond our control.

You said, "some people would prefer that". When entering the concept of preference, what one people would "rather" is necessarily just that. Preferring to have control of one's life taken away isn't an option that people collectively opt to do.

I disagree. He still has human memory. Human form. Human feeling (check out his final panel watching Laurie sleep. He's happy because she's found a measure of happiness). He doesn't even abandon the earth - he takes a side in the moral checkmate and murders Rorshach. In any event there's nothing explicitly stopping any of us from becoming Dr Manhattan, which significantly changes what he represents into an evolutionary possibility. The very fact that you're calling him Jon says it all.

I'll say again, "There's also no credible reason to believe the experiment ever could be replicated. If we could all be Dr. Manhattans, why was the experiment never replicated to create a race of supermen? Just a thought that I think many, many people would jump at the opportunity to ascend from man to god."

I call my dog Lucy, that doesn't make her human. Species of Galapagos finch may diverge in a single generation, but because they were once considered one species, does that make it any less true that they are not a new one entirely when possessed of divergent, mutated traits and incapable of interbreeding? The Basilosaurus had the remnants of a primitive hindlimb, but is still deemed the largest of the prehistoric predatory whales and not a terrestrial quadruped. Possessing the vestiges of a species does not qualify one as a member of that species.

It's interesting that Dr. M refers to himself as divorced from humanity, pondering creating some humans one day. Leads one to think he may no longer be entirely human if speaking in such a way, or at least that he doesn't find himself to be as such. Whether accidents of nature or not, new species are capable of arising in nature, and if Dr. M is arose from a natural accident and possesses the adequate traits we use biologically to determine a new species, then he's just that.

There's nothing in the book that says it can't be. I don't know how you're defining "credible" but the gear is there, it worked, and we're not told anything changed after the fact. Actually I think Moore dropped the ball on that one; it could have been addressed in a single sentence.

No physics vault attempting matter translocation or transmogrification will ever work the same way twice, often necessarily based on the metalic alloys used in the process, usually titanium or aluminum. A result in one test doesn't guarantee the same result with the same machinery in the next. I would say that Moore actually had a great deal of prescience there.

It's not snark; it's truth. When was the last time you and your neighbor got into a fight that drew blood? Literally? I haven't been in a fight in my entire life. To say that peace only comes through blood is just factually untrue.

Facts aren't untrue, that's what makes them facts, to delve into semantics. I've been in numerous scuffles throughout the course of my life, usually with people feeling the need to prove their mettle against a man of relatively thin build who has black belts. The territorial, hormone-laden element is most certainly prevalent today. At some point, someone fought so that you and your neighbor could live where you both do, and live there in relative peace. That peace was brought about through conflict by people at one point or another. Again, it's just reality. It's not pretty, it's often bloody.

Nope. In fact, it doesn't even make any literal sense. If nothing ever ends then the new peace won't end. Oh. And in any case it makes a mockery of Dr Manhattan's decision to kill Rorshach. Why bother?

Again, a period of abbreviated peace is better than a more protracted period of war. I will say I agree with you that the line doesn't make much sense unless taken in the context in which it is stated, when Veidt says it was worth it "in the end". Dr. M's comment is an allusion to the cyclic, history repeating itself.

Poor guy. I do find it interesting that he's often held up as the only one that sticks to his principles, when those principles threaten world peace. It's a gray world.

And isn't it really interesting that a grey world is most adequately demonstrated by a man in a black and white mask who deals in absolutes? Poor Rorschach.

 

[barbelith]

I was just given the new Bluray of the graphic nove. It is awesome! Never saw a comic book done on DVD. I like it!

It would be absolutely brilliant if they'd hired a full voice cast.

 

[tomandshell]

I agree with you.

 

[LOTRFan]

Got my Blu today, can't wait to watch it; and the film for freeeeeeeeeeeeeee.