NationStates Jolt Archive

Since no one has started this thread, I might as well.



Just saw it today on opening night.

Here be Spoilers.

Liked it, pretty close to the source material. I think Rorschach was perfect, the scenes in the Prison and the scene where he finds the butchered girl were spot on IMO. Billy Crudup was also a pretty good Dr. Manhattan. I didn't like the portrayal of Ozymandias though, I thought the actor was kinda scrawny. Also the scene where Dr. M is on the T.V show and they bring out Janey Slater just felt weird to me. Then the Ending, I liked the idea of the fake alien better, although the one they portray in the movie may seem a bit more believable. And the scene where Nite Owl gets mad and beats on Veidt at the end, I didn't like that change. I had a few other minor gripes but overall thought it not bad.

What says everyone else?

Use spoiler tags dude!!!

Also, I haven't seen it yet but apparently it's not that good.

The movie okay, but the soundtrack was fantastic. As were the opening credits.

The movie okay, but the soundtrack was fantastic. As were the opening credits.

I have to agree there.

Use spoiler tags dude!!!

Why? I already put spoilers in White Text.

I have to agree there.

I want to buy the blu-ray for that four minute intro alone.

Why? I already put spoilers in White Text.

Oh yeah

I had the pleasure of not reading the comic book in a few years, so I didn't have the intrusion of details in my head for comparison.

I don't know how much I'm going to give away here, so I might be using the spoiler tag unnecessarily.

So, with the end change. The alien plot in the film would have been too hard a sell when it has to work so hard to sell the rest of the films world. In a comic book there isn't as much overcome in the overall premise, there is an acceptance of a certain level larger than lifeness. A movie still has to overcome the 'real world+superheroes.'

For instance, when I read the comic book, I didn't balk for a second at the heroes walking through 'bad guys' like Foot soldiers in a TMNT comic even after years of retirement and having 'gone soft.' But I momentarily lost my suspension of disbelief watching the exact same (almost frame for frame) moment on the big screen. I got it back, but it made me think about the differences in expectations of the two mediums.

To expand on that, by comic book standards, Watchmen is a very subdued story. The big problems are not solved with butt kicking. No villian's ass is kicked that saves the day. We're in spoiler tags, so I can point out that the day is in fact not saved at all. The 'evil plot' is really just a backdrop to explore the personality fractures of the main characters. This is a subtle story for a comic book.

For a movie, however, an alternate reality where Nixon is elected to three terms, superheroes have come and gone, Vietnam was won by a giant blue man with near god like powers, that's a big sell. This story is over the top.

So, to have to add to all of that the idea of an 'alien invasion' when it's much easier to accompany the story of the already over the top Dr. Manhattan, your trimming down tedious exposition in a story that's already close to three hours long and allowing character development to happen alongside exposition instead of suffering from it.

The change in the basic evil plot reflected the spirit of the original and allowed the story to be smoothly translated from one medium to another.

The only thing I really missed was Dr. Manhattan's "You will return to your homes." "What if we don't." "You don't understand. It was not a request." (or something like that) and then flashes the mob to their homes during the riot. I don't remember Night Owl IIs whiny sounding "What happened to the American Dream?" but again, that's not going to end up as cheesy on a comic book page as it does on the big screen, so it probably didn't phase me when I read it.
Overall, I think a pretty good translation.

Use spoiler tags dude!!!

Also, I haven't seen it yet but apparently it's not that good.

Depends on who you read. Reviewers that don't have a notion of the source material, it's over reaching. Reviewers that do, absolutely floored by it.
65% fresh at rottentomatoes. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/)

I had the pleasure of not reading the comic book in a few years, so I didn't have the intrusion of details in my head for comparison.

I don't know how much I'm going to give away here, so I might be using the spoiler tag unnecessarily.

So, with the end change. The alien plot in the film would have been too hard a sell when it has to work so hard to sell the rest of the films world. In a comic book there isn't as much overcome in the overall premise, there is an acceptance of a certain level larger than lifeness. A movie still has to overcome the 'real world+superheroes.'

For instance, when I read the comic book, I didn't balk for a second at the heroes walking through 'bad guys' like Foot soldiers in a TMNT comic even after years of retirement and having 'gone soft.' But I momentarily lost my suspension of disbelief watching the exact same (almost frame for frame) moment on the big screen. I got it back, but it made me think about the differences in expectations of the two mediums.

To expand on that, by comic book standards, Watchmen is a very subdued story. The big problems are not solved with butt kicking. No villian's ass is kicked that saves the day. We're in spoiler tags, so I can point out that the day is in fact not saved at all. The 'evil plot' is really just a backdrop to explore the personality fractures of the main characters. This is a subtle story for a comic book.

For a movie, however, an alternate reality where Nixon is elected to three terms, superheroes have come and gone, Vietnam was won by a giant blue man with near god like powers, that's a big sell. This story is over the top.

So, to have to add to all of that the idea of an 'alien invasion' when it's much easier to accompany the story of the already over the top Dr. Manhattan, your trimming down tedious exposition in a story that's already close to three hours long and allowing character development to happen alongside exposition instead of suffering from it.

The change in the basic evil plot reflected the spirit of the original and allowed the story to be smoothly translated from one medium to another.

The only thing I really missed was Dr. Manhattan's "You will return to your homes." "What if we don't." "You don't understand. It was not a request." (or something like that) and then flashes the mob to their homes during the riot. I don't remember Night Owl IIs whiny sounding "What happened to the American Dream?" but again, that's not going to end up as cheesy on a comic book page as it does on the big screen, so it probably didn't phase me when I read it.
Overall, I think a pretty good translation.

Yeah, that Dr. Manhattan scene would have been really cool on-screen. And I agree with you, you can get away with much more bizarre and fantastical plots in comics than in film (example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ_gVa6pAIY)). The Dr. Manhattan leveling cities idea is much more believable than "lets make an alien that isn't really an alien". I just would have liked to see the giant monster on screen, and it doesn't really explain why Dr. M would (allegedly) just randomly decide to nuke some cities and then leave to another galaxy forever. At least with the alien you had the explanation that it was accidentally teleported then attacked/blew up. Also, if they aren't making the alien on that island in the Carribean, how does the Comedian find out about Veidt's plan in the first place?

Nite Owls "what happen to the American Dream line is also in the comic.

I never read the comic, but I really like the movie. spoiler: The lack of comeuppance was a pisser at first, but I got over it. I like to see the 'good' guys win, but they played this ending well. I really like that the superheroes mostly weren't heroes at all and had a more tragic hero feel to them.

Excellent film, excellent adaptation. My favorite character was the soundtrack, followed closely by Rorschach. Panel-for-panel re-telling was just plain dazzling to see, and the alternate ending was a viable alternative to the book's premise.

Also, I haven't seen it yet but apparently it's not that good.
Apparently. But then, if you always listen to what critics say you'd never see anything.

It's a really good film, probably as true to the source material as a film could be. And Rorshach is played perfectly. Also, I heard beforehand that the soundtrack was awesome, but I couldn't help but think that several of the songs used were rather predictable.

As a fan of the graphic novel for more than 20 years, I thought the movie was fucking awesome. A truly excellent adaptation.

My bias prevents me from gauging the movie's appeal to a non-fan, but my best guess is that it would hold up.

As a fan of the graphic novel for more than 20 years, I thought the movie was fucking awesome. A truly excellent adaptation.

My bias prevents me from gauging the movie's appeal to a non-fan, but my best guess is that it would hold up.

Completely agreed.

Apparently. But then, if you always listen to what critics say you'd never see anything.

It's a really good film, probably as true to the source material as a film could be. And Rorshach is played perfectly. Also, I heard beforehand that the soundtrack was awesome, but I couldn't help but think that several of the songs used were rather predictable.

Predictable? In what way? Every time a song comes up, it's as if it's one of only a few that would have been well-tuned to the scene. The soundtrack is practically a character in itself. If you're talking about the Ride of the Valkyrie scene, in a movie awash in the pop culture of its time, what better than a musical reference to Apocalypse Now?

I'm a big fan of the graphic novel, and the movie was amazing. I loved the intro, and most of the movie....I was dissapointed with the ending, but I guess it could have been worse. The Comedian and Rorschach were perfect, and the soundtrack fit very well.

If you're talking about the Ride of the Valkyrie scene, in a movie awash in the pop culture of its time, what better than a musical reference to Apocalypse Now?
Specifically I was thinking of 99 Luftballons (there are hundreds of songs about nuclear war, dozens of which are well known, yet they chose one that a) many people aren't aware of the subject matter, and b) doesn't fit with the tone of the film in general). Maybe Two Tribes or (not quite accurately) Two Minutes To Midnight would have been better.

I thought the use of the one you referred to was genius.

Overall I loved the movie. But there was one thing I hated, which was how they took the last conversation between Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan and gave it to Nite Owl and Silk Spectre.

It made me sad.

The real spectacle will be in hearing how Alan Moore's going to throw a bitchfest about the film adaptation.

Apparently. But then, if you always listen to what critics say you'd never see anything.


This is according to friends, not critics.

This is according to friends, not critics.

I respectfully disagree with your friends.

Overall I loved the movie. But there was one thing I hated, which was how they took the last conversation between Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan and gave it to Nite Owl and Silk Spectre.

It made me sad.

I agree.

I fully intend to watch the film, but I am not optimistic, due the director's previous works...especially 300; Alan Moore sums-up my feelings concerning that: "it was racist, it was homophobic, and, above all, it was sublimely stupid

I fully intend to watch the film, but I am not optimistic, due the director's previous works...especially 300; Alan Moore sums-up my feeling about that: "it was racist, it was homophobic, and, above all, it was sublimely stupid

I watched 300 while thinking how awesome it was. I only cared for the action scenes and ignored everuthing else. But, regarding Watchmen, I wanna see it. Shame it's rated 15+.

I watched 300 while thinking how awesome it was. I only cared for the action scenes and ignored everuthing else.

If you only enjoy and pay attention to scenes in films involving killing that defies physical laws, then 300 is superb.

But, regarding Watchmen, I wanna see it. Shame it's rated 15+.

And it is well-deserved.

I fully intend to watch the film, but I am not optimistic, due the director's previous works...especially 300; Alan Moore sums-up my feelings concerning that: "it was racist, it was homophobic, and, above all, it was sublimely stupid

but 300 was pretty close to the source material AFAI remember from the graphic novel.

Specifically I was thinking of 99 Luftballons (there are hundreds of songs about nuclear war, dozens of which are well known, yet they chose one that a) many people aren't aware of the subject matter, and b) doesn't fit with the tone of the film in general). Maybe Two Tribes or (not quite accurately) Two Minutes To Midnight would have been better.

I thought the use of the one you referred to was genius.

I agree, but the Nena song was perfect. It's 1985, that's what was on the radio, and it's subject matter was spot on in its almost blithe acceptance of fate. Remember, the film isn't for just "many people". It's a thoughtful piece, and those who think understand the song's true subject and when it came on, I just thought "bullseye" -- frivolous about horrifying subjects. Just like the 80s.

Overall I loved the movie. But there was one thing I hated, which was how they took the last conversation between Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan and gave it to Nite Owl and Silk Spectre.

It made me sad.

For cryin' out loud, why? With the plot change, Ozy and Doc couldn't have had that conversation, now, could they? Come on, get off the purist high horse and remember that a movie, no matter how close an adaptation, is still a different retelling of the story.

Watchmen was fantastic. Maybe too good. it will be interesting to see how superhero movies fare in it's wake, in the next few years.

Watchmen was fantastic. Maybe too good. it will be interesting to see how superhero movies fare in it's wake, in the next few years.

They'll fail horribly, because each time, people will look back and compare it to the movie adaptation of Watchmen. Having just seen, I can honestly say they will almost certainly fail in comparison.

Batman is faring okay - but then, this recent incarnation of Batman (with Christian Bale) is of the same 'spiritual family' as Watchmen.

Other superhero movies made or released in the next few years, though, are labouring in the shadows of titans.

I like the movie the fact that there is so much to chew on philosophically is amazing. Just like the comic it isn't something that you can "get" in one quick read through. A person has to sit down and work it through their heads to fully grasp the whole.

Excellent film, excellent adaptation. My favorite character was the soundtrack, followed closely by Rorschach. Panel-for-panel re-telling was just plain dazzling to see, and the alternate ending was a viable alternative to the book's premise.

Apparently. But then, if you always listen to what critics say you'd never see anything.

It's a really good film, probably as true to the source material as a film could be. And Rorshach is played perfectly. Also, I heard beforehand that the soundtrack was awesome, but I couldn't help but think that several of the songs used were rather predictable.
In the reviews I read, this was why the critics didn't like it; they felt it didn't really stand on its own as a movie or add anything. For someone who has not read the comic and isn't planning to in the near future, do you think it would be as good?

In the reviews I read, this was why the critics didn't like it; they felt it didn't really stand on its own as a movie or add anything. For someone who has not read the comic and isn't planning to in the near future, do you think it would be as good?

I read Watchmen many, many years ago. I found it a very impressive adaptation to the medium, and an excellent prospect, overall.

My wife has not read Watchmen, and was about the same amount of impressed. She certainly didn't complain that it wouldn't stand alone.

She loved a lot of the same things about it that I did - the palette, the anti-heroics, the beyond-incredible visual style. She fell in love with Rorschach the same way I remember falling in love with him so long ago, in the printed form. I think the critics are wrong, on this one.

My worry would be that Watchmen requires too much from it's audience. It's not brash and dumb, and it really requires you to engage at some real level. Maybe that's what the critics mean - it works as a stand-alone if you're willing to invest yourself in a film.

In the reviews I read, this was why the critics didn't like it; they felt it didn't really stand on its own as a movie or add anything. For someone who has not read the comic and isn't planning to in the near future, do you think it would be as good?

I've never read the comic, don't plan to, and I thought it was a good movie. Not great, mind, but good and pretty thoughtful for a superhero movie.

I never read the graphic novel, so I went to see it today with just what the trailers gave me. I am very hard to impress but I found it impressive. I do happen to be a fan of the Dark Knight graphic novel and this seemed very much in that atmosphere.

Stuff under white text, might be considered spoilerish

I had no trouble following the movie, and felt that the time spent on the backstory was necessary for the solidity of the movie and the flashbacks did not make the movie / story telling seem disjointed at all. The music choices were excellent. The feel of nuclear brinkmanship did seem to be a little lacking.

Though I know that I am older than most here and well remember what the closest we've come to nuclear brinkmanship felt like in real life.

Having not read the graphic novel so to not have any expectations of how the film should be, I found myself thoroughly impressed. At first I thought they might have overdone the backstory, but ultimately it provides the premise for the dramatic and completely unexpected conclusion that blows you away.

I haven't read the graphic novel and I had no idea what to expect from the movie other than the usual hype. I found myself a bit disappointed in the end. There are many things I liked about the movie and many things that were expectionally good about it, but in my opinion it really has it flaws.

I really liked the visual feel of the movie, some of the fighting or action scenes were beutifully cut and directed. The music, while controversial, was excellent and I really liked the opening montage. The characters looked great, but I only really enjoyed watching Rorshack (Spelling?) and the Comedian. While the other actors did do an OK'ish short of performance I never really connected or cared about some of the characters. A good example, would be the female lead Silver Spectre or something. She seemed just too random and superficial to me and the movie was pretty focused on her.

Then to the main problem of the movi; the story telling. The execessive flashbacks that after a while seemed quite pointless and redundant, in fact the only flashback scenes that to me seemed atleast a bit important to character growth and to the story were the Rorshack flashbacks. Even those seemed a bit too execessive. What the hell was up with the Dr. Manhattan flashbacks? It seemed to go on and on forever and it hardly added anything to the story or the character. It seemed to me that they were just trying to add as much of substananse from the original to the movie and mix it with some random fight scenes and sex scenes. Actually when I think about it, I think that the time used on some of the fight scenes and especially the strange sex scene between Night Owl and Silver Spectre would have been better used in telling the story. The pace of the movie was all over the place. First it started very quick, then it slowed to the point that you didn't know that it was moving anymore, then with some random action scenes it seemed to start moving again, but here comes another flashback and so on. The ending was horrible, it all seemed too random to me to really enjoy it.

All in all, the movie was not that bad and I enjoyed the visual feel and the technical bits of it. The story, while somewhat interesting, was IMO told horribly. The acting was OK at most parts, some of the actors did amazing job while others failed flatly to make me at all interested in their characters. I think that I would have enjoyed the movie more if I had read the comic (or graphic novel) beforehand. It wasn't anything that I expected, but that is not necessary a bad thing. In this case though, it didn't really end up being a good thing either.

For cryin' out loud, why? With the plot change, Ozy and Doc couldn't have had that conversation, now, could they? Come on, get off the purist high horse and remember that a movie, no matter how close an adaptation, is still a different retelling of the story.

Oh, and why couldn't they? And I didn't dislike it because I'm a "purist". I dislike it because it loses the meaning when the other characters have the conversation.

The whole point of that conversation is that Ozymandias is wracked with guilt and is looking for validation from Manhattan that it was all worth it because things worked out in the end. Manhattan, with his widened perspective informs him that nothing ends and disappears, with the implication being that Ozymandias's plan was for nothing.

That was my favorite part too. 'Sides, if I was a purist, you'd think I'd be raising a stink about a different part of the ending, no

Man, I picked up the Graphic Novel a few weeks before it came out so I could read it, It was fuckin awesome...

Then last night I saw the movie and it fricken rocked, There were a few scenes that were axed that I thought shouldve stayed, but they werent really major, although i didnt think they mentioned the Bernards enough...

What really got me was the soundtrack however, that they actually used the songs from the end of every chapter really floored me I did NOT expect that, crazy...I loved it...

Solid 9 out of 10, maybe not quite Dark Knight, but we cant all be Christopher Nolan, lol...

Oh, and why couldn't they? And I didn't dislike it because I'm a "purist". I dislike it because it loses the meaning when the other characters have the conversation.

The whole point of that conversation is that Ozymandias is wracked with guilt and is looking for validation from Manhattan that it was all worth it because things worked out in the end. Manhattan, with his widened perspective informs him that nothing ends and disappears, with the implication being that Ozymandias's plan was for nothing.

That was my favorite part too. 'Sides, if I was a purist, you'd think I'd be raising a stink about a different part of the ending, no

Yeah, that.

I fully intend to watch the film, but I am not optimistic, due the director's previous works...especially 300; Alan Moore sums-up my feelings concerning that: "it was racist, it was homophobic, and, above all, it was sublimely stupid

I don't know, I liked 300. I think Alan Moore is the poster child for 'taking yourself too seriously.' I'll probably go and see Watchmen in a week or so, once all the hype has died down.

I don't know, I liked 300. I think Alan Moore is the poster child for 'taking yourself too seriously.' I'll probably go and see Watchmen in a week or so, once all the hype has died down.

Agreed. If Moore ever had his way, no comic book would ever be adapted into film. While it would save the world a whole lot of crap with early Marvel bombs, it would also mean nobody would have seen just how spectacular Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson were as the Joker amongst other things.

Considering Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez teamed up again for 300, I can't help but wonder if Miller would have a comment to the effect of "Moore can go fuck himself".

Agreed. If Moore ever had his way, no comic book would ever be adapted into film.

Except maybe that big pedophile fantasy he wrote about Alice in Wonderland and other fable characters. And even then he'd probably find something to bitch about.

'No, damnit, she has to be ten, not eighteen!'

'But Mr. Moore, she's naked and taking drugs and having sex. We can't use a 10 yr. old, it's against the law!'

'Who cares about the law, I'm an ARTIST!"

Considering Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez teamed up again for 300, I can't help but wonder if Miller would have a comment to the effect of "Moore can go fuck himself".

From the various reviews and what-not I read, that did seem to be his general reaction to the nay-sayers.

I did notice one thing about the changed ending that I wouldnt have noticed except I was watching the movie with someone who hadnt read the Novel...


And after we were done, he was all, "so what was with the tiger thing?" and it occurred to me that they never explained Bubastis in the movie...

I completely didnt think about it cause I already knew his story, I had to explain to him that that was one of Veidt's early experiments with Genetics, and he was like, "why would he be experimenting with genetics?" and it hit me that, without the Monster at the end, there really is no reason for him to study genetics, unless it had something to do with studying Dr. Manhattan...


Its something of a hole in the final plot and all...

Considering Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez teamed up again for 300, I can't help but wonder if Miller would have a comment to the effect of "Moore can go fuck himself".
Zack Snyder did 300, Rodriguez wasn't even part of the small army of producers on 300.

Rodriguez wasn't even involved in the very Sin City-like The Spirit.

Rodriguez wasn't even involved in the very Sin City-like The Spirit.
and it showed. Man that was dire.
Miller should stick to writing graphic novels and leave film well alone.

I did notice one thing about the changed ending that I wouldnt have noticed except I was watching the movie with someone who hadnt read the Novel...


And after we were done, he was all, "so what was with the tiger thing?" and it occurred to me that they never explained Bubastis in the movie...

I completely didnt think about it cause I already knew his story, I had to explain to him that that was one of Veidt's early experiments with Genetics, and he was like, "why would he be experimenting with genetics?" and it hit me that, without the Monster at the end, there really is no reason for him to study genetics, unless it had something to do with studying Dr. Manhattan...


Its something of a hole in the final plot and all...

I noticed that, also, If Veidt wasn't creating his monster on that Caribbean Island, how did Comedian ever find out about the his plan in the first place?

I saw the film yesterday. Am I the only one who:


Thought the modified ending worked better than the original graphic novel one? I mean, seriously, random fake aliens was such a stupid way to end it.


The movie as a whole I thought was okay.

I enjoyed the movie, for the most part. I will say that I am not a fan of Snyder's slow-down, speed-up combat scenes. It was tiresome in 300, but tolerable. But except for the scene where Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are breaking Rorschach out of prison, I found the fight scenes annoying.

I fully intend to watch the film, but I am not optimistic, due the director's previous works...especially 300; Alan Moore sums-up my feelings concerning that: "it was racist, it was homophobic, and, above all, it was sublimely stupid

It was often frame-for-frame from the comic. It wasn't meant to be a historical account of the battle. It was meant to be an adaptation of the comic. In that, it was quite successful.

Also, I really don't see the homophobic. To me, it seemed rather obvious that two of the characters were, in fact, lovers.

Of course, Alan Moore never really likes any movie adaptation of any comic. He apparently has a hatred of Hollywood in general.

I did notice one thing about the changed ending that I wouldnt have noticed except I was watching the movie with someone who hadnt read the Novel...


And after we were done, he was all, "so what was with the tiger thing?" and it occurred to me that they never explained Bubastis in the movie...

I completely didnt think about it cause I already knew his story, I had to explain to him that that was one of Veidt's early experiments with Genetics, and he was like, "why would he be experimenting with genetics?" and it hit me that, without the Monster at the end, there really is no reason for him to study genetics, unless it had something to do with studying Dr. Manhattan...


Its something of a hole in the final plot and all...

They did mention during the film that his company was involved in genetics research.

I figure we can chalk that one up to, "He's the smartest man in the world. Why wouldn't he study genetics?"

=)

@ Getbrett: I actually agree.

Of course, Alan Moore never really likes any movie adaptation of any comic. He apparently has a hatred of Hollywood in general.
He's quit working with major publishing houses because of all the shit DC pulled.

Here's to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Vol. 3!

http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/4969-qwatchmenq-opening-credits-online.html

Found it.

Also, Getbrett, I agree.

I actually quite liked the movie. I've never read the graphic novel, but I intend to now. I loved most of the characters, and the flash backs kind of drifted in and out from an interesting and necessary part of the story to tiresome. The movie seemed a bit... chopped in terms of story lines. It all eventually fit together, but more in the way that bricks are made to fit together, rather than a jigsaw puzzle. Not really an outright complaint so much as an observation. I thought the movie did an excellent job of telling the story, despite the feeling of being alternately rushed and mired in some spots, which I can appreciate as being due to the fact that there was simplye way too much to cover for the already near 3 hours of film. The only thing that left me a little puzzled, which was also, I suspect due to there not being enough time to explain everything, was how/why are they super heros? I was left wondering at times are they just normal people? Are they born with extra strength? Do they have individual powers? How? Why? Hereditary? But it was a minor thing and something I could over look in wake of how much I actually enjoyed the mvie.

Agreed. If Moore ever had his way, no comic book would ever be adapted into film.
Och, nonsense.

He's just, rightly, pissed off that DC have made a hash of his long string fantastic of comics. Are you saying you wouldn't be ticked off if a company, against your express wishes, repeatedly took your material and changed it for the worse?


Except maybe that big pedophile fantasy he wrote about Alice in Wonderland and other fable characters.
Way to prove you've never read Lost Girls.

I actually quite liked the movie. I've never read the graphic novel, but I intend to now. I loved most of the characters, and the flash backs kind of drifted in and out from an interesting and necessary part of the story to tiresome. The movie seemed a bit... chopped in terms of story lines. It all eventually fit together, but more in the way that bricks are made to fit together, rather than a jigsaw puzzle. Not really an outright complaint so much as an observation. I thought the movie did an excellent job of telling the story, despite the feeling of being alternately rushed and mired in some spots, which I can appreciate as being due to the fact that there was simplye way too much to cover for the already near 3 hours of film. The only thing that left me a little puzzled, which was also, I suspect due to there not being enough time to explain everything, was how/why are they super heros? I was left wondering at times are they just normal people? Are they born with extra strength? Do they have individual powers? How? Why? Hereditary? But it was a minor thing and something I could over look in wake of how much I actually enjoyed the movie.

None of them except Dr. Manhattan have actual powers. The comic goes into a lot more detail into everyone's origins, especially the first generation heroes.

I actually quite liked the movie. I've never read the graphic novel, but I intend to now. I loved most of the characters, and the flash backs kind of drifted in and out from an interesting and necessary part of the story to tiresome. The movie seemed a bit... chopped in terms of story lines. It all eventually fit together, but more in the way that bricks are made to fit together, rather than a jigsaw puzzle. Not really an outright complaint so much as an observation. I thought the movie did an excellent job of telling the story, despite the feeling of being alternately rushed and mired in some spots, which I can appreciate as being due to the fact that there was simplye way too much to cover for the already near 3 hours of film. The only thing that left me a little puzzled, which was also, I suspect due to there not being enough time to explain everything, was how/why are they super heros? I was left wondering at times are they just normal people? Are they born with extra strength? Do they have individual powers? How? Why? Hereditary? But it was a minor thing and something I could over look in wake of how much I actually enjoyed the mvie.

Maybe a lot of what you perceive as choppiness comes from the fact that the story is largely being 'told' from two perspectives - Rorschach's fractured grip on reality, and Dr Manahattan's increasingly dislocated grip on humanity and causality. (Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are a kind of 'filling' in that sandwich - a (somewhat surreal) view of 'the real world' that lubricates the two narrators).

None of them except Dr. Manhattan have actual powers. The comic goes into a lot more detail into everyone's origins, especially the first generation heroes.

I am going to have to read that ... One would wonder how characters could do things like catch a bullet without having any sort of special powers

I enjoyed the movie I have ordered the book

Och, nonsense.

He's just, rightly, pissed off that DC have made a hash of his long string fantastic of comics. Are you saying you wouldn't be ticked off if a company, against your express wishes, repeatedly took your material and changed it for the worse?

Some of the adaptations have been abyssmal.

Some have been really good.

The problem with Moore is that he seems to consider all such adaptations to be equally bad.

Och, nonsense.

He's just, rightly, pissed off that DC have made a hash of his long string fantastic of comics. Are you saying you wouldn't be ticked off if a company, against your express wishes, repeatedly took your material and changed it for the worse?

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies

I rest my case.

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies

I rest my case.

I've liked a lot of his material, and I've always thought he, personally, was a bit of a twat. 'Tis puzzlement.

I am going to have to read that ... One would wonder how characters could do things like catch a bullet without having any sort of special powers

I enjoyed the movie I have ordered the book

Yeah, this is what I sorta wondered. I count things like super speed and the strength to punch through walls and take out an entire prison riot with just two people without so much as being out of breath as 'powers' :P It was just something that wasn't really explained. Are they ordinary, or extraordinary? But one can take it with a grain of salt in that the movie was already 3 hours long and amazing despite the little naggy bits.

I am going to have to read that ... One would wonder how characters could do things like catch a bullet without having any sort of special powers

I enjoyed the movie I have ordered the book

I think the explanation is that Ozymandias was just that badass. Also, IIRC the fact that he was able to do it surprised even him.

Way to prove you've never read Lost Girls.

But the fact that Moore bitches about how his original works are being raped and violated and then goes on to write Lost Girls just shows what a hypocritical, self-absorbed twat he is.

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies

I rest my case.

No one told me Alan Moore was Rasputin.

http://www.whoknew.us/archives/images/rasputin.gifhttp://mos.totalfilm.com/images/e/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies-05-321-75.jpg

Which is which? I don't know!

No one told me Alan Moore was Rasputin.

http://www.whoknew.us/archives/images/rasputin.gifhttp://mos.totalfilm.com/images/e/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies-05-321-75.jpg

Which is which? I don't know!

It doesn't help that Moore is also an occultist.

It doesn't help that Moore is also an occultist.

The black and white picture on the last page almost literally makes it impossible to tell them apart. I bet if I ran that through a tinyurl, no one would know.

Some of the adaptations have been abyssmal.

Some have been really good.
Which ones?

They've all been ranging from poor to shite IMO, Watchmen and V for Vendetta being the cream of the crop, though both movies are gutted of their original mastery and substance.

The problem with Moore is that he seems to consider all such adaptations to be equally bad.
I'd strongly agree with him.

In fact, I'm rather surprised at the level of enjoyment of Watchmen in this thread.



I rest my case.
Not a lawyer, obviously...

Saying comics don't translate to films well is hardly dictating that comics shouldn't be translated to films.

You make him sound like some tyrant.

But the fact that Moore bitches about how his original works are being raped and violated and then goes on to write Lost Girls just shows what a hypocritical, self-absorbed twat he is.
What on earth are you talking about?

Moore isn't claiming that Lost Girls is an adaptation of Peter Pan/Alice in Wonderland/The Wizard of Oz, he's using the characters to tell a completely different story; erotic fiction. To make a perhaps not perfect analogy, it's the difference between a novelisation of New Hope and an Expanded Universe story featuring the same characters.

And none of the terrible adaptations of his work have ever, to my knowledge, been put forward as a 'retelling' of his story, as taking his work and making something new and exciting from it; like, for example, the Coen's taking Raymond Chandler's work and making Miller's Crossing. Or, more obviously, Coppola taking Heart of Darkness and making Apocalpse Now!. The closest thing to that was the Wachowski's mangled terrorist 'metaphors' in V, and that was ham-fisted.

Instead, the studios usually just take out what's not palatable, stick in a big-name star and look to the profit-margins.

I'd strongly agree with him.

In fact, I'm rather surprised at the level of enjoyment of Watchmen in this thread.


Why? As with "V for Vendetta", it turned out to be a remarkably good movie.

Moore's 'problem' is that he hates film for not being the paper literature... despite the fact that that's the POINT of film. Moore can't seem to separate the products in his head, and so he judges the film by the text, as though there were some kind of necessary equal value. Of course the movie made by the studio doesn't match the movies-in-your-head that he sees while he's creating - but that doesn't make the whole medium defective - just different.

Saying comics don't translate to films well is hardly dictating that comics shouldn't be translated to films.

You make him sound like some tyrant.


What on earth are you talking about?

Moore isn't claiming that Lost Girls is an adaptation of Peter Pan/Alice in Wonderland/The Wizard of Oz, he's using the characters to tell a completely different story; erotic fiction. To make a perhaps not perfect analogy, it's the difference between a novelisation of New Hope and an Expanded Universe story featuring the same characters.

And none of the terrible adaptations of his work have ever, to my knowledge, been put forward as a 'retelling' of his story, as taking his work and making something new and exciting from it; like, for example, the Coen's taking Raymond Chandler's work and making Miller's Crossing. Or, more obviously, Coppola taking Heart of Darkness and making Apocalypse Now!. The closest thing to that was the Wachowski's mangled terrorist 'metaphors' in V, and that was ham-fisted.

Instead, the studios usually just take out what's not palatable, stick in a big-name star and look to the profit-margins.

http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/15881/1/THE-DEVIN039S-ADVOCATE-IS-ALAN-MOORE-A-HYPOCRITE/Page1.html

http://graphicfiction.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/alan-moore-is-possibly-the-worlds-biggest-hypocrite/

Why? As with "V for Vendetta", it turned out to be a remarkably good movie.

Moore's 'problem' is that he hates film for not being the paper literature... despite the fact that that's the POINT of film. Moore can't seem to separate the products in his head, and so he judges the film by the text, as though there were some kind of necessary equal value. Of course the movie made by the studio doesn't match the movies-in-your-head that he sees while he's creating - but that doesn't make the whole medium defective - just different.

He's also had some very bad experiences with the industry. Watchmen and V for Vendetta were genuine attempts to produce decent films, and he wanted nothing to do with them. They'd probably have been better if he'd opened up and collaborated during the filming process.

That said, he is a twat. It's not just the film industry he has problems with, it's also the comics industry. He thinks he's better than everyone else, he's egotistic, and while this may be justified somewhat, there's a great swathe of better authors out there.

Why? As with "V for Vendetta", it turned out to be a remarkably good movie.
Ach, I'd disagree highly.

But, hey ho. Differing tastes and all.

Moore's 'problem' is that he hates film for not being the paper literature... despite the fact that that's the POINT of film. Moore can't seem to separate the products in his head, and so he judges the film by the text, as though there were some kind of necessary equal value. Of course the movie made by the studio doesn't match the movies-in-your-head that he sees while he's creating - but that doesn't make the whole medium defective - just different.
Pish and nonsense.

I think Moore's arguments, not that he's said much on the subject, are twofold: Firstly, that certain aspects of comics can't be captured in film; just as certain aspects of film can't be captured in comics. Secondly, big studios are motivated by profit, not storyline/artistic integrity.

There seems to be nothing objectionable about the above.



http://graphicfiction.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/alan-moore-is-possibly-the-worlds-biggest-hypocrite/
Posting a link to a blog rabbiting your arguments is not a valid defence.

I would refer you back to the post of mine you quoted.



That said, he is a twat. It's not just the film industry he has problems with, it's also the comics industry.
With good reason.

DC has treated him poorly.

He thinks he's better than everyone else...
Where are you getting that from?

The interviews with him I've seen and heard make him appear as a rather down-to-earth sorta guy. Even his notion of magick is rather grounded.

That said, he is a twat. It's not just the film industry he has problems with, it's also the comics industry. He thinks he's better than everyone else, he's egotistic, and while this may be justified somewhat, there's a great swathe of better authors out there.
Also, he's fucking nuts.

It's also worthwhile to note that Watchmen is actually an adaptation of Charlton Comics characters.

That said, he is a twat. It's not just the film industry he has problems with, it's also the comics industry. He thinks he's better than everyone else, he's egotistic, and while this may be justified somewhat, there's a great swathe of better authors out there.

If Alan Moore had been born an American, his name would be Todd McFarlane.

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies

I rest my case.

I agree with some of his issues, but there's alot of his viewpoints that I disagree with.

1. Comics don’t work as films.
agreed. but then, it's two different media forms. I tried watching Video Comics and it just doesn't do it for me.

The main reason why comics can’t work as films is largely because everybody who is ultimately in control of the film industry is an accountant.
except that most movies tend to go OVERBUDGET. and it's the flops that tend to stay within budget.

Hollywood is full of idiots.
agreed. however, one cannot peg someone an idiot for tossing out ideas.

The League Of Extraordinary Animals! It’ll be like Puss In Boots
except Captian Carrot and the Zoo Crew, Spider Ham and other Anthopomorphic characters had a decent run... IN COMICS!!!

3. Comics are better than blockbusters.
agreed, but that's because there is time to develop a story and the characters. Blockbuster have what... 2 hrs tops?

There is more integrity in comics. It sounds simplistic, but I believe there is a formula that you can apply to almost any work of modern culture...

so... let's see how many comic characters die only to return from the dead.
Jean Grey
Psylock
Robin
Superman
Batman (ok, he didn't die, but he had his back broken)
SuperGirl (technically... a reboot of the Superman series...)
Prof Xavier
etc...

so where's the integrity? how many heroes turn into villans and vice versa...
and all this were done for what... the money!

4. Films are a waste of money.
And the books are always superior, anyway.”
agreed for the most part.

5. Movie contracts are ridiculous.
yeah, let's herald in the days before Movie Contracts... where actors/actresses were vertual slaves to the industry. :rolleyes:

6. The modern American comics industry is ideologically flawed.
interesting point. to bad his rant moves into America's love for guns and NOT why the American Comic Industry is ideologically flawed.

America has an inordinate fondness for the unfair fight.
yeah, except it's the heroes that are at a disadvanage. of course I agree with his views of Superman... someone who was around in his Deus Ex Machina form when he was doing Watchmen.

so all in all... on his rant? I say Meh.

It's also worthwhile to note that Watchmen is actually an adaptation of Charlton Comics characters.
It's quite plain that it's far more than an adaptation.

This is what I was getting at in my previous post(s); that there's a big difference between taking a work and changing a couple of names or dropping some sub-plot, and using a work as inspiration for another piece.

As, indeed, Moore has done himself with Watchmen and the Top Ten/Smax comics.



If Alan Moore had been born an American, his name would be Todd McFarlane.
Stunning argumentation.

Would you like to shout 'Sauron' or 'ebul moslem' a bit, or are you done spamming?

Where are you getting that from?

The interviews with him I've seen and heard make him appear as a rather down-to-earth sorta guy. Even his notion of magick is rather grounded.

"[T]he gritty, deconstructivist postmodern superhero comic, as exemplified by Watchmen... became a genre". He said in 2003, "[T]o some degree there has been, in the 15 years since Watchmen, an awful lot of the comics field devoted to these grim, pessimistic, nasty, violent stories which kind of use Watchmen to validate what are, in effect, often just some very nasty stories that don't have a lot to recommend them."

Translated:

WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH I WRITE BETTER GRITTY SUPERHERO COMICS THAN ANYONE ELSE WAH WAH WAH WAH NO ONE IS BETTER THAN MINE WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH.

It's quite plain that it's far more than an adaptation.

This is what I was getting at in my previous post(s); that there's a big difference between taking a work and changing a couple of names or dropping some sub-plot, and using a work as inspiration for another piece.

As, indeed, Moore has done himself with Watchmen and the Top Ten/Smax comics.

And I'm sure Moore would be just peachy with the notion that in a couple hundred years or so when his works become public domain, someone will take the characters he "re-imagined" and come up with something entirely new.

Stunning argumentation.

Would you like to shout 'Sauron' or 'ebul moslem' a bit, or are you done spamming?

I'd say the comparison is appropriate. They're both comic book writers with tremendous egos who may have come up with one or two spectacular works, they're shameless about taking characters created by others to come up with their own interpretation which they then jealously covet to the point of throwing out lawsuits on the slightest pretense.

Ach, I'd disagree highly.


But why? Compare it to other movies that came out the same year, (and ignore the origins), and it was a thoroughly entertaining and thought-provoking piece that worked as a timely commentary on current events, and as a generally cautionary tale. That sounds kind of like the idealised purpose of a piece of art, to me.


I think Moore's arguments, not that he's said much on the subject, are twofold: Firstly, that certain aspects of comics can't be captured in film; just as certain aspects of film can't be captured in comics. Secondly, big studios are motivated by profit, not storyline/artistic integrity.


You basically just said the stuff I'd already said, as though it contradicts what I said.

Certain aspects of comic can't be captured in film - but that's okay, because comics ARE NOT film. For Moore to shit his diapers over that 'failing' is to miss the point that the two media are different. And that's what he's doing - he's whining over the movie industry using 'his' product, and constructing something out of it that he doesn't approve of - well, tough shit. If they've got the rights to it, unless there's some serious contractual leverage, they can do what they want.

What Moore is effectively doing, is being a fanboy with the whole stereotypical 'the book is better than the film' thing going on... but about HIS OWN books. He's his own biggest fan.

"[T]he gritty, deconstructivist postmodern superhero comic, as exemplified by Watchmen... became a genre". He said in 2003,
Very true.

See: works by Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, Jeff Loeb, to some extent, Neil Gaiman, and much of the recent run of X-Men, JLA, et al.

"[T]o some degree there has been, in the 15 years since Watchmen, an awful lot of the comics field devoted to these grim, pessimistic, nasty, violent stories which kind of use Watchmen to validate what are, in effect, often just some very nasty stories that don't have a lot to recommend them."
Very true.

See: works by Grant Morrison (e.g. The Filth)

WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH I WRITE BETTER GRITTY SUPERHERO COMICS THAN ANYONE ELSE WAH WAH WAH WAH NO ONE IS BETTER THAN MINE WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH.
He's saying nothing of the sort.

At most, he's saying that Watchmen spawned a whole host of 'gritty' superhero comics -- a plain fact -- and that some of them are not as good -- again, a plain fact.

It's like Brian Eno or Steve Reich bemoaning the huge amount of shitty ambient music that followed their works.

Very true.

See: works by Grant Morrison (e.g. The Filth)


No - the problem is, it's not 'very' true. Moore was one of the big influences in something of a revolution in the comic industry, and did a huge share of the work in mainstreaming 'non-hero' heroes in that medium.

But that doesn't mean that every comic that has come after, that has explored the seedy underbelly, is trying to "...kind of use Watchmen to validate what are..." any more than Watchmen is 'kind of using classic Batman, and Victor Frankenstein to validate what it is...'

Some of the stuff that has followed through doors that Moore opened has been of lower quality than other work... but that's true of stuff that HASN'T been defined by that 'post-Moore' division, also. It isn't 'excused' by Moore's output because it isn't CLAIMING to be excused by Moore's work. The best he can honestly claim? Is that he's INSPIRED some crap, as well as some good work.

My parents went to see the Watchmen today. I cringed at first when they told me they'd gone to see it - but the last couple of hours, over dinner... you know I started to say explaining, but really, in the end it was more of a highly interesting discussion about what they saw as the core aspects of the movie.

They are in their 80's and they mentioned they saw a couple of viewers that were even older.

And I'm sure Moore would be just peachy with the notion that in a couple hundred years or so when his works become public domain, someone will take the characters he "re-imagined" and come up with something entirely new.
I'm fairly sure as well, as long as they're making something with artistic merit.


But why? Compare it to other movies that came out the same year, (and ignore the origins), and it was a thoroughly entertaining and thought-provoking piece that worked as a timely commentary on current events, and as a generally cautionary tale.
It was an admittedly good-looking piece which played upon current events, but which had nothing of any real substance to say about them. Perhaps I'm missing some great sub-text that the Wachowski's put in, but the most I could find was "look, he's a terrorist, and we're fighting terrorists, isn't that interesting!?", along with some rather vague notions of people-power and <shockgasphorror> totalitarians are nasty people.

A lot of the problems, I feel, came from attempting to adapt what is an essentially 1980s, anti-Thatcher argument (with specific references to specific Tory policies, circa-1980s) to a 2000s, anti-Bush/Blair movie.

You basically just said the stuff I'd already said, as though it contradicts what I said.
I don't believe I have, for I do not agree that Moore " hates film for not being the paper literature", nor that he "can't seem to separate the products in his head".

But that doesn't mean that every comic that has come after, that has explored the seedy underbelly, is trying to "...kind of use Watchmen to validate what are..."
And he's not claiming that.

Note the qualifiers --"some", "often", "awful lot", "kind of" -- you partially failed to quote.

A lot of the problems, I feel, came from attempting to adapt what is an essentially 1980s, anti-Thatcher argument (with specific references to specific Tory policies, circa-1980s) to a 2000s, anti-Bush/Blair movie.


Yes, that is a lot of the problem.

For you.

Your problem isn't with the movie - it's with the movie not being the comic.


I don't believe I have, for I do not agree that Moore " hates film for not being the paper literature", nor that he "can't seem to separate the products in his head".

And yet, your arguments (and his own) speak to the opposite being true.

Your problem isn't with the movie - it's with the movie not being the comic.
No, dear, it's with the movie not updating it's arguments when it updates its time period.

If you're going to use a piece written in the 1980s, about 1980s politics, to attack the politics of the 2000s, then update the arguments to fit that; don't just bandy around the word 'terrorist'.

And he's not claiming that.

Note the qualifiers --"some", "often", "awful lot", "kind of" -- you partially failed to quote.

On NS, he'd fail... because he makes that kind of semi-generalised claim, fails to support it in any way, and leaves the wiggle room that you just exploited.

It's like the threads we occassionally see that trot out something like 'blacks are stupid', worded in a pseudo-inclusive phrasing, and then try to escape with a lame 'Oh, not ALL blacks are stupid, and I never said they were'.

No, dear, it's with the movie not updating it's arguments when it updates its time period.

If you're going to use a piece written in the 1980s, about 1980s politics, to attack the politics of the 2000s, then update the arguments to fit that; don't just bandy around the word 'terrorist'.

I don't believe you. A story doesn't have to be 'of an age'. It can be timeless AND ephemeral. The movie works as a critique of US foreign and domestic policy under the Bush regime, just as it worked as a critique of the Thatcherite 80's.

I'm not sure what, exactly, you think it is that doesn't work, in the film - because you don't actually say, you just dip it in some handwavium and send it on it's way.

So - all I'm left judging it on, is your 'a lot of the problems come from adapting' type talk... and that says that your problem isn't with the film, at all, in it's own right.

I liked V for Vendetta but I actually thought the acting was a little meh.

Och, nonsense.

He's just, rightly, pissed off that DC have made a hash of his long string fantastic of comics. Are you saying you wouldn't be ticked off if a company, against your express wishes, repeatedly took your material and changed it for the worse?
not just done that, but refused to negotiate over rights of Watchmen and Swamp Thing with Moore. DC hold all the rights for them, and so can do whatever the hell they like with them, as long as they remain in print. And let's face it, those two titles are going to always remain in print (DC will make sure of that). Moore gets eff all from Watchmen. DC's handling of Watchmen and SwampThing merchandising is what caused Moore to leave DC.

That said, Moore appears to be extremely naiive when in comes to business. Reason he left 2000AD was for similar reasons. And iirc, there was some similar problems in the 90's between him and another publisher.
Once is bad luck, but when it happens time and time you do have to start to wonder...

See: works by Grant Morrison (e.g. The Filth)
I take issue with that. The Filth is a fantastic satire/pisstake of the comic industry. It takes a couple of reads to really get it.

It doesn't help that Moore is also an occultist.
Moore's not an occultist. He's heavily into Wiccan and paganism and worships some ancient roman snake god. His religious beliefs are best understood through his Promethea comics.
Doesn't make him an occultist, just bloody odd.

I've liked a lot of his material, and I've always thought he, personally, was a bit of a twat. 'Tis puzzlement.
I would say that, but after seeing his picture I am convinced he is a Biblical prophet and would probably send bears to eat me or something.

why? As with "v for vendetta", it turned out to be a remarkably good movie.

Moore's 'problem' is that he hates film for not being the paper literature... Despite the fact that that's the point of film. Moore can't seem to separate the products in his head, and so he judges the film by the text, as though there were some kind of necessary equal value. Of course the movie made by the studio doesn't match the movies-in-your-head that he sees while he's creating - but that doesn't make the whole medium defective - just different.

qft =)

I would say that, but after seeing his picture I am convinced he is a Biblical prophet and would probably send bears to eat me or something.

Seems more like that guy you wanna get stoned with.

On NS, he'd fail...
On NS:G he could speak for himself, instead of going by an analysis of just over 50 words which do not give a definitive statement of whether or not he believes every single comic that has 'explored the seedy underbelly' is directly inspired by Watchmen.


I don't believe you.
If you think I'm lying to you about my own thoughts... what can I say?

That's a rather low blow for a poster of your calibre.

A story doesn't have to be 'of an age'.
I'm not saying it has to be.

I'm not sure what, exactly, you think it is that doesn't work, in the film
I think the portrayal of of V as a terrorist, in obvious reference to the fact that the Western nations are involved in some fight against terrorism, is mangled. If the film is a critique of Anglo-American foreign policy, as I agree it is trying to be, then what exactly is the critique?

It seems more than than just repeating the maxim that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', for it mixes V's terrorism with V's, and the people of Britain's, struggle against the totalitarian regime. This is where the message of the film gets mangled, and where the film is poor for me. The totalitarian regime is certainly shown as a possible logical extension of the Bush/Blair governments, with obvious parallels against the PATRIOT act, extraordinary rendition, etc. But with the notion of TWAT ever-present, V's, and the peoples', terrorist status seems vague. I'm sure the Wachowski's aren't pushing for armed struggle against the US or UK regimes, and neither are they saying that those genuine terrorists in Guantanamo and elsewhere are in the right. And I can't see any other clear message coming out.

The use of terrorism isn't explored well, and as it's pushed so heavily in the film, the fact that it's always in the foreground, muddies the piece.

Cool action sequences, yes... and perhaps the best stab at putting Moore's work on the silver screen (it's certainly superior to the dire League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or the very silly From Hell), but the 'modernness' felt to artificial, too out of place for the film to be a whole.



I take issue with that. The Filth is a fantastic satire/pisstake of the comic industry. It takes a couple of reads to really get it.
As with most of Morrison's work, parts are fucking inspired, and at times hilarious.

But I personally find some of his stuff 'shocking' for the sake of being shocking.

EDIT: However, I've been wanting to read We3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE3) for a while now.

I think the portrayal of of V as a terrorist, in obvious reference to the fact that the Western nations are involved in some fight against terrorism, is mangled. If the film is a critique of Anglo-American foreign policy, as I agree it is trying to be, then what exactly is the critique?

Personally, I don't think V for Vendetta (as a comic or movie) necessarily has to be a reference to any particular government or conflict. The comic was certainly inspired by political trends at the time and I'm certain the movie was inspired by current political trends. But I think it works quite well (and I tend to see it) as a more general statement about what can happen when we let government get too powerful. It's much more timeless than many let on - and I think people tend to see the government they have the most problem with in the story.

The comic was certainly more "Go go anarchy!!!" than the movie, but I don't see that as a particular failing.

But I think it works quite well (and I tend to see it) as a more general statement about what can happen when we let government get too powerful. It's much more timeless than many let on - and I think people tend to see the government they have the most problem with in the story.
An interesting take.

Perhaps a re-watch in a couple of years, with B&B long gone, will soften/change me opinion.

The comic was certainly more "Go go anarchy!!!" than the movie, but I don't see that as a particular failing.
No, I don't either.

And I am hereby adopting the term "Go go anarchy!!!"

As with most of Morrison's work, parts are fucking inspired, and at times hilarious.

But I personally find some of his stuff 'shocking' for the sake of being shocking.

EDIT: However, I've been wanting to read We3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE3) for a while now.
I agree with you about the 'shocking for the sake of being shocking' bit, though I think this was still a delibrate well-aimed barb at the whole comics industry, and as well the entertainment industry - especially the blurring out of Max Porno's genitalia. Seeing a million deaths is fine, but the kiddies aren't allowed to see a pee-pee or hear a naughty word. Oh my, no!

I bought We3 last year on Amazon. A very fine read. Even got my g/f to read it, and she enjoyed it (it's the first graphic novel she's ever read!)


Two things I really disliked about 'V' the movie was that the scene where Evey is sent to the Bishop. In the book she willingly helps V, but in the movie she betrays him to the bishop. Why do that? Why make that change? It leaves a sour taste in one's mouth. Change for the sake of it.
Plus it's painfully obvious the bit where she rolls across the bed is in there just for the split-second chance to see up Portman's skirt to her small frilly white knickers.
Not that I paused at that point or anything.
It was a shame they cut the whole LSD-trip out, but I was expecting them to. Can't have cops taking drugs. Plus it would have slowed the film down.
The ending sucked. The only reason I could see for having everyone dressed as V was because the Wachowski brothers wanted a big 'cool' finale for their movie, and are obviously into leather and such like. As it was, it was just lame. One can just imagine them sitting round getting stoned and saying, "oh wow man what if there wasn't just one V but hundreds of them, all walking through the streets of London? Wouldn't that be, like, so awesome?"

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

Click on "Watch this movie".

What might have happened in the 80s.

Way to prove you've never read Lost Girls.

The stories are based on the childhood fantasy worlds of the three women:

Wendy, John and Michael Darling meeting a homeless boy named Peter Pan, his sister and the lost boys in a park for sexual encounters one summer, she was sixteen.
Dorothy Gale having sexual encounters with three farm hands and later her father at the age of sixteen after a cyclone came to Kansas; it was while trapped in her house during this cyclone that she experienced her first orgasm.
Alice Fairchild having sex, first with a man and then with several girls and women while attending an all girls school, beginning at the age of fourteen.

Yeah, that's not a pedophile fantasy at all, what the hell was I thinking. I did forget the incest, though.

The stories are based on the childhood fantasy worlds of the three women:

Wendy, John and Michael Darling meeting a homeless boy named Peter Pan, his sister and the lost boys in a park for sexual encounters one summer, she was sixteen.
Dorothy Gale having sexual encounters with three farm hands and later her father at the age of sixteen after a cyclone came to Kansas; it was while trapped in her house during this cyclone that she experienced her first orgasm.
Alice Fairchild having sex, first with a man and then with several girls and women while attending an all girls school, beginning at the age of fourteen.
Great, so you can copypasta from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Girls#Plot_summary)...

Way to judge a book by it's cover... nigh-on literally.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

Click on "Watch this movie".

What might have happened in the 80s.

You know what's sad, I probably would have watched that for at least a little bit...

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

Click on "Watch this movie".

What might have happened in the 80s.

LOL! That was Awesome.

Great, so you can copypasta from Wikipedia...Way to judge a book by it's cover... nigh-on literally.

I didn't know you could get pasta from Wikipedia. Do they deliver, or do I have to go in and order? Also, so what, now Wikipedia's not a acceptable source of information?

I'm not judging it from its cover. I didn't have to go to Wikipedia to know what Lost Girls was, I already knew from seeing a copy. Wikipedia is just a handy reference point.

I'm not judging it from its cover. I didn't have to go to Wikipedia to know what Lost Girls was, I already knew from seeing a copy.
Then you've read it?

For if you have, I don't see how you could call it a 'paedophile fantasy'. It's just... not.

It's sexual in content, sure, but it's about exploring the domain of (growing) sexuality, certainly not about sexualisng children.

To some extent, Craig Thompson's Blankets explores similar ground, albeit less explicitly.

Then you've read it? For if you have, I don't see how you could call it a 'paedophile fantasy'. It's just... not. It's sexual in content, sure, but it's about exploring the domain of (growing) sexuality, certainly not about sexualisng children.

I'm dating a girl who owns a bookstore. She was of two minds whether or not to sell it, and she asked my opinion. I skimmed it, mostly because I didn't feel the need to sit and pore over some porno comic. It's got kids having sex, incest, molestation, how is that not a pedophile fantasy?

She ended up deciding to not to sell it.

Yeah, that's not a pedophile fantasy at all, what the hell was I thinking. I did forget the incest, though.
You do know Lewis Carroll, if he were alive today, would almost certainly be on the sex offenders list and not lauded as a fantastic children's author?

Moore, with his Lost Girls book, was exploring how much sexuality is in fact hidden within these famous childrens books. Rather a lot, by his account.
Only thing I didn't like about the book was the artwork. Melinda Gebbie is a fantastic artist, but a lot of the stuff in this novel looked like she was 1/2 asleep when she drew it. It was rather disappointing.

Watchmen, it wasn't bad, wasn't great. I thought Incredible Hulk was better.

I didn't like their use of the soundtrack. Ride of the Valkyries was the only thing employed properly. Jimi Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower cover was used halfway decently.

I liked the movie, very gritty. Well acted. Rorschach was the best character.

Only bad thing if there is one is that there is no room for a part 2.

I agree with you about the 'shocking for the sake of being shocking' bit, though I think this was still a delibrate well-aimed barb at the whole comics industry, and as well the entertainment industry - especially the blurring out of Max Porno's genitalia. Seeing a million deaths is fine, but the kiddies aren't allowed to see a pee-pee or hear a naughty word. Oh my, no!

Indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Lee_(comic_store_owner)

(Luckily, the suit was dropped, but more because the DA in Rome is incompetent than because it was a dumb lawsuit)

I bought We3 last year on Amazon. A very fine read. Even got my g/f to read it, and she enjoyed it (it's the first graphic novel she's ever read!)

Awwwww. My husband started me out on Sandman.

Two things I really disliked about 'V' the movie was that the scene where Evey is sent to the Bishop. In the book she willingly helps V, but in the movie she betrays him to the bishop. Why do that? Why make that change? It leaves a sour taste in one's mouth. Change for the sake of it.

I have to admit that I like Evey's character much better in the movie than in the comic. In the comic, she was nothing more than a damsel-in-distress figure for the vast majority of the comic, with little to no personality of her own. It was good to see more dynamic to the character.


The stories are based on the childhood fantasy worlds of the three women:

Wendy, John and Michael Darling meeting a homeless boy named Peter Pan, his sister and the lost boys in a park for sexual encounters one summer, she was sixteen.
Dorothy Gale having sexual encounters with three farm hands and later her father at the age of sixteen after a cyclone came to Kansas; it was while trapped in her house during this cyclone that she experienced her first orgasm.
Alice Fairchild having sex, first with a man and then with several girls and women while attending an all girls school, beginning at the age of fourteen.

Yeah, that's not a pedophile fantasy at all, what the hell was I thinking. I did forget the incest, though.

16, 16, 14.....

Unless these girls were supposed to all be going through puberty at a very delayed time point, no, it isn't a pedophile fantasy at all.

Watchmen, it wasn't bad, wasn't great. I thought Incredible Hulk was better.

Seriously? I mean, the latest incarnation of the Incredible Hulk was certainly better than the last movie they made for it, but I wouldn't say that it even begins to compare with the Watchmen movie.

I'm dating a girl who owns a bookstore. She was of two minds whether or not to sell it, and she asked my opinion. I skimmed it, mostly because I didn't feel the need to sit and pore over some porno comic.
So, when asked your opinion on something, you made your mind up without reading it?

How enlightened.

It's got kids having sex, incest, molestation, how is that not a pedophile fantasy?
Because an exploration of the maturing sexuality of young teens, and the use of sexuality/sexual themes in 18th/19th century Anglo-American literature/society isn't a "pedophile fantasy".

Unless you're unable to separate a discussion of sexuality with the act of sex/sexual gratification itself, I don't see how you can hold it to be true of Moore's book.

EDIT: It's like saying, 'Heart of Darkness', it's got African slaves being abused, colonialism and White ivory hunters, how is that not a racist fantasy? (not that I've read it, of course)'.

EDIT: It's like saying, 'Heart of Darkness', it's got African slaves being abused, colonialism and White ivory hunters, how is that not a racist fantasy? (not that I've read it, of course)'.

Which could be argued. Heart of Darkness is not really pro-slavery, and it does seem to argue for racial equality, but on the grounds that deep down we're as savage as them as opposed to them being as human as us.

It's about as backhanded of a "compliment" as you can get.

ok, can someone answer me something (I never read the graphic novel), and it confused me because, when it explained it, someone was trying to talk to me in the theater but:

why did Ozy kill the Comedian? Because the Comedian found out he was on "the list"? what was that list about? The people Ozy gave cancer to, in furtherance of his plan to further alienate Dr. Manhattan? Did the Comedian have cancer?

ok, can someone answer me something (I never read the graphic novel), and it confused me because, when it explained it, someone was trying to talk to me in the theater but:

why did Ozy kill the Comedian? Because the Comedian found out he was on "the list"? what was that list about? The people Ozy gave cancer to, in furtherance of his plan to further alienate Dr. Manhattan? Did the Comedian have cancer?

In the graphic novel, Ozy's scheme was actually quite different. Ozy engineered an "alien from another dimension" that then "attacked" New York. The Comedian found out about the scheme and was killed so that he couldn't stop it/tell anyone.

So, in keeping with the book, the idea needed to be that the Comedian found out about Ozy's scheme. In this case, I would guess that "the list" was meant to be the people who got cancer.

Note: It's been a while since I read it, so if I got any details wrong, someone can correct me.

ok, can someone answer me something (I never read the graphic novel), and it confused me because, when it explained it, someone was trying to talk to me in the theater but:

why did Ozy kill the Comedian? Because the Comedian found out he was on "the list"? what was that list about? The people Ozy gave cancer to, in furtherance of his plan to further alienate Dr. Manhattan? Did the Comedian have cancer?

In the graphic novel, Ozy's plan was to genetically engineer an alien-looking creature that would explode in New York, sending out violent psychic waves that killed many people and mentally scarred others. By faking an alien invasion, the people would unite against a foe so strange and threatening that they would team up with each other and forget their differences.

The Comedian found out about all of this. Not just the list, but about the "alien" too.

No Squid?

http://members4.boardhost.com/JohnShirley/msg/1236465290.html

Also, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w) seems relevant.

EDIT: Well-played, sir. Well played.

You know what's sad, I probably would have watched that for at least a little bit...

... I know I would've watched at least a couple of episodes. reminds me of the old Funimation Batman series. :p

Which could be argued.
Could be.

The point being, just because something involves slavery/sexuality doesn't mean it's racist/paedophilic (if that's even a word).

Could be.

The point being, just because something involves slavery/sexuality doesn't mean it's racist/paedophilic (if that's even a word).

Would Huck Finn be a better example? It contains those elements, but is decidedly against them all.

Would Huck Finn be a better example? It contains those elements, but is decidedly against them all.
Aye.

If you only enjoy and pay attention to scenes in films involving killing that defies physical laws, then 300 is superb.

Or the scenes involving scantily clad, well-chiseled men?

*drools*

...I'm sorry, where was I?

Oh yes... on topic: I liked the movie. I haven't read the comic though (I have to buy it now, however). I also liked that they used a Cohen song.

Awwwww. My husband started me out on Sandman.
My next mission is to get her to (start to) read Watchmen before we go see it on Saturday (at IMAX, full unedited version with an extra 4 minutes woot!). She knows nothing about it, other than I go glossly-eyed whenever I bring it up.
I think she's going to be in for quite the surprise.

I have to admit that I like Evey's character much better in the movie than in the comic. In the comic, she was nothing more than a damsel-in-distress figure for the vast majority of the comic, with little to no personality of her own. It was good to see more dynamic to the character.
I agree with you there. Evey's character was very under-developed in the book, but as 'V' was Moore's first attempt at a graphic novel, I think we can forgive him.
I still think the change I mentioned was silly and unnecessary.

I saw Watcmen last night. Amazing and I would definitely watch it again. However there were a few scenes from the comic that didn't make it to the movie. I'll put them in spoiler tags for those who have not read the comic.



Hollis' Death- I thought that was a very important part of the comic. It wasn't even alluded to in the film that he was murdered by a gang who mistook him for the current Nite Owl. I sort of just expected it to be in the film.

The interaction between the news vendor and the boy - The only real hit of any interaction was near the end when they died. Maybe not all the scenes from the comic would have been needed but a couple would have been nice.

The psychologist Malcolm Long - He only appeared briefly in the film while in the book he was there a lot. The movie did not have the scene where Rorschach told him what he actually saw when he looked at the cards and there was no idea how involved Malcolm became in Rorschach case.

However I did like the alternate ending where Veidt used Dr Manhattan's own energy which caused the world to blame him for destruction. It made so much more sense than the comic book ending with an inter dimensional alien.

I saw Watcmen last night. Amazing and I would definitely watch it again. However there were a few scenes from the comic that didn't make it to the movie. I'll put them in spoiler tags for those who have not read the comic.



Hollis' Death- I thought that was a very important part of the comic. It wasn't even alluded to in the film that he was murdered by a gang who mistook him for the current Nite Owl. I sort of just expected it to be in the film.

The interaction between the news vendor and the boy - The only real hit of any interaction was near the end when they died. Maybe not all the scenes from the comic would have been needed but a couple would have been nice.

The psychologist Malcolm Long - He only appeared briefly in the film while in the book he was there a lot. The movie did not have the scene where Rorschach told him what he actually saw when he looked at the cards and there was no idea how involved Malcolm became in Rorschach case.

However I did like the alternate ending where Veidt used Dr Manhattan's own energy which caused the world to blame him for destruction. It made so much more sense than the comic book ending with an inter dimensional alien.



A couple of thoughts:



Hollis' death isn't actually important to the overall arc, and - in the context of the mass destruction of cities, is even less so. If you die twenty minutes before the city blows up... or you're in the city when it goes, doesn't matter, in the big picture.

Similarly, the news vendor and Malcolm arcs are cute and add depth, but don't overall impact the main story arc.

I agree with you about the ending - I actually hugely prefer the movie ending. Dr Manhattan basically IS a 'deus ex machina', so it makes sense to use him as such, rather than adding an extra layer of deus ex machina to an already somewhat-tautly-stretched reality.

It was often frame-for-frame from the comic. It wasn't meant to be a historical account of the battle. It was meant to be an adaptation of the comic. In that, it was quite successful.

The comic was crummy and the movie adaption implied too many right-wing metaphors to mention. Thus, I expect Watchmen to be far too sympathetic with Rorschach and contain excessive "action".

Also, I really don't see the homophobic. To me, it seemed rather obvious that two of the characters were, in fact, lovers.

Near the beginning of the film "boy-lovers" is used by the Spartans to mean weak, which is absurd, considering that the Spartans encouraged homosexuality more than any other Greek city-state, and that was one of the reasons the Persians thought Sparta would be weak. The only other instance of homosexuality being portrayed is in the "degenerate" Persian tent. There are no positively portrayed homosexuals in that film. Who the two characters you refer to? the father and son?

Of course, Alan Moore never really likes any movie adaptation of any comic. He apparently has a hatred of Hollywood in general.

He named one a while back.

the buzz i hear is that the movie is total crap.

The comic was crummy and the movie adaption implied too many right-wing metaphors to mention. Thus, I expect Watchmen to be far too sympathetic with Rorschach and contain excessive "action".

if you think the comic was crummy, I would expect you not to like the movie. Same goes for Watchmen.

Near the beginning of the film "boy-lovers" is used by the Spartans to mean weak, which is absurd, considering that the Spartans encouraged homosexuality more than any other Greek city-state, and that was one of the reasons the Persians thought Sparta would be weak. The only other instance of homosexuality being portrayed is in the "degenerate" Persian tent. There are no positively portrayed homosexuals in that film. Who the two characters you refer to? the father and son?

No, the son and his friend.

And I took the "boy-lover" comment much more literally. I took it that they were quite specifically referring to boys, not to homosexuality in general. In my head, there was an implicit line not spoken just after that - something along the lines of, "A Spartan would only love a man."

He named one a while back.

Really? Which one?

Jackie Earle Haley. I don’t think you could have cast a better Rorschach with a decade of casting research. So perfect.

Ozymandias is kind of weak as villains go but the acting was well done. Matthew Goode played him pretty well. The fight seen was probably the best.

Jackie Earle Haley. I don’t think you could have cast a better Rorschach with a decade of casting research. So perfect.

Ozymandias is kind of weak as villains go but the acting was well done. Matthew Goode played him pretty well. The fight seen was probably the best.

Fixed.

That part would probably be better in spoilers, don't ya think?

Jackie Earle Haley. I don’t think you could have cast a better Rorschach with a decade of casting research. So perfect.

Ozymandias is kind of weak as villains go but the acting was well done. Matthew Goode played him pretty well. The fight seen was probably the best.

Buh-wha?

Do it? Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. I did it thirty-five minutes ago.

So, when asked your opinion on something, you made your mind up without reading it?

No, I skimmed it, and then I made up my mind. Besides, it's a comic book, skimming it is pretty much all it needs. It's not like we're talking Plato's Republic here. It's not like I missed a bunch of deep symbolism.


Because an exploration of the maturing sexuality of young teens, and the use of sexuality/sexual themes in 18th/19th century Anglo-American literature/society isn't a "pedophile fantasy".

The pornographer's defense. "It's not 'naked pictures' it's a sociological experiment in human reaction to graphic images.' " Right. The key words there are 'young teens.' If Moore dressed some girl up as Alice or Dorothy and took pictures of her having sex with people, he'd go to jail. How is drawing them any different?

No, I skimmed it, and then I made up my mind.
Says it all, really.

Besides, it's a comic book, skimming it is pretty much all it needs. It's not like we're talking Plato's Republic here. It's not like I missed a bunch of deep symbolism.
No, it's not as if any great meaning could be communicated through words and pictures.

Forfend the thought.

If Moore did a completely different thing, he'd go to jail. How is doing a different thing any different to the thing he did?
Fixed.

Discussions of the maturing sexuality of young teens and actively pursuing sexual gratification with young teens are rather different. Do you realise this?

Do you see the difference between having sex with a 16-year-old and discussing how the sexual experiences of a 16-year-old affect them at the time and later?

Do you understand the difference between, say, Cum Sluts 4 and The Female Eunuch?

Your entire argument is based upon the laughable premise that the discussion of sexuality equates to the act of sex itself.

Your entire argument is based upon the laughable premise that the discussion of sexuality equates to the act of sex itself.

It's not the 'discussion of sexuality' that I object to, it's the graphic depiction of certain types of deviant sexuality involving young teens that I object to. 'The thought is often father to the deed' and while I wonder why a grown man feels the need to talk about 14 yr. old girls having sex with their fathers and/or 'family friends', I do concede that the possibility exists that said conversation has the potential to be innocent.

However, if you(not you personally, you as in people in general) feel it is necessary to talk about 14 yr. old girls having sex, it is entirely possible to discuss the sexual experiences of 14 yr. old girls without drawing graphic pictures of those same girls having sexual experiences.

14 yr. old girls having sex with their fathers and/or 'family friends
This does not happen in Lost Girls.

Again, it's hard to discuss the merits of the book with you if you haven't actually read it.

Neil Gaiman's review (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2006/06/lost-girls-redux.html) sums up nicely what I feel about the comic.

However, if you(not you personally, you as in people in general) feel it is necessary to talk about 14 yr. old girls having sex...
Again, you miss the mark... or at least it seems you are portraying the comic as 'hurr, hurr, children *drool*'.

...it is entirely possible to discuss the sexual experiences of 14 yr. old girls without drawing graphic pictures of those same girls having sexual experiences.
Of course it is.

It's also possible to discuss the Holocaust without drawing it (Maus), sexual abuse and first love without drawing it (Blankets), and the problems of racism and anti-Semitism without drawing it (The Contract With God Trilogy, Jimmy Corrigan).

But hey, "it's a comic book, skimming it is pretty much all it needs... It's not like I missed a bunch of deep symbolism."

No, I skimmed it, and then I made up my mind. Besides, it's a comic book, skimming it is pretty much all it needs.

There are comic books and comic books.

You can probably gather most of the content of "Archie" by flipping through it, but if you're skimming Gaiman, Miller or Moore, you're missing the boat.

(And - I'm saying this as someone who hasn't read "Lost Girls" and doesn't particularly want to.)

Leaving aside for the moment the discussion of child pornography, except to note that I'd feel uncomfortable posting images of the covers to Houses of the Holy or Blind Faith here, and moving back to Watchmen....

I went to see it last night. I am a long-time fan of the original, and it left me cold.

Part of the problem for me was admittedly the total lack of tension that comes about from knowing the ending (even the slightly changed ending that I'll avoid discussing, but yes, is the one part of the film that's arguably stronger than the original). It's like watching highlights of a soccer game where you already know the final score, who scored, and when they scored - there's simply no tension.

I concede that if the film hadn't been so faithful to the source material, I'd be complaining far more (and I have read the ghastly original first screenplay attempt that started with 'The Watchmen' supergroup accidentally blowing up the Statue of Liberty, and ending with Silk Spectre, Nite Owl and Rorshach being propelled into our world at the conclusion), so I also concede Snyder was probably on a hiding to nothing on this one.

But I also object to the way Snyder fetishises violence. Of course Watchmen has its violent moments, but rather than acknowledge the extent to violence helps brutalise the characters in the original, Snyder seems to glorify in blood, and in fact up the violence when he can by showing incidents that are shown less graphically in the original (Big Figure's attempt to get into Rorshach's cell being an example).

One of my least favourite changes in the film epitomises this. Since I don't know how to use spoiler tags, the following is in white text:

When Rorshach relates the story of how he became 'Rorschach' to the psychiatrist, he doesn't simply lock the murderer to the furnace and give him a choice of being blown up or sawing his arm off, he instead chains the murderer to the furnace, and then personally hacks through the murderer's skull with a cleaver. That undermines a central point of the original scene, and is far more violent and graphic than the original (as is actually clearly showing that the dogs are chewing on a human leg with a shoe still attached rather than a bone that R then works out belonged to the girl).

The film was always going to be violent, but Snyder makes it even more so, glorifying to my mind the excess brutality in the process. And that grates.

So does the soft-core sex scene, which just made me want to laugh - in embarrassment for the actors rather than for myself.

Am I the only one who did not like the change to the ending? I've been told that I'm pretty much alone in this interpretation, but I always thought that the point of the giant alien thing in the comic was that humanity "realized" they were not alone in the universe, and that the universe did not have time to worry about their petty nonsense, a la Star Trek. The idea, to me, was that humanity was uniting in peace in a realization of their commonality and their less important place in the cosmic state of things. The new ending just has humanity uniting in the face of a newer, greater enemy. They're still going to retain all their war-making abilities and all their weapons, and eventually, when Dr. Manhattan doesn't show up for decades or even centuries, they'll just turn them on each other, and things will go back to the way they were. I've been told that my interpretation is not accurate; that the message the alien thing was supposed to send was that it was a precursor to an invasion, and that humanity was uniting in war in both the comic and the movie (and it's been years since I've read Watchmen, so this may have even been explicitly stated).

The only positive I see in the changed ending is that it makes Dr. Manhattan's decision to leave the galaxy more sacrificial in nature, as he's seemingly doing so to allow humanity's steps towards peace to grow. Other than that, I wasn't a fan of the ending at all.

Oh, and one other minor point that I hope doesn't need spoiler tags...

Am I the only person who thought that, based on the actresses used in the film version, Jon was absolutely insane for leaving Janey Slater for Laurie Jupiter?

Maybe it's just because I'm over 40 these days, but Janey's not 'old' when Jon leaves her, she's just as, well, hot she was when they first started dating, if not more so - and far, far more attractive than Malin Akerman's wooden jailbait.

Hell, I even thought Slater's cardigans were more alluring than the teenage Silk Spectre II's skin-tight latex. I must be getting old.

But I also object to the way Snyder fetishises violence. Of course Watchmen has its violent moments, but rather than acknowledge the extent to violence helps brutalise the characters in the original, Snyder seems to glorify in blood, and in fact up the violence when he can by showing incidents that are shown less graphically in the original
That was my major problem with the movie as well, which annoyed me to no end, mainly because I already expected it and still hoped to be proven wrong ( Mr. 300 using violence merely as a tool and not as an end in itself? One can only dream...).

based on the actresses used in the film version, Jon was absolutely insane for leaving Janey Slater for Laurie Jupiter?

Yup. I'm 31 and agree wholeheartedly.

Also, not only did the scene you describe in white test get significantly more violent, but they cut 2 of the 3 "humanizing" things that that character does, thus leaving my wife (who only saw the movie) to take him for a total psychotic.

I think a little of the ol' ultraviolence proves a point. Heroism is an abstract concept that loses luster when faced with the reality of beating the crap out of people (or exploding them graphically.) Having said that, I'm pretty sure that the same point could have been made with only ~ 1/3 of the bone-shattering that actually occured. The frequency of it, if anything, desensitized me to the horror of it. And was a little confusing: A couple people left the theater asking if Dan and Laurie had super-strength. They did seem to punch through things with impressive frequency.

If Moore dressed some girl up as Alice or Dorothy and took pictures of her having sex with people, he'd go to jail. How is drawing them any different?

The same way that writing about them is different.

Do you think every author who has ever used teen sex in a comic/novel/movie/etc. should go to jail?

@ Sdaeriji

I always thought point of the alien was much the point of Dr. M's "attack" at the end of the movie - it was to scare humanity into uniting against something far more scary than other human beings.

Thus, I would expect the same end result you're describing after Dr. M. After enough time has passed, when no more scary interdimensional aliens show up, people go back to their own petty bickering.

Of course, if the goal was supposed to be something more esoteric - that humanity would have a huge epiphany and therefore put away their weapons and such, I could see that coming out of Dr. M's ending as well. The idea the governments of the world were supposed to get is that Dr. M lost all touch with his humanity and that's why he blew shit up. So I suppose people could get the message that they need to move past petty nonsense, because they dehumanize themselves with all the violence. *shrug*

If Moore dressed some girl up as Alice or Dorothy and took pictures of her having sex with people, he'd go to jail. How is drawing them any different?

Does the phrase "no animals were harmed in the making of this feature" mean anything to you?

The reason child pornography is illegal is because it exploits children. There were no children involved.

Does the phrase "no animals were harmed in the making of this feature" mean anything to you?

The reason child pornography is illegal is because it exploits children. There were no children involved.

Unless you're in....Australia, I think. Then cartoon kiddies still count and you can get convicted on child pornography charges.

Neo Art's question from yesterday:
why did Ozy kill the Comedian? Because the Comedian found out he was on "the list"? what was that list about? The people Ozy gave cancer to, in furtherance of his plan to further alienate Dr. Manhattan? Did the Comedian have cancer?

You've only been given the original answer, not the movie answer:
Nixon had him spying on Veidt because he didn't trust him. And yes, the cancer was Veidt's doing to drive off Dr. M.

Unless you're in....Australia, I think. Then cartoon kiddies still count and you can get convicted on child pornography charges.

It's illegal in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Ireland.

Did anyone else think the credit sequence was really sad? The reader's understanding of what happens to the first-generation masks comes over the course of a number of issues in the original. To cram it all into 4 minutes leaves one wondering why there were any second-gens at all. I couldn't care less about Mothman, but to see him
dragged away kicking and biting to the asylum right before seeing Silhouette's body right after seeing Dollar Bill's body
left me on the verge of tears.

The same way that writing about them is different.

Do you think every author who has ever used teen sex in a comic/novel/movie/etc. should go to jail?

@ Sdaeriji

I always thought point of the alien was much the point of Dr. M's "attack" at the end of the movie - it was to scare humanity into uniting against something far more scary than other human beings.

Thus, I would expect the same end result you're describing after Dr. M. After enough time has passed, when no more scary interdimensional aliens show up, people go back to their own petty bickering.

Of course, if the goal was supposed to be something more esoteric - that humanity would have a huge epiphany and therefore put away their weapons and such, I could see that coming out of Dr. M's ending as well. The idea the governments of the world were supposed to get is that Dr. M lost all touch with his humanity and that's why he blew shit up. So I suppose people could get the message that they need to move past petty nonsense, because they dehumanize themselves with all the violence. *shrug*

See, that's pretty much what everyone else has told me, and it sucks cause now I've re-evaluated my entire enjoyment of Watchmen based on this interpretation I had that no one else sees. :(

Did anyone else think the credit sequence was really sad? The reader's understanding of what happens to the first-generation masks comes over the course of a number of issues in the original. To cram it all into 4 minutes leaves one wondering why there were any second-gens at all. I couldn't care less about Mothman, but to see him
dragged away kicking and biting to the asylum right before seeing Silhouette's body right after seeing Dollar Bill's body
left me on the verge of tears.

I agree it was short, but the movie was already 165 minutes. I don't think they could have spent the time exploring all of that without making the movie a four hour ordeal.

Oh, and one other minor point that I hope doesn't need spoiler tags...

Am I the only person who thought that, based on the actresses used in the film version, Jon was absolutely insane for leaving Janey Slater for Laurie Jupiter?

Maybe it's just because I'm over 40 these days, but Janey's not 'old' when Jon leaves her, she's just as, well, hot she was when they first started dating, if not more so - and far, far more attractive than Malin Akerman's wooden jailbait.

Hell, I even thought Slater's cardigans were more alluring than the teenage Silk Spectre II's skin-tight latex. I must be getting old.

I agree, pre-cancer Janey is way hotter than Malin Akerman. Silk Spectre's wig definitely did not compliment her. Frankly, Malin Akerman was easily the biggest weak link in the movie, IMO. Every scene she was in ground to a screeching halt, and I was left very aware I was watching a movie when she was on screen.

I agree it was short,

Clarification: I didn't mean sad as in "not well done" or "it gave short shrift to the earlier heroes", I meant sad as in "that's a lot of death and misfortune to pack into an intro sequence."

See, that's pretty much what everyone else has told me, and it sucks cause now I've re-evaluated my entire enjoyment of Watchmen based on this interpretation I had that no one else sees. :(

I think your interpretation is interesting. I'd just never thought about it that way before. :fluffle:

See, that's pretty much what everyone else has told me, and it sucks cause now I've re-evaluated my entire enjoyment of Watchmen based on this interpretation I had that no one else sees. :(

Well....

I think you're right - I think that the enormity of the challenge, and the 'new world order' in which humans become visibly 'less' - AND are forced tor ealise it - was certainly suggested.

However, I still think the Dr Manhattan ending is more effective. There's a scene about halfway through the movie, I think, where the guy that originally talked about 'super-man being born' recants, and claims he had said 'god was born'.

Dr Manhattan is - several times - compared directly to a godlike being, and the one characteristic that 'saves' him - is his humanity.

Ozy's plan specifically overturns the perception of Manhattan's humanity, visibly. If everything had gone Ozy's way, it really WOULD have been the end of Manhattan - but he got unlucky, because he underestimated the effect SS could still have.

So - when Ozymandias unleashes Manhattan's signature power, it's not a superhero that people are fearing - it's the clear and present wrath of a vengeful god.

Leaving aside for the moment the discussion of child pornography, except to note that I'd feel uncomfortable posting images of the covers to Houses of the Holy or Blind Faith here, and moving back to Watchmen....

Point. We probably shouldn't hijack a thread about a movie and turn it into a discussion of Moore's fetishes.

Point. We probably shouldn't hijack a thread about a movie and turn it into a discussion of Moore's fetishes.
For grief's sake, now your saying Moore is a paedophile?

So, any reviewers (y'know, people who've actually read the book, unlike yourself) noticed this rather unseemly side of Mr. Moore? Any reputable critic accusing him of such? Any critic at all?

No.

Grow up and stop making unfounded statements based upon deficiencies in your knowledge.

Leaving aside for the moment the discussion of child pornography, except to note that I'd feel uncomfortable posting images of the covers to Houses of the Holy or Blind Faith here, and moving back to Watchmen....

I went to see it last night. I am a long-time fan of the original, and it left me cold.

Part of the problem for me was admittedly the total lack of tension that comes about from knowing the ending (even the slightly changed ending that I'll avoid discussing, but yes, is the one part of the film that's arguably stronger than the original). It's like watching highlights of a soccer game where you already know the final score, who scored, and when they scored - there's simply no tension.

I concede that if the film hadn't been so faithful to the source material, I'd be complaining far more (and I have read the ghastly original first screenplay attempt that started with 'The Watchmen' supergroup accidentally blowing up the Statue of Liberty, and ending with Silk Spectre, Nite Owl and Rorshach being propelled into our world at the conclusion), so I also concede Snyder was probably on a hiding to nothing on this one.

But I also object to the way Snyder fetishises violence. Of course Watchmen has its violent moments, but rather than acknowledge the extent to violence helps brutalise the characters in the original, Snyder seems to glorify in blood, and in fact up the violence when he can by showing incidents that are shown less graphically in the original (Big Figure's attempt to get into Rorshach's cell being an example).

One of my least favourite changes in the film epitomises this. Since I don't know how to use spoiler tags, the following is in white text:

When Rorshach relates the story of how he became 'Rorschach' to the psychiatrist, he doesn't simply lock the murderer to the furnace and give him a choice of being blown up or sawing his arm off, he instead chains the murderer to the furnace, and then personally hacks through the murderer's skull with a cleaver. That undermines a central point of the original scene, and is far more violent and graphic than the original (as is actually clearly showing that the dogs are chewing on a human leg with a shoe still attached rather than a bone that R then works out belonged to the girl).

The film was always going to be violent, but Snyder makes it even more so, glorifying to my mind the excess brutality in the process. And that grates.

So does the soft-core sex scene, which just made me want to laugh - in embarrassment for the actors rather than for myself.

On the other hand, I didn't find the sex-scenes at all embarrassing, not even that excessive. It was an R rated movie, so I expected some sexuality and violence - and I've seen movies rated LOWER where the violence or sexuality wasn't as naked, but was more gratuitous.

Responding to your white text behind a spoiler:


Rorschach has to be a monster. There has to be some element of him that is seen as trying to be 'human' (in the movie, that's his apology to Nite Owl), but there can't be any compromise - Because - if he can compromise, his gesture at the end becomes nonsensical.

So - his 'breaking points' have to be made more obvious in the movie - the biting of the other kid's face, the violent retribution against the child-killer. The comic worked fine - but would appear too passive on film, and would also look a LOT like ripping off Saw. (Regardless of who did it first).

And, again - the film medium has to be a little more immediate. In a book, you can sit and look at the illustration until you work out what it is, but in a film, it has to be a lot more explicit, because the scene won't just hold up while you puzzle it out. If Rorschach takes the time to work out what you're looking at, on film, the immediate shock effect is lost - and it's that shock effect that is essential in the movie, because it explains why Rorschach reacts so... powerfully.


Overall - it's not fair to judge a movie on the limitations of the medium, when a servicable translation between media HAS taken place. Yes - it's a version. No, it's not the same. But that's in the nature of the cross-pollination between media.

On the other hand, I didn't find the sex-scenes at all embarrassing...
Not even the ejaculation/flamethrower bit?

Or Spectre's porno-esque sex moves/noises?

I found them too funny.

Not even the ejaculation/flamethrower bit?

Or Spectre's porno-esque sex moves/noises?

I found them too funny.

Everyone in the theatre laughed when the flamethrower was 'accidentally' tripped. It was lighthearted, funny, and something of a reference to the old tradition of volcanoes erupting, or trains heading into tunnels.

It certainly wasn't embarrassing, although it was funny as hell.

if you think the comic was crummy, I would expect you not to like the movie. Same goes for Watchmen.

Zack Snyder glorifies killing and gore in his films, and slows-down time to add "hipness". Watchmen (the comic book) does not try to please its audiences with its action scenes, and does not portray violence as "cool".

No, the son and his friend.

And I took the "boy-lover" comment much more literally. I took it that they were quite specifically referring to boys, not to homosexuality in general. In my head, there was an implicit line not spoken just after that - something along the lines of, "A Spartan would only love a man."

Which all still nonsense, considering the Spartans had more relationships with "boys" than any other state. No, the film was wrong. We are supposed to see Sparta as a nation fighting for "democracy" and "freedom" when the beginning of the film shows them practicing genetic purges on their children (which is, of course, historically accurate). I do not enjoy any film in which genetic purging, racism, homophobia (a point which you debate), and love of violence are synonymous with "freedom" and "justice". And use of the phrase "freedom is not free" just completed the wretched picture.



Really? Which one?

American Splendor.

this thread must win the award for most use of the /spolier tag in any thread. Ironic considering damn near everyone's read the book and knows the ending differs, yet it still reaches the same conclusion

The Archregimancy: to use spoiler tags, easist way is to use the Quote function and change the word, 'QUOTE' to 'SPOILER' at both ends.

Which all still nonsense, considering the Spartans had more relationships with "boys" than any other state. No, the film was wrong. We are supposed to see Sparta as a nation fighting for "democracy" and "freedom" when the beginning of the film shows them practicing genetic purges on their children (which is, of course, historically accurate). I do not enjoy any film in which genetic purging, racism, homophobia (a point which you debate), and love of violence are synonymous with "freedom" and "justice". And use of the phrase "freedom is not free" just completed the wretched picture.


But, wasnt that exactly how prettymuch all of Greece, and Sparta in particular, saw themselves, as this beacon of Light and Freedom, while at the same time practicing these same vile actions...

I mean, no it wasnt historically accurate, but that aspect of it I think was in line with Greek attitudes of the day...Much like the US saw itself in a very similar light whilest maintaining the institution of Slavery...

I mean, no it wasnt historically accurate, but that aspect of it I think was in line with Greek attitudes of the day...Much like the US saw itself in a very similar light whilest maintaining the institution of Slavery...

The 'Yeah, We're Not Perfect But We're The Best Thing Going At The Moment' school of thought.

Going back to Watchmen, I have to say, Silk Spectre was the worst part of the movie for me. As a long-time fan of the comic and huge movie buff, I can understand and agree with the changes made, they captured the spirit of the book far more than most book movies do. Of course there are parts I wish were not omitted or changed, like the entire deal with the psychiatrist and Rorschach, or his confrontations with his landlady. But overall I believe it was well-done. And I have to agree about the glorifying the violence part. It was supposed to be gritty and vile in the original, he ended up making it look like the best thing ever created.

Oh look! I've worked out how to use spoiler tags! (with thanks to Zombie PotatoHeads for the tip)


Regarding those sex scenes...

Not even the ejaculation/flamethrower bit?

Or Spectre's porno-esque sex moves/noises?

I found them too funny.


The flamethrower is, at least in the original medium, and can be (generously) interpreted as a humourous nod to older analogies like Casablanca's turning lighthouse. But otherwise I'm entirely with you. I found the rest of that Owl Ship bonking scene too excruciatingly poor for words, and struggled to stop myself laughing out loud. That scene was singlehandedly the winner of this year's Ed Wood Jr. award for bad science fiction.

And there's virtually no sexual tension between Dan and Laurie. On second thought, there's tension on Dan's side, but Malin Akerman would struggle to show tension with a stretched piece of elastic.



Responding to Grave n Idle's point on Rorshach...


Rorschach has to be a monster. There has to be some element of him that is seen as trying to be 'human' (in the movie, that's his apology to Nite Owl), but there can't be any compromise - Because - if he can compromise, his gesture at the end becomes nonsensical.

So - his 'breaking points' have to be made more obvious in the movie - the biting of the other kid's face, the violent retribution against the child-killer. The comic worked fine - but would appear too passive on film, and would also look a LOT like ripping off Saw. (Regardless of who did it first).

And, again - the film medium has to be a little more immediate. In a book, you can sit and look at the illustration until you work out what it is, but in a film, it has to be a lot more explicit, because the scene won't just hold up while you puzzle it out. If Rorschach takes the time to work out what you're looking at, on film, the immediate shock effect is lost - and it's that shock effect that is essential in the movie, because it explains why Rorschach reacts so... powerfully.

I don't realistically disagree with your basic point that the different medium might require a different approach to the scene. I also acknowledge your point about Saw, which - while I have absolutely no desire to see - I'm aware contains a scene similar to the scenario that Rorshach leaves the murderer in in the graphic novel.

That's not my objection, though. My objection is to the extent to which Snyder fetishises violence, and the extent to which that scene (or, more accurately, sequence of scenes) epitomises the extent to which Snyder is willing to increase the level of violence unnecessarily.

That same scene in the film could easily have been made more 'immediate' as you call it by simply having Rorshach handcuff the murderer to the furnace, walk out of the shack, and set it on fire, making it just as clear that he'd chosen to kill in an uncompromising manner than graphically showing Rorschach personally hack through the murderer's skull with a cleaver.

You could make it clear that the dogs were chewing on the girl's bones without showing the dogs chewing on a child's skeletal remains with a shoe hanging off the end.

You could show that Big Figure had to kill the crony who'd managed to get his hands tied around the prison bars without showing them actually saw through that crony's arms, and then showing the crony lying on the ground with blood pouring from his hewn stumps.

You could show Doctor Manhatten killing underworld figures without showing their exploded internal organs dripping from the ceiling.

That's not making the medium of cinema more 'immediate' than the graphic novel medium to allow for differences between media, that's unnecessarily fetishing violence for its own sake.

I don't realistically disagree with your basic point that the different medium might require a different approach to the scene. I also acknowledge your point about Saw, which - while I have absolutely no desire to see - I'm aware contains a scene similar to the scenario that Rorshach leaves the murderer in in the graphic novel.

That's not my objection, though. My objection is to the extent to which Snyder fetishises violence, and the extent to which that scene (or, more accurately, sequence of scenes) epitomises the extent to which Snyder is willing to increase the level of violence unnecessarily.

That same scene in the film could easily have been made more 'immediate' as you call it by simply having Rorshach handcuff the murderer to the furnace, walk out of the shack, and set it on fire, making it just as clear that he'd chosen to kill in an uncompromising manner than graphically showing Rorschach personally hack through the murderer's skull with a cleaver.

You could make it clear that the dogs were chewing on the girl's bones without showing the dogs chewing on a child's skeletal remains with a shoe hanging off the end.

You could show that Big Figure had to kill the crony who'd managed to get his hands tied around the prison bars without showing them actually saw through that crony's arms, and then showing the crony lying on the ground with blood pouring from his hewn stumps.

You could show Doctor Manhatten killing underworld figures without showing their exploded internal organs dripping from the ceiling.

That's not making the medium of cinema more 'immediate' than the graphic novel medium to allow for differences between media, that's unnecessarily fetishing violence for its own sake.

I agree with you on the Big Figure content - I'm really not sure what was gained from going in that particular direction, except for some gore.


But I have to disagree on a couple of other points:

1) The Dr Manhattan kills - yes, it's gruesome and over the top. On the other hand, there's something clinical and... not scary... about Dr Manhattan just vaping people. If you show it as somewhat messy and imperfect, it becomes more obvious why he doesn't do it more, and it makes the wrath of Manhattan a little more terrifying to consider, sitting there in the back of your head. And that's important - because the Deus ex machina in THIS machina, is deus-like. It's important that the Manhattan that humans are talking in hushed tones about, after the series of detonations, has to be both god and monster - a vengeful god.

2) A fleeting glimpse of what looks like a bone, connected to a little girl's shoe? Worth a thousand words, 5 more delicate shots, or 2 minutes of exposition.

3) The scene with Rorschach - how can you show someone NOT compromising? They either have to die for their belief (which he does) or they have to kill for it (which he does). I liked Rorschach's scene in the graphic novel, I actually like it better in the movie - because it always seemed... well, like a compromise. Rorschach is a monster because - like Hellboy - he's what 'bumps back' at 'the things that go bump in the night'.

The graphic novel scene is more cruel, but it's also actually more remote - and if you want to show Rorschach snapping, refusing to compromise, being the monster... and, just being an embodiment of anger... the hands on approach is more effective than the cuffs. And conveys four messages at once.

I'd rather take a maybe-too-bloody and maybe-too-sexual "Watchmen" over an anaemic version tailored for a PG-13 audience, anyday. And - for the most part, I agree with the director's decisions. So I'm pretty much totally happy with the product.

<snip>
And there's virtually no sexual tension between Dan and Laurie. On second thought, there's tension on Dan's side, but Malin Akerman would struggle to show tension with a stretched piece of elastic.

I think we can all agree, no matter our opinion of the film, that Akerman was shite.

Which all still nonsense, considering the Spartans had more relationships with "boys" than any other state. No, the film was wrong. We are supposed to see Sparta as a nation fighting for "democracy" and "freedom" when the beginning of the film shows them practicing genetic purges on their children (which is, of course, historically accurate). I do not enjoy any film in which genetic purging, racism, homophobia (a point which you debate), and love of violence are synonymous with "freedom" and "justice". And use of the phrase "freedom is not free" just completed the wretched picture.

Again, this sounds more like a problem with the comic itself than with it's translation to film.

It wasn't supposed to be an accurate portrayal of the Battle of Thermopylae. It was meant to be the story as told by a Spartan trying to get other Spartans riled up to fight. Of course he's going to portray their society as the free and just one. Of course he's going to portray the traitor as worthless and deformed (which Spartans would have viewed as being synonymous). Of course he's going to be xenophobic.

I really don't think you're supposed to get some sort of moral lesson out of it.

American Splendor.

Hmmmm...never heard of it.

Hmmmm...never heard of it.
Awesome film with Paul Giamatti based on the semi-autobiographal comic of the same name.

EDIT: You can see the trailer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APpxQm7sH5k).

Was it just me or had the first two hours of the movie nothing to do with the last hour? The beginning was boooooring and the end couldn't salvage that. And why did Dr. Manhattan walk around without pants, why?!:confused:

Rorschach was awesomely cool, opposed to Night Owl. He was like Batman, but then he lacked everything that makes Batman awesome. And I quite liked the ending.

Overal, it gets an 5 out of 10.

Was it just me or had the first two hours of the movie nothing to do with the last hour? The beginning was boooooring and the end couldn't salvage that. And why did Dr. Manhattan walk around without pants, why?!:confused:

Rorschach was awesomely cool, opposed to Night Owl. He was like Batman, but then he lacked everything that makes Batman awesome. And I quite liked the ending.

Overal, it gets an 5 out of 10.

haha

I think we can all agree, no matter our opinion of the film, that Akerman was shite.

Yeah, she looked really good...other than that though, yeah thats about it...

The guys who did Rorschach, Nite Owl, and Dr Manhattan were spot on I thought however...

Was it just me or had the first two hours of the movie nothing to do with the last hour? The beginning was boooooring and the end couldn't salvage that. And why did Dr. Manhattan walk around without pants, why?!:confused:

Rorschach was awesomely cool, opposed to Night Owl. He was like Batman, but then he lacked everything that makes Batman awesome. And I quite liked the ending.

Overal, it gets an 5 out of 10.

Aw, did you have trouble holding on to your sexuality? The question really becomes why would he wear pants.

You clearly missed the point. Their meant to be more real, to have flaws that anyone could or would have. Night Owl wasn't supposed to be Batman. Maybe you should have actually watched the first two hours. Because I've never read the comic books and I clearly understood the movie. Probably because I was looking at the movie while you were looking at your watch. I didn't realize it was three hours until the lights came on.

Aw, did you have trouble holding on to your sexuality? The question really becomes why would he wear pants.

You clearly missed the point. Their meant to be more real, to have flaws that anyone could or would have. Night Owl wasn't supposed to be Batman. Maybe you should have actually watched the first two hours. Because I've never read the comic books and I clearly understood the movie. Probably because I was looking at the movie while you were looking at your watch. I didn't realize it was three hours until the lights came on.
Bah, humbug (I love that word).

He should wear pants for common deceny. If I'd want to see penis I can use the internets for that. I found it not really needed.
I'm not saying that Night Owl should be Batman, he looked a lot like him. But were Batman had this cool thing around him, Night Owl hadn't. Yes, they have their flaws, just like Marvel and DC superheroes. The first two hours of the movie were mostly flash backs, and I didn't find them adding to the story for the most part.
I'm not saying it was a bad movie over all, the last part was excellent, Rorschach and Veith were perfect, it had some awesome music in it (and that's the first time I've said that for a movie), dialogue and action were also good. It was just the first two hours I was like 'Get on with it! (Monthy Python, Holy Grail style).

And for the record, I don't have a watch, my sister said it was three hours long before we went to it.;)

Bah, humbug (I love that word).

He should wear pants for common deceny. If I'd want to see penis I can use the internets for that. I found it not really needed.
I'm not saying that Night Owl should be Batman, he looked a lot like him. But were Batman had this cool thing around him, Night Owl hadn't. Yes, they have their flaws, just like Marvel and DC superheroes. The first two hours of the movie were mostly flash backs, and I didn't find them adding to the story for the most part.
I'm not saying it was a bad movie over all, the last part was excellent, Rorschach and Veith were perfect, it had some awesome music in it (and that's the first time I've said that for a movie), dialogue and action were also good. It was just the first two hours I was like 'Get on with it! (Monthy Python, Holy Grail style).

And for the record, I don't have a watch, my sister said it was three hours long before we went to it.;)

Nite Owl isn't Batman, because he's not supposed to be. Batman is cool, by design - Nite Owl is real, by design.

Batman is what the ultrawealthy vigilante altruist COULD be, Nite Owl is what a real person looks like in the same position... so, Archie is kind of flawed, because it was designed by someone kind of flawed... Nite Owl is kind of overweight and nerdy, because he's NOT Bruce Wayne - he doesn't turn from the ultimate playboy to the ultimate hero.

If you watch the 'sex' storyline carefully, it's basically the microcosmic version of the whole Nite Owl story, the awkward bumbling sexuality that is only perfected when he's embodied in the 'fetish' form, as the hero.

Regarding Dr Manhattan - the simple reason he doesn't wear pants? He's a god

Nite Owl isn't Batman, because he's not supposed to be. Batman is cool, by design - Nite Owl is real, by design.Superheroes can't be real. Trying to do so will not work.

Addendum: It's just because they look similar I'm comparing them. They're not meant to be thesame thing, I know.

If you watch the 'sex' storyline carefully, it's basically the microcosmic version of the whole Nite Owl story, the awkward bumbling sexuality that is only perfected when he's embodied in the 'fetish' form, as the hero.Wuh? I never get that kind of stuff.


Regarding Dr Manhattan - the simple reason he doesn't wear pants? He's a godI want my God to wear pants, dammit!


Maybe it wasn't my kind of movie.

Going to see it tonight. Read the book when it came out and again a few years back. I am apprehensive.

Nite Owl isn't Batman, because he's not supposed to be. Batman is cool, by design - Nite Owl is real, by design.

Batman is what the ultrawealthy vigilante altruist COULD be, Nite Owl is what a real person looks like in the same position... so, Archie is kind of flawed, because it was designed by someone kind of flawed... Nite Owl is kind of overweight and nerdy, because he's NOT Bruce Wayne - he doesn't turn from the ultimate playboy to the ultimate hero.

If you watch the 'sex' storyline carefully, it's basically the microcosmic version of the whole Nite Owl story, the awkward bumbling sexuality that is only perfected when he's embodied in the 'fetish' form, as the hero.

Regarding Dr Manhattan - the simple reason he doesn't wear pants? He's a god

I agree for the most part...although I thought Nite Owl was supposed to be an allegory for Adam West's version of Batman, although, as you state, what he would be in real life...

Finally saw it, for the most part it was well done. Probably the best movie made from comic book that I've seen.

The scene where Rorschach was trying to escape from the cops was fucking awesome. All of the fight scenes were well done, even if they did seem a bit far fetched for such "real" people.

I agree for the most part...although I thought Nite Owl was supposed to be an allegory for Adam West's version of Batman, although, as you state, what he would be in real life...

oh GOD... now I got the image of Nite Owl doing the Batusi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exhNT2_bHs8) stuck in my brain. A POX ON YOU!!!

I was surprised at how much I liked the movie Watchmen! :)

Of course there are flaws, but none that detract significantly from my overall perception. It's a really good transition from the graphic novel to the silver screen. Possibly the best it could have been done.

I'd give it 8/10, and mention that I liked the "new" ending - it works well - and loved the opening credits! My word, I'm gonna buy the DVD (which is rumoured to be an "extended edition") just based on the opening scenes alone, if nothing else!

I never read the comic, but I really like the movie. spoiler: The lack of comeuppance was a pisser at first, but I got over it. I like to see the 'good' guys win, but they played this ending well. I really like that the superheroes mostly weren't heroes at all and had a more tragic hero feel to them.

Now who says the good guys didn't win? ;)

Thanks a Lot JuNii, now I have to go clorox out my brain...ewwwwwww

Going to see it tonight. Read the book when it came out and again a few years back. I am apprehensive.

Rocken Fucken Roll:hail::D

Wasn't the comic, but even as thats impossible it was a damn good stab.

Also, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w) seems relevant.

EDIT: Well-played, sir. Well played.

Thank you. Great minds think.

Again, this sounds more like a problem with the comic itself than with it's translation to film.

It wasn't supposed to be an accurate portrayal of the Battle of Thermopylae. It was meant to be the story as told by a Spartan trying to get other Spartans riled up to fight. Of course he's going to portray their society as the free and just one. Of course he's going to portray the traitor as worthless and deformed (which Spartans would have viewed as being synonymous). Of course he's going to be xenophobic.

I really don't think you're supposed to get some sort of moral lesson out of it.

It just comes down to this: The director likes the thrill of violence, and that is totally contrary the spirit of Watchmen. The fact that the Snyder enjoyed 300 enough to make a movie about it illustrates this.



Hmmmm...never heard of it.

http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/exhibitionist/American_Splendor_c001.jpg

Bah, humbug (I love that word).

He should wear pants for common deceny. If I'd want to see penis I can use the internets for that. I found it not really needed.
Therein is the point: He's so far above mere mortals, the idea of 'common decency' doesn't apply to him. Look at what he can do. Does someone who "walked across the face of the Sun" really give a damn that some people might feel uncomfortable seeing him naked?
How much do you care if a termite (as he describes Adrian Veidt to be) was to see you naked?
I personally was very surprised, and relieved, to see Doc Mahattan naked. Not because I have a thing for giant blue penises, but because I know what his nakedness indicates. Having him clothed would have ruined his entire character.

I finally got to see the movie last night (on Imax! Abso-fucking-lutely huge screen! 4 minutes longer than cinema version! woot!) and it was awesome. They did a damn good job keeping faithful to the story.
My two cents:
Like others here, I thought the Rorschach - child murderer scene change was gratuitous and unnecessary. If some doofus out there's gonna go, "ehhh...that was in SAW", that's their problem for being a fucking moron. The comic book version of that scene is nastier too, so it makes Rorschach look even more hardcore.
The flame thrower bit during the sex scene is uber-dumb. As my g/f commented at that bit: "That's soooo tacky."
I prefer the film ending as it makes more sense when you think about it, and it allowed them to cut out the big chunk of the book about the Black Freighter etc. While it would have been great to include this, it would have caused the movie to be 3 hours +.
I'd have liked the conversation on Mars and between Rorschach and his psychiatrist to have gone on longer, but again I recognise that doing so would have slowed and lengthened the movie too much.
The changing who said what to whom at the end was silly as well, as it didn't really work.
There were a couple of changes I liked. One was Rorschach's yelling for his 'face' during the prisonbreak scene, as it drove home the ending when he rips his mask off - that he's finally accepting that he's Walter (and that's the first - and last - time Dan sees Rorschach unmasked). The other was Dan going to warn Adrian rather than Rorschach, as this - like Rorschach's 'face' scene - really pushes that Dan, no matter what he's telling people, is in fact still wanting to be a 'mask'. Why else would he take Rorschach seriously enough to bother Adrian? Though it did, unfortunately, mean we missed Rorschach's, "If he's (The Comedian) a nazi, then so am I" comment and Adrian's wry smile at that.
I assume there'll be extended scenes in the DVD that will have more scenes about the New Frontiersman, as the bit at the end doesn't make much sense unless you've read the comics.

All up, I think they did an excellent job to dilute 12 very in-depth issues into just 165 minutes of cinema.

Surprisingly, my g/f thought it was awesome too. She's someone who never read comics and abhors watching violent movies, so I was very hesitant over dragging her along. Last thing I wanted, while watching a movie I've waited 20 years for, was feeling like I've forced someone to sit with me who is hating the entire experience.
Yesterday morning I gave her Watchmen to read in order to give her some sort of idea of what she was in for, and she got through the first 3 issues, and thought them, 'okay'. She now wants to read the entire series and anything else Alan Moore has done (I've told her once she's finished Watchmen, I'll give her 'League' and we'll work our way up to 'From Hell' and 'Lost Girls').

On the basis of us two being a typical demographic - me being a diehard Watchmen/Moore fan (I've got the 12 issue first run) and her a total noob who professes no interest at all in such things - with both reaching the same conclusion that this movie rocked indicates that the filmmakers hit the jackpot.

Here's waiting for Watchmen II! joke, alright!

It just comes down to this: The director likes the thrill of violence, and that is totally contrary the spirit of Watchmen.
I'm not sure about that...

I'm not sure about that...
I get where he's coming from.
One of the big things about Watchmen is it's brutal violence. Moore and Gibbons wanted to show just how violent superheros would be. Spiderman for eg, smacks 7 kinds of shit out of muggers etc and they're shown afterwards totally intact, no bruising, nuffink.
Watchmen on the other hand shows them breaking bones and pissing blood from every orifice. It was brutal, but the point is, it was brutally honest.

But that's not glorifying violence the way '300', or Watchmen: the movie does.
Again, the Rorschach/child killer scene: The way it was depicted in the comic was worse than in the film, as it was more tortuous to the killer despite being far less graphic.
The over-the-top graphic nature of that scene in the movie was gratuitous and totally unnecessary. And, yes, contrary to the spirit of the Watchmen.


Off-topic: mentioning Spiderman, it struck me how silly those bits in the Spiderman comics are where he stops a mugger, beats them up and leaves them webbed up in front of a police station.
Just what exactly are the cops going to do? They can hardly arrest them, on the basis that a vigilante has beaten them up and left them there now, can they? What proof have they got of the mugger's crime? Just Spiderman's word - but he'd never come in to make a formal statement.
I'd love to see an issue where one of these guys sues, or lays charges against, Spiderman for attacking and webbing him up. Especially if said mugger hires Matt Murdock to represent him! :tongue:

I get where he's coming from.
One of the big things about Watchmen is it's brutal violence. Moore and Gibbons wanted to show just how violent superheros would be. Spiderman for eg, smacks 7 kinds of shit out of muggers etc and they're shown afterwards totally intact, no bruising, nuffink.
Watchmen on the other hand shows them breaking bones and pissing blood from every orifice. It was brutal, but the point is, it was brutally honest.

But that's not glorifying violence the way '300', or Watchmen: the movie does.
Again, the Rorschach/child killer scene: The way it was depicted in the comic was worse than in the film, as it was more tortuous to the killer despite being far less graphic.
The over-the-top graphic nature of that scene in the movie was gratuitous and totally unnecessary. And, yes, contrary to the spirit of the Watchmen.

I disagree. I think it was in the spirit of the Watchmen, and that it wasn't in any way gratuitous or unnecessary. I think it portrayed the "death" of Walter Kovacs very genuinely. Furthermore, I don't see the Watchmen glorifying violence either.

It's as dirty, evil and gritty as the comic book was.

Yesterday morning I gave her Watchmen to read in order to give her some sort of idea of what she was in for, and she got through the first 3 issues, and thought them, 'okay'. She now wants to read the entire series and anything else Alan Moore has done (I've told her once she's finished Watchmen, I'll give her 'League' and we'll work our way up to 'From Hell' and 'Lost Girls').
Make sure you fit in The Ballad of Halo Jones and Top Ten; they're better than Lost Girls, imo.

Though yaaay for From Hell. I reckon it's his best.

Here's waiting for Watchmen II! joke, alright!
Don't scare me like that.

Make sure you fit in The Ballad of Halo Jones and Top Ten; they're better than Lost Girls, imo.

Though yaaay for From Hell. I reckon it's his best.
ohhhh....forgot about Halo Jones. Thanx for reminding me. I'll have to dig out my old 2000ADs next time I'm at my mum's place.
Top Ten is awesome, though a lot of it might be missed on someone who's never read comics before.

'From Hell' is Moore's definitive work.

Therein is the point: He's so far above mere mortals, the idea of 'common decency' doesn't apply to him. Look at what he can do. Does someone who "walked across the face of the Sun" really give a damn that some people might feel uncomfortable seeing him naked?
How much do you care if a termite (as he describes Adrian Veidt to be) was to see you naked?
I personally was very surprised, and relieved, to see Doc Mahattan naked. Not because I have a thing for giant blue penises, but because I know what his nakedness indicates. Having him clothed would have ruined his entire character.

I finally got to see the movie last night (on Imax! Abso-fucking-lutely huge screen! 4 minutes longer than cinema version! woot!) and it was awesome. They did a damn good job keeping faithful to the story.
My two cents:
Like others here, I thought the Rorschach - child murderer scene change was gratuitous and unnecessary. If some doofus out there's gonna go, "ehhh...that was in SAW", that's their problem for being a fucking moron. The comic book version of that scene is nastier too, so it makes Rorschach look even more hardcore.
The flame thrower bit during the sex scene is uber-dumb. As my g/f commented at that bit: "That's soooo tacky."
I prefer the film ending as it makes more sense when you think about it, and it allowed them to cut out the big chunk of the book about the Black Freighter etc. While it would have been great to include this, it would have caused the movie to be 3 hours +.
I'd have liked the conversation on Mars and between Rorschach and his psychiatrist to have gone on longer, but again I recognise that doing so would have slowed and lengthened the movie too much.
The changing who said what to whom at the end was silly as well, as it didn't really work.
There were a couple of changes I liked. One was Rorschach's yelling for his 'face' during the prisonbreak scene, as it drove home the ending when he rips his mask off - that he's finally accepting that he's Walter (and that's the first - and last - time Dan sees Rorschach unmasked). The other was Dan going to warn Adrian rather than Rorschach, as this - like Rorschach's 'face' scene - really pushes that Dan, no matter what he's telling people, is in fact still wanting to be a 'mask'. Why else would he take Rorschach seriously enough to bother Adrian? Though it did, unfortunately, mean we missed Rorschach's, "If he's (The Comedian) a nazi, then so am I" comment and Adrian's wry smile at that.
I assume there'll be extended scenes in the DVD that will have more scenes about the New Frontiersman, as the bit at the end doesn't make much sense unless you've read the comics.

All up, I think they did an excellent job to dilute 12 very in-depth issues into just 165 minutes of cinema.

Surprisingly, my g/f thought it was awesome too. She's someone who never read comics and abhors watching violent movies, so I was very hesitant over dragging her along. Last thing I wanted, while watching a movie I've waited 20 years for, was feeling like I've forced someone to sit with me who is hating the entire experience.
Yesterday morning I gave her Watchmen to read in order to give her some sort of idea of what she was in for, and she got through the first 3 issues, and thought them, 'okay'. She now wants to read the entire series and anything else Alan Moore has done (I've told her once she's finished Watchmen, I'll give her 'League' and we'll work our way up to 'From Hell' and 'Lost Girls').

On the basis of us two being a typical demographic - me being a diehard Watchmen/Moore fan (I've got the 12 issue first run) and her a total noob who professes no interest at all in such things - with both reaching the same conclusion that this movie rocked indicates that the filmmakers hit the jackpot.

Here's waiting for Watchmen II! joke, alright!

You're better off starting your GF off with Swamp Thing, IMO.

I disagree. I think it was in the spirit of the Watchmen, and that it wasn't in any way gratuitous or unnecessary. I think it portrayed the "death" of Walter Kovacs very genuinely. Furthermore, I don't see the Watchmen glorifying violence either.

It's as dirty, evil and gritty as the comic book was.
As I said, I get where he's coming from, but tbh, I agree with both of you. For the most part Watchmen the movie stuck true to Watchmen the graphic novel. Like the scene where NightOwl and spectre are attacked in the alley. They're not superpowered heros, so when they fight they can't rely on a punch knocking an assailant out - they need to cripple them to ensure they stay down. That scene graphically showed that and I didn't think it was gratuitous in any way. It also hinted at why they became masked heros - the powertrip they got from being able to destroy people, especially as they were so powerless and impotent in their unmasked, 'normal' lives (shown very unsubtly, both in the comic and movie, with the two sex scenes).

But there were a couple of scenes that definitely were over-the-top. I can understand the filmmakers doing it, in order to really stress what was happening - especially for the movie goer who hadn't read the books. But that said, they were still gratuituous and I think unneccessary. Specifically the way Rorschach dealth with the child killer. Sure, it graphically emphasised the change from Walter to Rorschach but the comic version was a much nastier method and so better emphasised the change.

I didn't mind the changes made to the prisonbreak scene, as the prisoners getting hold of a saw made more sense than an acetylene torch, which in turn made what they did more understandable.
I didn't the change to the toilet scene though. I was hoping for that exchange between Night Owl and Spectre about needing to go at inappropriate moments as the idea of a superhero needing to pee is something that's never been addressed in mainstream comics, making the exchange very natural and humorous.
As the movie scene was played, they not only could they see what Rorschach was about to do in the toilet - their inaction implying they approved (or at least condoned) it, which goes against their characters. Again, a tad gratuitous but I suppose understandable for the ignorant moviegoer (by ignorant I mean either never having read the comic or just too damn thick to get subtly).

Still, when one starts getting this pedantic and pernickety about such minor things in the movie it shows just how great the movie was as a whole.

You're better off starting your GF off with Swamp Thing, IMO.
:$ I'm embarrassed to admit I've never read Moore's Swamp Thing myself. A couple of issues here and there, but never the entire run. It's probably the only thing of his I haven't read. Heck I've even used to have, the 'The Bojeffries Saga'!

As the movie scene was played, they not only could they see what Rorschach was about to do in the toilet - their inaction implying they approved (or at least condoned) it, which goes against their characters. Again, a tad gratuitous but I suppose understandable for the ignorant moviegoer (by ignorant I mean either never having read the comic or just too damn thick to get subtly).

Still, when one starts getting this pedantic and pernickety about such minor things in the movie it shows just how great the movie was as a whole.

It should be interesting to see how it comes out in the DVD extended cut....

As I said, I get where he's coming from, but tbh, I agree with both of you. For the most part Watchmen the movie stuck true to Watchmen the graphic novel. Like the scene where NightOwl and spectre are attacked in the alley. They're not superpowered heros, so when they fight they can't rely on a punch knocking an assailant out - they need to cripple them to ensure they stay down. That scene graphically showed that and I didn't think it was gratuitous in any way. It also hinted at why they became masked heros - the powertrip they got from being able to destroy people, especially as they were so powerless and impotent in their unmasked, 'normal' lives (shown very unsubtly, both in the comic and movie, with the two sex scenes).
This is true :)

But there were a couple of scenes that definitely were over-the-top. I can understand the filmmakers doing it, in order to really stress what was happening - especially for the movie goer who hadn't read the books. But that said, they were still gratuituous and I think unneccessary. Specifically the way Rorschach dealth with the child killer. Sure, it graphically emphasised the change from Walter to Rorschach but the comic version was a much nastier method and so better emphasised the change.
We'll have to disagree about the gratuituous nature of it, but I agree that it might have been the best choice for the movie makers to go in the direction they did.


As the movie scene was played, they not only could they see what Rorschach was about to do in the toilet - their inaction implying they approved (or at least condoned) it, which goes against their characters. Again, a tad gratuitous but I suppose understandable for the ignorant moviegoer (by ignorant I mean either never having read the comic or just too damn thick to get subtly).

I don't agree there. My interpretation as I watched the movie was that the audience got to see that Big Figure was in the bathroom, but that the other Masked heroes couldn't see into the room. It wouldn't make sense, even in the context of the movie, that Nite Owl wouldn't have said anything if he had seen what was going on.

I don't agree there. My interpretation as I watched the movie was that the audience got to see that Big Figure was in the bathroom, but that the other Masked heroes couldn't see into the room. It wouldn't make sense, even in the context of the movie, that Nite Owl wouldn't have said anything if he had seen what was going on.

^This.

I think the swinging door effect was really just for the audience. The little eye-roll SS gives NO seemed to fit with the idea that they really thought he was just taking a potty-break.

^This.

I think the swinging door effect was really just for the audience. The little eye-roll SS gives NO seemed to fit with the idea that they really thought he was just taking a potty-break.

Agreed. The fact that Rorschach flushed suggests that he was maintaining an illusion - which serves the double purpose of being the concealment for Rorschach's retribution, and being something of a joke at the expense of spandex-clad heroes, and their apparent superhuman ability to never have to pee.

(See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oeoaoqVf9E)

But the fact that Moore bitches about how his original works are being raped and violated and then goes on to write Lost Girls just shows what a hypocritical, self-absorbed twat he is.

Yeah it may have surprised him but it is still superhuman ... it may not be like the "powers" that some more traditional superheros have exhibited but still clearly more then training or any natural human ability can explain

Either way I like the take on it for sure, their mortality made it much more interesting to me