Watchmen
 

The Watchmen movie opens soon.

I've never read the graphic novel, but the movie looks interesting.

I wonder, should I pick up a copy to read before I see the movie or not?

Dunno if you should or shouldn't, but I read this last year in anticipation, and it was very good. I am not a fangirl by any stretch but I can appreciate good story and good art. I'm hoping we get around to seeing it this weekend.

We bought our tickets for the Dome - Saturday at 9:45 am.

But I just read the msnbc review. oh. my.

That's what I'm talking about, it sounds like that review was written by someone that had no idea what Watchmen was about (ie had not read the book) and so in large part did not get it.

On the other hand, if the movie does not hold true to the book it could still be a good movie as long as you have not read the original story, I Robot for example.

I think I'll wait for the reviews:

If:

Readers like it and Non-readers don't = Read the book first

If Readers don't and Non-readers do = Don't read it first

If Readers and Non-readers don't = Not an issue, I'll just skip it.

If Readers and non-readers like it = Read the book first so I can get some of the inside jokes.

So, in the name of science, if you see the movie please post if you liked it or not and if you have read the book or not.

Thanks.

From what I've seen of the movie, it follows the graphic novel practically word for word. The only major changes are the elimination of the “story within the story” pirate ship comic and…

(put in spoilers for those who haven’t read the graphic novel)

I think you should read the graphic novel not just because of the film but because its a great piece of work, comic book or not. I feel the need to avoid the critics on this one simply because I think most of them won't get the film. Many expect another Dark Knight or X-Men because they are comic book films. What I think they dont or won't get is that its more of a commentary on the whole idea of super-hero stereo-type.

Well thanks for ruining that :rolleyes: though I guess since it's not there it's not too much of a spoiler.

My fear is that they haven't eliminated anything. That it is all on the screen but because of the nature of movies it really can't all be on the screen so it is a series of hints and references to what fans will know happened in the book (see several Harry Potter movies and the last two LotR movies).

I don't want a perfect on-screen recreation of the book. I read the book, I've already had that experience. More so since this is a visual book.

But I'll be seeing it (though I hear it is about 23 hours long -- really, 2:43 -- so that may be tough). Probably next weekend, though.

What's to ruin? If you have read the book, then it should make sense why they took it out. If you haven't, then you have no idea what it is, and it won't be missed by you. I spoilerized the only thing that had to do with the actual plot of the story.

The "Pirate" storyline is being made into a cartoon feature. I'm not 100% sure but it might be included on the dvd release or alone.

I haven't read the GN, and I'm glad I'll be seeing it thru the (IMAX on Sunday) lens of whether it's a good movie, and not whether they did justice to the GN.

Found this link through boingboing. Click on it and then hit "watch this movie". Brilliant! Watchmen as a Saturday morning cartoon.

That was great! (Don't click if you haven't read it/seen the movie.)


JW - I would rather not know about the choices they made until I actually see it for myself. Guess that's just me. I've been avoiding as many commercials as possible, too.

We're going to the 2:40 show today in the Director's Hall at The Bridge.

We saw this last night. I hadn't read it previously and in fact knew very little about it beyond very broad brush strokes.

That said, I found this to be one of the worst written and worst directed films I've seen in years. It was awful.

Are spoilers ok in here? There may be some in what follows, but I'll try to avoid anything really specific.

I will say that it is a very faithful adaptation of the novel. It does capture the look very well and pretty much if it is in the book it is in the movie. Obviously not every panel or word but pretty much all the foibles, quirks, and issues are touched upon.

And this makes it only a mediocre movie at best. I suspect I would have hated it if I weren't familiar with the book. Books can cover territory with a scope that just isn't feasible in a single standalone movie. Watchmen is essentially a half-dozen creation stories rolled into one thing with a minimal of plot driving things along until the very end when that minimal plot expands into something so big as to overwhelm what came before.

In moving Watchmen to film they apparently said "how do we fulfill the letter of the novel even if the spirit doesn't survive" when the question should always (in my never particularly humble opinion) be "how do we translate the spirit of the novel knowing that the body can't survive."

The literal approach of the movie would have worked much better as a 10-episode HBO series (I know, that is hardly an original thought). As it is, I quite honestly looked down at my watch at one point and thought "oh my god, we're about 100 minutes in and Rorschach isn't even in jail yet." Fortunately, the prison stuff is something that got cut back on. If nothing else the sex scene needed to be cut, I don't think giggling was the intended response to that.

Anyway, it just barely kept my interest throughout, and there were some crazy awesome visuals. But even when taken from graphic novels, movies are a different medium than books and tough decisions need to be made.

I loved it! It was mostly faithful to he book, but there was a lot that was left out - mostly minor stuff that wasn't needed for the plot. The only major change was the one I mentioned upthread.

I think it did an excellent job in translating the theme and feel of the book to the screen.

The casting was perfect; with one disappointing exception. The actor who played Veidt was too young, to thin, and too boyish looking.

A lot more glowing blue penes than we saw in the book, BTW.

Well I can't say that's getting me fired up to see this movie. How about blue (or other color) female bits?

There is some female flesh - but it's not blue.

Who's Watching the Watchmen? We did.

Having read the novel and realizing well beforehand that there was no way a director could possibly capture the entire essense of the book (because there is far too much material to convey within 4 hours let alone the mere 2 hours 43 minutes of the film), I have to say that I was impressed. The story was going to be comprimised from the start, yet even knowing that beforehand, I felt that the movie did more than to merely retell a comic book story I had already read.

First off, there was the casting. With the exception of the casting of the character Adrian Veidt, I felt all other cast members were right on! Most of the actors lent to their comic book characters an even deeper, more human (flawed or not), soulful life.

Then there were the action sequences. How they play out on film is MUCH more powerful and impressive than reading them in a flat 2-dimensional medium.

The voices were pretty much right on, too, for how I heard the characters in my head when I read the novel. Rorshach's in particular was way better than I could have imagined.

There was the music. The director's choice of Philip Glass' piece during Dr. Manhattan's "origins" monologue was absolute perfection! And there was the way in which that particular sequence was shot as well...in flashback snippets... which supported the character's perspective on life.

On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It seemed that the film took me to a place where I could experience the story in a deeper, more tactile way, through cinematography, sound, spoken dialogue and music. It made the graphic novel much more human and real to me.

I would only wish two things: 1) That there had been a way to have told ALL the material in this format, and 2) That the director's "exit music" had not been so Godawful.

For $13, it's the most entertaining thing I've seen thus far this year!

The music selections were what I liked the least about the film, or second-to-least besting the very unsexy sex scene.

I would not go as far as Tom to say it was one of the worst films in years. But I don't think it's made for people who haven't read the book. All it really did for me was make me want to read the book.

I really did enjoy the performances by Jackie Earle Haley and Patrick Wilson.

I'm mostly with Alex and LSPE on this one.

While it was mostly faithful to the comic, it didn't capture the feeling that I got from the original work. It was just a series of scenes "come to life". I didn't find the acting offensive - the casting was particularly good - and the pacing was enough to keep me from drifting or getting bored.

Last week, I read a review that called the music supervision "lazy". That struck me, because I can't ever recall a review for any movie that singled out the music supervision at all. Then, A.O. Scott from the NY Times commented out in his review on the use of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" : "...can we please have a moratorium on the use of this song in movies? Yes, I too have heard there was a secret chord that David played, and blah blah blah, but I don’t want to hear it again. Do you?"

I'm with them. Most if not all of the songs in the movie came directly from other movies' soundtracks. "The Times They Are A'Changin"? "The Sound of Silence"? "Koyaanisqatsi"?!? Come on. I can imagine the conversation at the studio: "We need something that evokes the feeling that that Leonard Cohen song from Shrek does." "We have the budget. Let's just get that song." Bad music choices pulled me out of a movie that I was only tenuously connected to in the first place - over and over again.

For the most part music in movies rolls by me unnoticed so the fact that I noticed it frequently here was noteworthy (not necessarily bad but not noteworthy). That said, I rolled my eyes hard at Ride of the Valkyries during the Vietnam scene complete with incoming helicopters.

I'm sure it was meant as homage but it was just so obvious.

I thought the movie was a mess. The opening credits were interminable and agonizingly trite. The music cliche. The characters dull. My God, the whole movie was a bore.

Except ...

Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach -- he was brilliant. JEH carried the movie on his shoulders with a performance of a lifetime. Like Mickey Rourke's Marv in Sin City, you hoped every scene would just be about him. Alas, it was not -- and it was painful. Very, very painful.

He also had the movies best line:

Are Bill & I the only ones who loved the movie?

I'm thinking that I should read the GN if I'm interested.

No, I rather enjoyed it.

I have never read the GN, so I liked it just as a movie. Even though all the daming critiques noted above are spot on.


But I'm a sucker for washed up Superheroes stories.

Even though I kinda liked it, I could tell it lost something in spiritual if not literal translation from the graphic novel. Because certainly there couldn't be such fanboy mania over this material if the GN weren't way, way better.

It is.

I thought it was a fantastic film. Faithful, well cast, well adapted from the source material. I think the music, though odd, was there to establish the nostalgia of it, since it's a period film. I "think" that was the choice they made to establish that, which I don't think was the best choice. I think the director missed some opportunities to set up the film properly, so many who didn't read the GN had little set up of what they were getting into. My sence from reviews on the WWW were that most were sizing it up to Dark Knight et al. and not as a film on its own. That is, although it's super-heroes, the story goes deeper into the social commentary and the grey line between good and bad and the human side of the Super-Hero existance. I think the tone of the film lost a bit of that and I think that hurts the experiance for those who've not read the GN. I guess I can only liken it too if "Rosebud" was left out of Citizen Kane.

It's flawed but well worth experiancing and based on the above, I think the GN should be read beforehand.

I'll join my voice to the minority here who loved it. And I haven't read the novel...yet. I've been wanting to, but just haven't. I'm definitely picking it up right away.

As much as I like the "Boy Scout" superheroes like Superman, I also love a flawed hero. So I think it was the characters in Watchmen that made for a more enjoyable movie experience. Especially Rorschach. What an awesomely psychotic anti-hero that you just have to love.

I rather enjoyed the film, so, maybe we're less of a minority that was previously though (just, perhaps, not as vocal?). I'm a huge fan of the flawed hero and I didn't hate the music, even if it was a bit... copy-catish.

I have more questions than answers, and I want to read the GN. But, is it too late for me? Are things ruined? I think I'm going to order it, anyway... but figured it's worth asking of those who know the GN.

I should add: there were a great number of children under, say, 8 at the movie... here in Utah. Theaters were packed. I can't imagine all of them were happy. Did they market the film to a crowd that's expecting X-Men?

It depends. As long and packed with semi-pointless backstory as the movie was there is quite a bit more in the book (and with enough extra that it is no longer semi-pointless). For example, you'll know enough about the people involved to actually care about



The ending is different. Better in the movie, in my opinion.

That stupid lion thing won't seem completely out of place (they should have cut it since it was completely without explanation).

A lot more detail on Rorschach, which is good.

All in all, I'd say that if you were intrigued then read the GN. It certainly wouldn't be a burn. But at the same time I was flipping through it last night and it is remarkable how much of it is just a shot for shot storyboard of what was in the movie. So I might suggest waiting a couple months for the movie to fade.

I'm not a big fan of the GN but the movie did make me appreciate it more in that the huge flaws in the movie shined a light on the subtle good things about the novel.

Yes! Read the GN. There is so much depth and layering that the movie could not show. And since they changed one of the main plot points for the movie, you still get to discover the original plot device at the end.

There were small children in the theater when we saw it too. I know a lot of people are going to see it knowing nothing about it beforehand. If they think they are seeing just another Spiderman or X-Men, they are going to be very disappointed, confused, or both.

Oh, and unlike the movie the novel really does feel like it exists in the 1980s. They told you this in the movie but nothing (in my opinion) really sold that beyond some of the music and the desktop computer on Ozy's desk.

I saw it in a reserved-seat theater in the balcony bar. So no children in sight. Very nice. I'm always amazed at what parents will take their children to. I can kind of understand this one if they didn't pay much attention. But my favorite was the four-year-old sitting in front of me during Four Brothers.

But kids would have been really traumatized if

Any parent that is taking a child to an R-rated movie without first previewing the movie is a stupid parent and deserves a swift kick in the head. If you can't do the kicking yourself then send the offenders my way and I'll kick them for you.

Back to Rorschach...

Here's how much I knew going into the movie: "The dude wears a lame mask with ink blots on the face? Ugh...I'm probably going to hate this guy."

Leaving the movie: "Dude, Rorschach rocks! Best. Hero. Ever!"

He got all the best lines. And even though the "bat growl" bugged me in Batman, it worked with Rorschach. And with his beautifully written dialog I could listen to him all day.

I have a really funny story about that and a movie called "Pulp Fiction" :D

I imagine the creepy moving inkblots on the mask was one of the movie's major advantages over the comic. It was really cool-looking, and impossible to achieve on flat-panels.

But speaking of flat ... the movie just had a certain flat dullness that I feel couldn't have been the same tone as the GN. And it's not like me reading it now could reproduce the same effect it gave fanboys 20 years ago. So even though I'll likely check it out, I'm not expecting a revelation.


So I guess I'll have to take it on faith that it was great, but that filming it practically verbatem (sans the ending and the other comic story weaved thru) does not provide the same thrill.

To me, it was a very interesting exercise ... and I liked it well enough. But it did not soar. And I was expecting better.

Sheesh, the way fan peeps creamed their pants over the trailer led me to expect fantasticness.

On the other end of the spectrum, I know people completely unfamiliar with the material who are indeed expecting X-Men.

Well, we know how the trailers for films really expresess exactly what the film will be. :rolleyes: heheh. I think most of us Fan Peeps were more excited to see the visuals come to life than anything. I think AintItCoolNews.com's review more than explaines that idea.

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/40225

Saw this matrix from upthread. I've been watching a few discussion threads at various places and must say I'm not seeing a solid trend.

One thing I find interesting is the huge spread at Rotten Tomatoes between the cream of the crop critics and everybody else. The "cream of the crop" is at 43% and everybody else was 70% favorable. I don't know that I've seen such a large split in quite a while.

I decided to add another row to the matrix:

Mixed reviews from readers and non readers: Wait for it on Blu-Ray via Netflix

I saw Eyes Wide Shut opening weekend in a packed theater. Some dipsh¡t parents brought their two kids with them. Both kids appeared to be under 10 and both of the kids, in spite of numerous shushes, talked through the entire film! "Mommy, what's that?" "What is he doing to her?" "Why are they wearing masks?" I was ready to orphanize those kids!
Oh do tell!

Of course (to continue off topic, but when does that ever constrain me) I feel really bad for parents in the reverse situation of inappropriate trailers attached to otherwise appropriate movies.

I forget what movie it was but it was something perfectly fine for kids but independently distributed. Attached to it as trailers were several horror movies with very intense trailers (I remember The Grudge 2 was one of them). Several crying kids by the time the movie started.

Saw it. Haven't read the GN.

I enjoyed it. Quite a bit. Of course, it's easier to write about the few bits I didn't like then write a whole post about the things I did, so don't read too much into this post ending up soundling kinda negative, I really did enjoy it.

Having not read the GN, I came away feeling like it was full of holes. Not plot holes that ruined the story, just holes throughout, like swiss cheese, in character development, motivations, etc. Big gaps that were obviously covered in the GN that didn't make it into the movie.

Chief among those was Miss Jupiter. Did not get her character at all. It wasn't until she explicitly said, "I used to be a masked hero too," that I was even totally positive that she had been. Didn't really get why the daughter of a hero and someone who seemed to have been a hero was so doe-eyed about the owl's nifty hero toys. CP filled me in afterwards, so I get it now, but I think the movie really dropped the ball on that. Didn't help that her acting was weak. She managed to coast at mediocre for most of it, but a few scenes she was awful.

The scene where Dr. Manhattan regained his humanity made me want to hurl. His little "You're a miracle" solliloquy was cringe worthy, one step short of Intelligent Design claptrap. Yuck.

I was mixed on the music. Worked in some instances, glaringly out of place in others. However the use of muzak "Everybody Want to Rule the World" was pure genius.

I feel like a doofus. I spotted the guy with the "end is near" sign early on, and saw him throughout the movie. Yet I never put it together that it was Rorschack. Freaking duh.

My favorite thing was a little detail that was put in I swear just to screw with people like me. I tend to be pretty good at catching sly foreshadowing and hints in a movie like this. After Daniel's 2nd dinner with Jupiter, he's leaving the Gunga Diner (hah!). Rorschach is outside, voicing over that Daniel didn't recognize him without the mask. A truck drives by and hits its horn. I notice the Pyramid logo. "Aha!" I say to myself, having caught the Pyramid envelope in Max Hedrom's apartment. It's all about Pyramid! I felt pretty damned clever...very next scene, Rorschach's walking into a trap. He gave whatever his version of, "I fell for the oldest trick in the book." And you know what? I thought the same! Well played, film.

One final note - that's what all the blue penis hubbub was about? With all the non stop chatter I'd been hearing, I assumed it was going to be shown while he was 50 feet tall. That would have been something to talk about. That? Whatever.

I've just started reading the comic (er, graphic novel ... whatever).

I can't comment yet, but I just have a sneaking suspicion the movie filmed the comic panel-for-panel, line-for-bubble ... but somehow got the tone all wrong.

I liked the story in the movie, but the proceedings seemed somehow so flat for what is such a pop-culture phenomenon. I'm hoping to grok the proper tone from the book.


One big difference (if that is indeed the right descriptor) is the blue penis barely appears in the comic, but is All OvER the movie.

The film has an R rating, but I still don't think you'd get away with that much penis if it weren't a CG dick.

I'll read everyone's posts in a bit.

I thought it was great. Faithful to the book in important ways, deviated when it needed to. Visually, near perfect. I really liked nearly all the actors except for the old Silk Spectre, blech, she was awful and the old lady makeup was poor.

I was especially happy with the Nite Owl, yow! Just the perfect amount of geeky nice-guy nebbish and sexy hero emergence. LOVED the sex scene.

The flashbacks to older eras were spot on, and I think they pulled off the alternate universe very well.

The fight scenes were very, very good - none of the blurred darkness we seem to see a lot these days.

I'm glad they waited until now to do the film. Living in an era of actual attack and fear of war does wonders to breathe life into the story.

My one big quibble was with Veidt. That guy was tiny! I would say that they removed the whole Veidt weight training thing for that very reason. He's supposed to be both a genius and totally strong, but this guy seemed more on the skinny cunning side, and didn't exude the bearing I expected. He wasn't terrible, and if you hadn't read the book I guess it wouldn't hurt anything.



Of course GD didn't think the blue penis was any big deal. Hello, GIRTHY? ;)

Still yet to read the GN (though it's sitting on the coffee table) - but I thought Veidt seemed like a real weenie for being such a "superhero". Despite lack of story (from what I gather from CP's post), something never felt right about him. Like, how could he hang with such a crew and be such a wimpy looking dude?

I didn't see that at all. I guess that makes me a bigger doofus. But I just started reading the GN and noticed him right away. Of course, in the GN you can take your time through each scene really taking it all in.

Is this thing out on DVD/Blu yet?

nothing on DVD yet, but the penis is Blu




.

Late to the party as usual, but tonight I saw Watchmen finally. I liked it. I didn't love it, but I thought it was a good adaptation of the GN.

I liked the casting a lot. The more I see of Patrick Wilson, the more I like him. And, wow, Jackie Earl Haley - what brilliant casting that was. He was awesome. As for Matthew Goode, he's much more attractive as a brunette. He's hot, imho. If you get a chance to see My Family and Other Animals, he's finer than frog hair in that one.

Now I really liked the GN and was wondering how it was going to translate into film and I was mostly pleased. There were some actual sets in this film which was nice. For some reason I was expecting the 300 or Sin City treatment where most of the film felt like it was actors in front of a greenscreen.

I actually liked the credits montage. It was stunning, imho.

I also liked the music choices in the film. They must have paid a lot for some of those songs. I mean, Dylan and Hendrix... those must have cost a fortune.

Lots of blue peni. Wow! I was surprised that they showed Dr. Manhattan's "him" as much as they did.

I'm glad they cut the pirate ship story. It would have seemed like a sore thumb in the film, because it kinda felt that way in the GN. That part reminded me of Stephen King in a way.

I was bugged by the wigs and old-age makeup in this film. Silk Spectre I has terrible old-age makeup and Veidt had a bad blond wig.

All in all, I liked it. Rorschach made the movie for me.

I finally finished reading the GN ... and, for the most part, to my surprise ... I liked the movie better.

Wow.


The parts of the story that really take flight for me are when the retired heroes swing back into action, both Dan and Laurie, and then Dan and Rorschauch ... and also Rorschach's stint in prison. All of which were better and more lively in the film. (Um, I can't believe Rorschach's best line was just thrown away as an "off-screen" re-tell by someone else in the GN ... and that's just one illustrative symptom of why these sections were more flat in the book.)


The book was best in the Jon segments ... both when he's tripping through time as a great way to tell his story, and his stint on Mars.

Jon's backstory was told very well in the film, but the Mars stuff was meh. Both parts excellent in the book, and the only parts I found better than their movie counterparts.


I've gotta say, now that I've read it and seen it, I don't know what all the broohaha was about. As I've said, I'm a sucker for retired superhero stories. And I LOVE the world created where all of them are masked vigilantes, but human ... and the ONE with Superpowers does not have something retarded like elasticity or invisibility ... but is rather a true Superman of all-around enhancements.


BUT ... I don't think the story did much with this world. The denoument was trite and disappointing. Jon's story arc devolved into insignificance and, yes, disappointment.


Nice blue penis, though.


I give the whole project 3 stars ... and, unbelieveably, find the movie a better deal than the book. Wow.

This (I believe, the fanboys need to back me up) is the original retired superhero story, which is why it was such a big deal. All the others took their cue from this one.

As for the rest of it, we disagree, I thought it was a fun read, kept me hooked....though I admit I have very little to compare it to as I don't read comics. I'm sure some of the best stuff went right over my head.

Curious - which "best line" are you referring to?

It's like the Beatles.

Some time back, The Moonie Juniors did not get what all the fuss was about in regards to the Beatles. So I made a CD full of period music:

Da Doo Ron Ron, One fine day, Figertips Pt. 2, Under the boardwalk, Walk like a man, etc...

And in the middle of it all I added: A Hard day Night and Please Please Me.

The contrast is striking.

I liked the sex scene, btw. And in the dream sequence, you get to see Nite Owl II's schwanzstucker, too.

Just saying.

I mean, it's not just the gay thang about seeing d!cks. It's just that they rarely show frontal male nudity in mainstream U.S. movies. So when you do see one on film (even though it's blue) it's like seeing a unicorn in the woods.

I wonder if the studio and the ratings board found it less objectionable because it was a CGI penis instead of a real one?

There are two penises on view in this thing? Hmm. I've never seen a blue one. And I don't know who Nite Owl is, but, hm. Maybe I will go.

No, you're right, it really isn't. ;)

Apparently you can have some amount of it as long as it is completely flaccid. Jason Segal was on Fresh Air last week and talked about his frontal nudity in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. His joke was that for ratings it was vital it be completely flaccid but for his own ego it was very important that it not be completelyflaccid.

I'd heard the same about Dewey Cox, which also had non-sexual male frontal nudity on display for longer than quick glimpses.

So in movies with non-sexual female frontal nudity, do the producers have to send proof to the MPAA that she isn't wet?

Volunteering for the job.

Kevy, is that you?

Do you think geeks can be hot? My geek lust was kicked into high gear by the Nite Owl's transformation from nebbish to hero.

I think geeks can be hot. It's that whole Clark Kent thang. You know, wears glasses for everyone else but he's Superman in bed for me.

Sigh. [Stares out the window, twirling a pen betwixt his fingers.] Now what were we talking about? Oh yeah, watches. I like men who wear watches...

So when Jon changes his molecular structure so that he's a giant, does he have to change everything proportionally? Or can he remain his normal impressive stature and just apply gigantacized molecular enhancement to particular (CGI'd) body parts?


Just wondering.



Oh, and Dr. Manhattan doesn't wear a wristwatch.

Similar to the Beatles, Watchmen was the first that hit comic readers in the chest. The last revival of Comics in the 70's was fading and for many years we were just getting the same old stuff with nothing new. Comics were fairly uninspired until Watchmen came along and just blew the doors off. Longtime readers had gone thru many revivals of "Comics" in each decade but nothing really turned the "world" on its ear like Watchmen. The line between good/bad was muddied and the thought of bright and shiney heroes in thier underware was spun into the idea that there was a human side and "heroes" were more vunerable than the general sterotype.

I guess ... but having never read much comix, er graphic novels ... shouldn't it hit me the same way?


Granted, I'm aware of the concept of retired superheroes and murkier gray between comic good and evil ... but while the universe created and two of the characters seemed fresh and exciting, the story was just boring, boring, boring, oh exciting ... and nowhere!


BTW, Laurie was even more of a cypher in the book (at least until her bit on Mars), so I can't fault the movie character for being so thin.



Oh, and the opening credits montage was clever ... but wore out its welcome about 2/3 through, imo. A little less would have been more.

Also for the record, I had no problem with the music selections. A lot of people decried the triteness of Ride of the Valkries, but at least that piece is specifically mentioned in the book.



BTW: CP: The line was Rorshach's, "I'm not locked in here with you ... you're all locked in here with ME!!"


Hysterical in the movie. Tossed away in the book. Meh.

I'm part way through the GN (chapter 6 or 7...after Jon goes to Mars and we get his back story). So far I'm loving it. I'm a comic book fan that has missed out on reading comic books my entire life, if that makes sense. I knew of them but nobody I knew read them and I was never really properly introduced to the comic book world. So I missed out on reading quite a few that I would probably have enjoyed, including this one (although I probably wouldn't have been allowed to read this one as a kid).

So far the writing, imagery, character & world development is superb. Each page is rich with all of the above. When I do get time to read I really take my time with it, studying it out and sometimes even rereading each page a few times. There's a lot going on. But since I don't have enough graphic novel experience I can't really compare it to anything else.

Wait ... wasn't that Bornieo???


HE LIVES!

The preview of Wolverine came on before the film. I'm fired up to see it... I guess. Kinda disappointed by the previous 3 X-Men films...

We had Harry Potter at the IMAX. Very stoked to see that. But disappointed that screening didn't get Star Trek, which I'm even more excited for (and a friend of mine is smack dab center in one of the trailer shots).

I liked the 2nd X-Men best. Meh on the third, though it had its moments. The first was sorta kinda ok. So, all-in-all, not super excited about the prequel.

But, 'natch, I'll go see it.



And I really wanna see Watchmen again ... but I'll wait for the DVD.

I'm glad the older Silk Spectre didn't have the hairdo they gave her in the GN. That would have been bad.
:D

IMHO, nothing they could have done to the old SS in the film could have made her any worse than she was. Hell, the poodle hair might have put her over the top.

Yeah, I also thought the make-up job was sub-par ... but the GN hairdo would have been tragic.




I'm sad the movie didn't take the GN Mars Greatest Hits tour, though. That was beautiful in the book.




Oh, and now that I've read it ... the Alien Dead Squid Fake-Out could have totally worked in the movie. If they couldn't make it work, then they didn't have the correct tone in the first place. So I'm with the BAH on changing the ending ... after practically filming the comic frame-by-frame.





But there's way more to TONE than duplicating the piece frame-by-frame.

YES.

But you knew that already. And also, you weren't asking me.

Duh, my friend.

Testify.

Shh! Don't scare him off!

Word.

Percentage of internet topics made about the Watchmen movie

That might have been clever......if it didn't add up to 180%

One can discuss more than one thing in a single post, so I don't think they need to add up to 100%.

Generally you don't "make topics" about more than one thing.

I forgave the quirky grammar as it's obviously a non-English speaker. But I fail it for math, which shouldn't need translation.

I was thinking about the Rorschach cleaver to the head scene. The GN wasn't as graphic. I wonder why they chose to go the graphic, gross-out route with the film. A satisfying end in the film for that dirt bag, but the GN didn't seem to find it necessary to go all gory...

On the other hand, and not because of the gory at all ... but I was all "Nooooooo!" when R was killed in the film, and Meh when he was killed in the book.


And, anecdotal evidence bears out SM's 100%+ graph. I've posted 16 entries in this thread. They've discussed different aspects of The Watchmen. Every post mentioned the blue penis.


It's all I think about.

Seesch, if you were hit in the face with a pie, you'd probably critique the taste.

I hate banana cream. So if you want to avoid my judgment, keep that in mind.

I like banana cream pie. Chocolate cream pie, too. But if I'm eating a cream pie then it should have whipped cream on it and NOT meringue. Bleh.

But what I was thinking the other day is that getting hit with a pie can be dangerous. You really need to know how to do it... getting hit and hitting someone with one. I mean basically, you're getting a palm slammed into your face with a pie in between. It can hurt.

So if Moonliner and GD are going to play pie fight... be safe. Wear goggles and safety orange... and practice, practice, practice.



:D

Being in a real pie fight is on my Bucket List.


Oh, but to keep this on topic, I loved the glowing blue peen. I want one. (Interpret that however you like.)

Thought of this the other day. I'm sure somebody else already thought of it, but I made it anyway. For next year's Oscars...

Please add the penis.



I was in a pie fight once. OMG, hysterical. Over a hundred pies, over 25 participants. Such an amazing mess. We played the piefight music from The Great Race during the event.

The after-smell was something not pleasant, though. And pie was in your ears and up your nose and everywhere. Showering took forever.


All.Worth.It.

IIRC, Rorschach set him on fire in the GN.

Totally.Jealous. That's exactly how I'd do it.

I would guess that's because Zack Snyder has a thing for gore. He's turned down work in the past because the studio wanted PG-13 pictures.

I just re-read the GN for the first time in 20 years. While I have no doubt that the story as written is superior as a comic - I'm thinking that my initial judgement of the movie might have been harsh. As I read the GN, I would consider "How would I film this scene?" - I think that Snyder probably did a better job than most directors would have.

I will certainly revisit the film when it comes out on blu-(penis) ray.