WATCHMEN Movie Discussion (SPOILERS allowed)!

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I think they should use MORE Slo Mo. I hate fast cutting, cant see crap, that they keep using. I love to be able to SEE the action.

I guess I'm more old-school in that I don't think they need to show most of it, either slow or fast. I think that a lot of those types of things have more power, STORY-wise, when they *don't* show every detail.

Eh, just different tastes :duff
 
Oh I feel ya. I wouldnt mind a more old school action scene every once in a while...but all this fast cutting IN YOUR FACE stuff is just annoying. So its refreshing to see some slo mo every once in a while.
 
Makes you wonder if the other directors had as much respect and love for Alan Moore's stories if he wouldn't be so anti-hollywood as he is today.

*sigh* It's not just about changing the plot, it's the very nature of forcing a square peg into a round hole. Squeezing Watchmen into a live action 3 hr story turns it into a different beast. He has no interest in that beast, you do.

I know, right?! It makes me feel old... and I'm not even that old! :(

ugh, kids these days... with their slo-mo and style over substance. :rolleyes: :lol
 
Uh....yes. And you can suck it. :lol Snyder creates wonderful shots. He's a fantstic visual director who includes a lot of detail in his shots. He will improve.

That makes him a great cinematographer, which I more than happily agree with! :banana

Directing is more than just how cool a shot looks. It's how you put ALL the pieces together (acting, visuals, sound, editing, etc, etc, etc) together to make the story resonate as a whole.

Snyder is a one-trick pony right now. It was cool and fresh in the Dawn of the Dead remake... but honestly, he shouldn't be directing story-heavy films with lots of plot details. 300 - straightforward plot, pretty good final product... Dawn of the Dead - straightforward plot, pretty awesome... Watchmen - complicated plot (one of the MOST complicated!), looked cool, story-wise it's a mess.
 
Last edited:
Directing has a lot to with visual as it does story telling. Its a half and half thing. Snyder is about 65% visual and 35% story/character/ect....

He will improve. And you can dislike the movie till the squids come, but the fact of the matter is...if he didnt do this movie, someone else would've...and it wouldnt have been at all like the GN. It would've been PG-13, with action galore, and not one single ounce of the GN.
 
The changed ending worked well for me.

It did for me as well. Before with the squid, the ending was powerful but Manhattan's leaving made sense but didn't exactly mesh well other than to prove his disconnection of humanity even in the final act.

With the focus on Dr. Manhattan as the "enemy" in the film it makes him make that moral decision and makes his connection to leaving much more evident. Adrian united the nations under the threat of Manhattan he has to make the serious decision of whether or not to be seen. Its easy for a world to plan for an attack that would never happen. They unite, they plan and they sing Kumbaya because they are preparing for a threat that never arrives. If Manhattan is ever seen again it pushes the countries to war, a war they can't win. So Manhattan either stays and lives confined. He is seen and pushes the countries' hands and has to take them out showing that the world cannot win and causing hatred for America because they housed and supported the World's destroyer. He is seen and allows himself to be "destroyed" but then has to go into hiding. So he does the only thing that is understandable and shows his renewed interest in humanity by leaving and allowing the first scenario to play out. If he is never seen then the world never has to put their war plan in action and continues planning for something that never occurs like nations have for decades. The irony comes that after he leaves and Adrian revels in his victory Rorschach's journal is the only thing not accounted for and even if it were published and not widely believed it'd cause people to search for answers and sometimes that doubt can undo a masterful plan. Do you think America's enemies really need concrete proof to think the worst of us? The ending is poetic and the only part I didn't like was not seeing that huge squid on screen but I didn't mind it at all.

I read that it has made 50 million so far.

Part of me hopes it makes enough money to be a success but not enough money to be a box office smash. Why? When Watchmen was popular as a comic, DC was pushing both Gibbons and Moore to produce a sequel, a prequel or a spin off. They even threatened to do it without them. Eventually they backed off and even Gibbons mentioned that he was glad they eventually saw the light.

If this movie ever hit TDK status (which it won't) but anywhere near I fear that WB/Paramount would be too driven by money to avoid pushing for a sequel or a prequel ala DC a couple of decades ago. If it makes just enough then people will leave sleeping dogs to lie and we'll get this film and anything more.

Has anyone found anything about Dave Gibbon's thoughts on the final picture ?

He loves it, has been very vocal about enjoying the way the film has been made and the care that Synder and company have been giving it. He even defended the ending passionately in an interview a while back saying that it makes sense with the changes.

OK. We get it. You hated the movie. How many posts are you going to write about the movie and/or director? You hated it, so please do us all a favor and move on.

Actually the important part of a discussion forum is just that discussion. If he didn't like the film and talks about it then it gives those who feel the same way and those who oppose an avenue to discuss. It'd be pretty boring if the thread was filled with just "I loved it!" or "I hated it" posts....
 
Im glad im just a fan and could never ever be a director or producer, because honestly people are freaking impossible to deal with.

Get away from the source material, people complain that its not authentic enough

Stay faithful to the source material, people complain that it was a word for word copy and not different enough (even thoug the source material is among the best ever made, as it is in this case, if it aint broke dont fix it)

Stay inbetween, people complain that it was niether creative or faithful.....

seriously critics and others have to get thier stories together.. stop walking the line so you can jump back and fourth when its convenient.....
 
Last edited:
Actually the important part of a discussion forum is just that discussion. If he didn't like the film and talks about it then it gives those who feel the same way and those who oppose an avenue to discuss. It'd be pretty boring if the thread was filled with just "I loved it!" or "I hated it" posts....

Yeah, but when I hate something I have my say and I'm done with it. Seems like he's wasting a lot of time talking about something he didn't like. But it's his life, so more power to him.
 
I think it was the best movie we could have hoped for. I said it a long time ago that this particular project would have diehard fanboys hating anything on screen that wasn't 12 hours long and taken every frame piece by piece from the panels of the book. I also said that the an adaptation in 2 hours and a half would lose the general public. The music was a bit jarring, the best parts were the instrumental score and I thought the whole thing should have been that way but overall I was fine with the acting performances, thought Rorschach, Ozy and Manhattan were nailed, scratched my head a bit as what was cut together made the Comedian almost overly likable instead of a tragic anti-hero as was in the book and fanboy over just how many parts were spot on the panels from the book.
 
Wizard Universe's Review:

[REVIEW] 'WATCHMEN'
'Wizard's' take on director Zack Snyder's film adaptation of the seminal graphic novel. Is it good? Is it bad? Find out!

By Mel Caylo
Posted 3/6/2009



Spoilers ahead! Beware!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's finally here. After languishing in development hell for over 20 years, the "Watchmen" movie is upon us. The film adaptation of the most revered graphic novel of all time is supposed to be every comic book fan's dream come true, but does it live up to expectations?

Wizard got an early look at the film and we're here to tell you if "Watchmen" is worth watching.

PROS

FAITHFUL TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL
If "300" was Snyder's "I have a crush on you" note to comic book fans, then "Watchmen" is his love letter to them. It is the closest page-for-page adaptation of a graphic novel ever put to film. Snyder and his team took the most revered work in comics and transformed it into a brilliant masterpiece on screen. Many key lines were lifted directly from the book, and much of Dave Gibbons' groundbreaking panel work was amazingly reproduced on the screen. However, as has been widely publicized, the ending has been altered and purists are crying foul (The filmmakers felt the original ending with an interdimensional alien squid would have taken too much movie time to set up, hence the change). But the new ending also made a lot of sense and was able to circle back to the final outcome.

A NEW APPRECIATION OF 'WATCHMEN'
Viewers will appreciate the beauty of Watchmen all over again. While some of the comic's depth is missing–with all the exposition Moore included as back-up material in the issues, it was impossible to incorporate it all (which is one of the reasons Moore wanted nothing to do with the movie)–the spectacle of seeing these characters and imagery leaping from the page to the big screen was essentially geek-gasmic. The sight of the Owl Ship swooping above the New York cityscape gave me goose bumps. I was awed by the magnificent costumes–especially the latex-ified update of Silk Spectre II's outfit–and mesmerized by Rorschach's ever-changing, ink-blotted mask. Even the appearance of a CGI Bubastis made me smile.

THE "R" RATING
By insisting from the moment he signed on that the movie had to be a hard "R," Snyder was able to put his stamp on the film. To wit, there are super-violent fight sequences (take notice especially of the scene where a gang of "top knots" attempt to mug Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Juspeczyk in an alley), an all-too-graphic attempted rape of Silk Spectre by the Comedian, gruesome torture shots (Rorschach's specialty) and even a Skinemax-worthy lovemaking scene. The "R" rating also afforded Snyder the ability to show full frontal male nudity in the case of Dr. Manhattan. It gives all-new meaning to the term "blue balls."

JACKIE EARLE HALEY AS WALTER KOVACS/RORSCHACH
The "Little Children" actor is absolutely chilling as Walter Kovacs/Rorschach. Even with a sock over his head, Haley convincingly captured the gravitas of this complex, troubled character–from the eerie, raspy voice to the uncompromising, merciless attitude. You know what Rorschach's fate ultimately is and when it draws closer there's enough palpable anxiety that you'll feel like it was you who Ozymandias punched in the stomach. Snyder punctuates this feeling by inserting Nite Owl II into the scene to witness the killing, and his gut-wrenching "Nooooooo!" could be felt in the back of the theatre.

MUSIC
The choice of music on the soundtrack is interesting, considering the film is set in 1985. While there are songs from the era like Nina's "99 Luftballoons" and Tears for Fears' "Everybody Wants to Rule the World," there's also a good supply of songs from 1960s recording artists like Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Simon & Garfunkel. A rather nice surprise is the inclusion of a couple of tracks by poet and songwriter Leonard Cohen, including his performance of the haunting "Hallelujah" (Look it up on YouTube and you'll see what I mean).

CONS

MATTHEW GOODE AS ADRIAN VEIDT/OZYMANDIAS
Goode's attempt to play the smartest man in the world comes across as fey and uninspiring, not regal and arrogant as he's depicted in the comic. I understand why the filmmakers chose for him to speak with a German accent but it also detracted from the portrayal. Also, isn't he supposed to be about 40 years old? (Hint: Yep, he is.)

SCENES ON MARS
While crucial to the storyline, the scenes with Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre II on Mars were mind-numbingly boring and made worse by Malin Akerman's cringe-worthy performance.

BERNIE AND BERNARD
The loquacious newsstand owner and comic book-reading kid are relegated to cameos, but look for more of them on the DVD (Plus, an animated movie of the comic Tales of the Black Freighter is coming out on a separate DVD just after the film hits in theatres).

HIGHLIGHTS

OPENING CREDIT SEQUENCE
The fantastic opening credit sequence brings the audience up to speed to the time when the movie opens in 1985, and essentially, it doubles as a feast for fanboy eyes. After the film opens with the murder of the Comedian, it segues into a succession of snippets that chronicles the emergence of "masks" in the late 1930s and 1940s and how they're a part of this alternate history of the United States. It goes from their origin (see if you can catch a young Walter Kovacs), to their integration into society, to their recruitment by the government (for both covert and not-so-covert missions–some of this stuff is not in the comic book so I won't spoil the surprises here), all the way to their downfall and becoming outlawed by the Keene Act. These scenes alone will inspire repeat viewings and freeze-framing when the eventual DVD comes out. Look for cameos by David Bowie and Mick Jagger lookalikes in the Studio 54 snapshot.

FIGHT SCENE IN ALLEY
While watching Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Juspeczyk fight the gang of Top Knots in an alley, I can't remember how many times I gasped and said, "Oooh." Not even "The Dark Knight" featured bones popping out of the skin.

DR. MANHATTAN IN MOLOCH'S HIDEOUT
When the Blue Wonder confronts two of Moloch's cronies in a bar and obliterates them, their guts are splattered all over their molls, but mostly on the ceiling. Gruesome. And awesome.

RORSHACH IN PRISON
From the scene where Walter Kovacs makes short work of an attacker in the prison cafeteria to his confrontation with Big Figure and his goons, these sequences are awesome when brought to cinematic life, especially when he growls, "None of you understand. I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!"

BOTTOM LINE

This is certainly not a traditional Hollywood "mystery adventure" (as the studio, Warner Bros., is marketing it as). By sticking very closely to the original source material, Snyder (thankfully) chose not to dumb it down for conventional audiences so that it'd be easier for them to swallow. It may feature superheroes, but this is a high-concept superhero story, and Terry Gilliam–who was once attached to direct–didn't claim the project to be "unfilmable" for nothing.

Will the uninitiated watch this film? The Watchmen aren't exactly household names like Spider-Man and Batman. A quick, unscientific survey amongst my friends who don't read comics revealed that most of them are curious enough to check it out. But is the mainstream audience ready for a superhero film that's darker than "The Dark Knight?" In the post-9/11 era, yes, but it's a long leap to take.

Those not familiar with the source material may be somewhat confused by the film and shocked to see that the good guy-turned-bad guy gets away with killing millions of people and doesn't get his comeuppance. It may unnerve them to see superheroes have sex, commit genocide and perform torture. And they will not like the sight of a superhero killing a pregnant woman in cold blood, no matter what the context. But in the current world climate, nothing shocks audiences anymore.

With "Watchmen's" complex storyline, political overtones, two-hour-and-36-minute running time and "R" rating, Warner Bros. is taking a tremendous risk with this film, exacerbated by the fact they have to share a percentage of the worldwide gross of the box office receipts with Twentieth Century Fox, which successfully argued they still owned the "Watchmen" movie rights. The film will undoubtedly make the most money out of any Alan Moore adaptation (it only has to beat the $179 million worldwide gross pulled in by "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"), and Warner Bros. will be happily rewarded. However, any idea about franchising "Watchmen" into a series of movies should be given up.

Is this the best comic book movie ever? No. (I give that distinction to "The Dark Knight.") But it's a faithful, well-made film that the endemic audience will embrace despite the controversy surrounding the new ending. What's more, Snyder's director's cut, which will be included on the DVD, will–I'm sure–just endear them to the film more.

VERDICT

If you're a comics fan, and even if you're not a fan of the Watchmen graphic novel itself, you owe it to the medium you love to see the reverence it is paid by this film. That alone is worth the price of admission. Go watch the "Watchmen."
 
You know what I love most about this movie? The conversations we're having here and elsewhere about filmmaking, politics, philosophy, and most importantly: blue junk.

I think the best similarity of the movie to the book is it's ability to have give each viewer (or reader) a unique experience; and it's exciting to learn about all these experiences through conversation. The best part is, aside from the crazy youtube guy, people are being smart and civil about it! :horror

Love it or hate it, in those respects, this film is a success.
 
picture1acx.png


^^^^^^^!!!

Watchmen is not meant to entertain you!
 
Back
Top