Watchmen: The Buzz starts now

[BrewCrewForever]

The opening sequence with Dylan playing was fantastic[/u].

 

No doubt, that was fantastic. One of my favorite parts of the film. I loved the way they went through American history with that. Perfect song choice.

[Katuluu]

It's not very friendly to the general audience. And even within the ground rules it sets, it's hardly perfect. But I expect no more ambitious a blockbuster to be released this year.

I have a hard time calling the film ambitious. The source material certainly is, but when the film has to cut out so much of it for the sake of running time and to jazz up the film for general audiences, that just doesn't fall under my definition of ambition. More like necessity, maybe?

[DuWayne Steurer]

I want to see this movie, but based on a lot of what I read in this thread, I wanted to read the book first.

 

I picked it up yesterday, and just finished it a little while ago. I definately need to let it soak in for a few days before I see the movie, if not longer. I'll probably go next Monday or Tuesday.

 

Fantastic, fantastic story, but I honestly don't know where the fight scenes and action snippets they show in the trailers are coming from. Action stuff added to appease the movie viewers?

 

I'm glad I stayed away from spoilers and whatnot before I read the book, because all the way through, trying to figure out the "whodunit", I was stumped just up until about 10 minutes before it was revealed. I guess it should have been more obvious, but the story is "that" engrossing.

[RobertR]

Yeah, the "whodunit" aspect caught me slightly off guard too. Although it's obvious in retrospect. They even drop a clue on the first page, which Snyder smuggled in a different part of the movie. Heck, take the "Fearful Symmetry" chapter and note who's literally right in the middle of everything. It still worked, and I think that's partly because of the medium. As a mystery there's a decided lack of viable suspects, but there was still time to bring out someone in the last couple of issues. Other than a government conspiracy involving Nixon, the only other viable theory I've ever heard involved Hooded Justice.

 

If you have the book handy, you can page to Chapter 12 by the newstand. Note the ad on the back of the comic and what it says. Also note that the Utopia theater is damaged to the point where nowhere is Utopia spelled out fully.

 

Robert

[DuWayne Steurer]

Yeah, as you say, in retrospect, it should have been obvious, and there were clues, albeit subtle. The clue you mention on the very first page is tough, because you're not into the story yet.

 

I briefly though it might have been Blake, but then after a while you get the sense he would never plan something so grand.

 

And that was the other puzzling thing, is there were "no" suspects really, and a bombshell is only a bombshell if there's some sense to it after the fact. A totally new character introduced at the end doesn't give you that "Ahhhhhhh! I should have seen that coming" moment.

 

I'd have to say Rorshach was my favorite character, profound and also unintentionally funny. I guess this stuff is for another thread in all reality, but I was on the fence about the movie before, now I'll definately have a go at it.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

I really like this article as a comparison vs the book and really agree with theses points . . .

 

The characterizations strike me in many ways as warped just a little to fit Zack Snyder's eerily avid "violence is orgasmic" aesthetic. Words on the page only go so far in giving the characters personalities; the versions in the film seem less nuanced . . . ut where the subtly or not-too-subtly altered characters actually bugged me is in the characters' none-too-concealed, Snyder-channeling love of violence. In the comic, when Nite Owl and Silk Spectre take Archie out after their failed attempt at sex, it's clearly a frustrated gesture on his part, and an attempt on her part to mollify and humor him. There's no "Let's get out there and kick some ass!" tone. Similarly, when they're set upon by gang members in the alley, it's a frightening moment that they're forced into, not something they grin at. They don't turn any limbs inside out, or stick knives through anyone's neck, or turn anyone's head around backward. At worst, they break a couple of arms or noses. There's only a single panel of them casually punching inmates while breaking Rorschach out of prison, and they're having an intent conversation at the time; they don't gleefully work their way up a corridor of enemies in a scene that seems like it was stolen from Oldboy.

 

In similar fashion, it really bothers me that he made his characters into supermen. It seems to me that much of the point of Moore's story is that Dr. Manhattan is the only super-powered one of the lot-and none of the other would-be Watchmen really know how to deal with him any more. One of Moore's big points in the book was looking under the costumes of his heroes, and seeing what they look like literally and figuratively naked, with all their weaknesses intact . . . They're just ordinary people who've taken the extraordinary steps of putting on costumes and fighting crime. Except in Snyder's world, they aren't. They take beatings that would kill a rhino, and they keep coming back for more.

 

And for me, a non-fat Nite Owl is just wrong.

[DuWayne Steurer]

After reading the article, I can only reiterate that I think the major multiplication of the action scenes was for the sake of movie going audiences who think they're going to an action movie.

I'm not saying it's necessarily "wrong", but there it is.

[RobertR]

It's not very friendly to the general audience. And even within the ground rules it sets, it's hardly perfect. But I expect no more ambitious a blockbuster to be released this year.

I have a hard time calling the film ambitious. The source material certainly is, but when the film has to cut out so much of it for the sake of running time and to jazz up the film for general audiences, that just doesn't fall under my definition of ambition. More like necessity, maybe?

 

They didn't have to make WATCHMEN. I count picking ambitious source material as a plus. How many R-rated, complex, without an easy cathartic ending blockbusters do you expect this year? Are you expecting more out of Harry Potter, Star Trek, Wolverine, G.I. friggin' Joe, Transformers 2, Land of the Lost, Fast and Furious , Terminator Salvation, Angels and Demons, or Night at the Museum 2? I could see arguments for Avatar and Public Enemies. Perhaps even Up.

 

I fully agree that Moore and Gibbons' WATCHMEN is a masterpiece and Zach Snyder's WATCHMEN isn't. I still think it's going to be head and shoulders above most of what we get out of Hollywood this year. This really is a half full or half empty question.

 

Robert

[RobertR]

After reading the article, I can only reiterate that I think the major multiplication of the action scenes was for the sake of movie going audiences who think they're going to an action movie.

I'm not saying it's necessarily "wrong", but there it is.

It's not really a multiplication as much as it is an expansion on existing action beats that perhaps take one or two panels in the original.

 

Oh yeah, turn away now if you want to avoid spoilers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, lingering on the violence more is a change. Moore and Gibbons saved most of their carnage for the climax. Snyder's Sub-QUantum Intrinsic Device (S.QU.I.D.) climax was bloodless. Snyder's ending lost the emotional gut punch of the original ending. In many respects, I almost think he wanted the movie to tilt slightly to Veidt's perspective and make it more of an intellectual issue. No Black Freighter parallel narrative. No gushers of blood. And a Dan and Laurie who are even closer to the line than in the book, and cause more havok. Snyder definitely played the "they get off on the violence" card harder than in the book. (Which kind of makes the Captain Carnage mention have more meaning.)

 

Of course, it's hard to know if those changes are fully intended to further gray up the morality of the "heroes" or if Snyder is merely immature. Perhaps a little of both, but I expect very little happens on a movie set without some consideration.

 

Shifting Dr. Manhattan's "Nothing ever ends" line is inexcusable though. That has much more resonance coming from a god figure who can literally see the future.

 

Robert

[DuWayne Steurer]

It's interesting, because a while ago I got shredded for saying that watching the Dark Knight, I didn'tfeel like I was watching a "comic book movie".

 

Unfortunately, I didn't explain myself fully, and I never intended it to mean that "comics" can't be intellectual, thought provoking, profound, and every bit as memorable as a book without pictures.

 

What my intention was, was that even a "smart" comic like Batman was horribly dumbed down for movie audiences, up until the last few installments. The X-Men movies, for all the fights and explosions, DID fully encompass the main theme of the comic, that of people being treated fairly and humanely, despite having differences. That being said, it's impossible to make a movie without dumbing down the material for movie audiences.

 

Now it's tough to say that without subtly insulting the intelligence of the average movie goer, but again......there it is. In general, I think a movie goer wants a different kind of payoff. That's not to say there's anything inherently wrong with the medium, but that with different kinds of medium come different kinds of story telling, and the translation, especially book to movie, always leaves something out. 99% of the time, the something that gets left out is simply depth, color, emotion, whatever you want to call it.

 

It's no mistake that all movie commercials show almost exclusively action scenes, as that's what sells tickets.

 

Call it what you will, but at the end of the day, no matter how pure to his source material a director/writer/producer wants to stay, he still has to put as many butts in the seats as he can, and that's almost universally accomplished with guns, swords, and explosions.

 

GI joe wil probably prove me right with a 200 million dollar take.

 

Robert, I also want to touch on your point that Snyder didn't exaggerate the violence/action, just expanded on it. I guess to me, the very short 1-2 frame action sequences were so inconsequential to the story (Fight in the alley, I'm looking at you) that I almost didn't notice them.

[TooLiveBrew]

The longer director's cut is almost certainly going to be better. It's not the masterpiece that the comics are, the linear forward movement of a film working against it in many respects, but it's a more than respectable attempt

 

I think that's a fair statement. I have not read any of the original Watchmen material, but agree with the rest of what you said here, Robert.

 

I thought the acting was very good, the roles were cast well, the writing was solid, and some of what Snyder did I liked. However, I feel what I disliked the most about the movie was the direction. I just constantly had the feeling during the movie that there was no real structure to the film (for lack of a better phrase). There was far too much throwaway stuff in there imo... like that joke of a sex scene. I apologize if that's something essential from the graphic novel, but that scene pissed me off. Completely unneccesary & gratuitous. RoCo's 'fight in the alley' is another good example.

 

 

The credits above are one of the things I absolutely adore about the movie. And illustrates some of it's strengths and weaknesses.

 

Interesting point. I agree with you about that opening sequence. My favorite part of the movie by far.

 

I did love Dr. Manhattan & Veidt, too [/general point]

 

 

Also, Zack Snyder: slow-motion shots are not as cool as you seem to think they are. Please get over it.

[Katuluu]

They didn't have to make WATCHMEN. I count picking ambitious source material as a plus. How many R-rated, complex, without an easy cathartic ending blockbusters do you expect this year? Are you expecting more out of Harry Potter, Star Trek, Wolverine, G.I. friggin' Joe, Transformers 2, Land of the Lost, Fast and Furious , Terminator Salvation, Angels and Demons, or Night at the Museum 2? I could see arguments for Avatar and Public Enemies. Perhaps even Up.

 

I fully agree that Moore and Gibbons' WATCHMEN is a masterpiece and Zach Snyder's WATCHMEN isn't. I still think it's going to be head and shoulders above most of what we get out of Hollywood this year. This really is a half full or half empty question.

I seem to have touched a nerve. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but was the original Land of the Lost high brow material? I'd rather see something like Prisoner of Azkaban, a film which drastically differs from the book but also exceeds it as well, then a tired and lifeless adaptation that follows a paint by numbers approach. The film amps up the violence and tones down the sexuality in every instance, transforming the film into an almost outright mockery of the themes that were presented in the comic. Dumbing down a property isn't ambitious, and I'm sticking to that defense.

 

Oh and challenging me on naming big budget fare that will appeal to high brow audiences? Low blow Robert!

 

Coraline

9

Where the Wild Things Are

The Road

Observe and Report

The Wolf Man

Year One

Public Enemies

Tyrannosaurus Rex

Cabin in the Woods

The Fantastic Mr Fox

The Limits of Control

 

My money is on Observe and Report absolutely blowing Watchmen out of the water, R-rated, incredibly darkand oddly highbrow fare that covers similar themes. From a director far more talented then Zach Snyder. Now if you excuse me I am going to go watch The Incredibles, a far better adaptation of Watchmen.

 

Your serve Robert. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[RobertR]

I'm not really worked up.

Especially when you call up The Wolf Man and a Josh Whedon film (who I consider a one trick pony. O.k. maybe two tricks.). C'mon, you can do better than that. I'm not sure how "big budget" some of those are either. But, if the point is that there will be at least some medium sized films coming out from Hollywood this year with ambitions of being more intellectual, then sure, there will be. Heck, toss Shutter Island on that pile.

That said, I think some of our familiarity with the material is having us take a large part of what WATCHMEN represents for granted. It's 22 years old to us, for most it's brand new. Snyder's WATCHMEN, in its flawed form, still tells us that superheroes, Hollywood's #1 genre at the moment, are likely to be screwed up individuals, sexually dysfunctional, that power distances one from humanity, has the purported heroes accomplish not much of anything, has the so called villain "win" and perhaps save the world, and does so in a visually dense way that asks the viewer to pay attention and have more than a passing working knowledge of 20th century history. It also has a male character that lets it all hang out, shows some of the consequences of a superhero fight, constructs an alternate history of the world, and has some fun with pop culture. That's a full plate for a blockbuster. Probably too full for Snyder and his more "action-y", sexier adaptation. But, I'm giving Snyder plenty of credit for the attempt and there are, IMO, moments of greatness. I'll toss in Dr. Manhattan on Mars with Phillip Glass playing, a music selection that's a perfect choice among some questionable ones, as an example of what Snyder got absolutely right.

And, it could have turned out worse. Should I mail you the Sam Hamm script as proof of that statement?

Robert

[pogokat]

I bet you a dollar that the subtlety of The Road is lost for the sake of cannibals as well...

[bjkrautk]

There was far too much throwaway stuff in there imo... like that joke of a sex scene. I apologize if that's something essential from the graphic novel, but that scene pissed me off. Completely unneccesary & gratuitous. RoCo's 'fight in the alley' is another good example.

I've only read the graphic novel once, but both (maybe all three) of the scenes that you're mentioning here did have meaning from the source material. It goes into the question of just what would possess a person with no special powers to dress up and fight crime...and what it means to them to have that life taken away. To me, it was less about "getting off" on beating people up, so much as an excitement for the job. The only real-world analog that I can think of is a pro athlete's retirement: to go out and put your body on the line time and again....not just a visceral thrill, but the sense of camaraderie which comes with the challenge.

 

Compared to that, everyday life would feel....limp. Most of the surviving characters in the story never really came to terms with that. (I'd say Hollis Mason, the original Nite Owl, is the exception: he gave up the job on his own terms....but I could leave it to others to disagree.) And it wasn't just the Keene Act; Sally Jupiter's character was forced into retirement by motherhood, and look how that turned out. Point being, Dan Dreiberg didn't feel like himself until a mix of circumstance and desperation put him back into the suit. Laurie needed the connection, but Dan needed to feel important, useful, for the first time in 8 years. Did they let those scenes run long? Sure. But they needed to be there to really tell the story. I also think that Snyder tried to tie the material into the theme of man's animal nature a bit more, which is probably the reason for the complaint.

 

 

Finally saw the movie a week late. My biggest gripe is one that's already been noted in this thread: the violence made the main characters look like they were superhuman, snapping bones and the like. I also could have gone with fewer shots of the Doctor's 'stethoscope'. I can understand the need for the new ending, and it actually stayed much closer to the original version than I was anticipating. A lot of the side-characterization was trimmed down for the sake of time, no one moreso than Silk Spectre. I also thought that the first half of the movie was far more sympathetic to Veidt's motivations than I had remembered....but I wasn't sure if that was the movie or just my knowing what would be coming next.

 

I think the most difficult role in the source material to connect with was Sally Jupiter....and Carla Gugino played her perfectly. I hope that the final element of her story exists as a deleted scene. While I am certainly biased towards the actress (I think she's jaw-droppingly beautiful), I think the glow that she has as the young Sally, and the regretless nostalgia of the older version....deserves a Best Supporting Actress nomination (which she probably won't get).

 

I loved the placement of the music, from the opening credits right down to the 80s nuclear protest tune. That I didn't even hear the Tears for Fears song (which I have on my iPod, so I know the song) gives me a level of appreciation for the density of the movie as well as the source material. The book is still better, but the movie tells the story much better than it should have been able to.

[Katuluu]

I bet you a dollar that the subtlety of The Road is lost for the sake of cannibals as well...

Have you had a chance to see The Proposition, Brad? If not you should check it out. Great movie, and Hillcoat shows that he can do subtle quite well. He's a great choice as director.

[RobertR]

I picked up the Tales of the Black Freighter / Under the Hood DVD this week. I haven't watched either fully yet, but I have some general thoughts.

Under the Hood is really well done. It works well in this format as there isn't as much to fit in and it allows the characters and scenes to breath properly. Stephen McHattie really gets more of an opportunity to shine in this extra and he takes advantage of it. More of Carla Gugino too. This really should have been a preview on something like Sci Fi before the movie came out as it is a terrific companion piece.

We'll see about Black Freighter out of context. The animation looks good, but there's a specific context where the Black Freighter is designed to work in, with obvious parallels to the larger story, and we'll see how it works.

Definitely worth a rental if you have interest in the material.

Robert

[rluzinski]

Hadn't even heard of the Watchmen until I saw the first movie preview and read this thread. I watched the movie on DVD and just finished the book. Now I'm watching the director's cut on blu-ray.

 

I've never really been a comic book reader but I read some of my brother's stuff growing up and enjoyed them OK. The Watchmen is just so different from anything else I've read, though. I thought that I might ruin the the impact of the book by watching the first but the book is so rich with content that it was still a rewarding way of going about it.

 

This might get me crucified but I have to admit, I think the movie's take on the endingwas a very good idea. Moore's version was just cheesy. Really though, at its core, there wasn't a huge difference, IMO.

 

Robert, what did you think of the Black Freighter/Under the Hood? Anyone see the "Ultimate Version" with the Black Freighter intertwined? 3.5 hours!

[RobertR]

I wouldn't call Moore's squid ending cheesy, but then I'm familiar with a lot of the tropes he was playing with. In many ways, Watchmen is Moore transposing EC's genres on superheroes. Crime Suspenstories. Weird Fantasy. Two-Fisted Tales. Piracy. They all have echoes in Watchmen.

 

That said, I don't have much problem with the mechanics of Snyder's ending. I do have a problem with the bloodlessness of it and the fact that by trimming out all the peripheral characters, we have no stake in the characters in Manhattan.

 

I liked The Black Freighter, but it's really designed to work in context of Watchmen more than stand on its own. But it captures Moore's voice better than the movie does and it looks really nice. I haven't seen the Ultimate Cut yet, I tend to be like a shark with movies, always swimming forward rather than repeating, and I'm dubious of how the animation and live action would mix together, but more of the two Bernies is welcome by me. I really would have liked the idea that "The Black Freighter never came" introduced into the movie, for instance. Anyone see The Ultimate Cut and want to comment? I also dug that "Pirate Jenny" plays over the closing credits. I didn't figure out until last year that "The Black Freighter" was a Threepenny Opera reference.

 

Under the Hood is a very well done companion piece.

 

As for the comic itself, it's a masterpiece. At its best, the movie is an advertisement for it. And every time I reread it, I find something new. It's a marvel of form. Heck, the third panel of the book presents an enormous clue right up front.

 

Robert

[DuWayne Steurer]

I thought the ending of the movie fit the media a bit better. I think the 'squid' ending would have added a lot of time to the movie, and it was already on the long side.

 

The part that I felt really lacked was the scene in the prison where Rorschach explained to the shrink the events that caused him to become Rorschach, not just Walter Kovacs pretending to be a hero. In the book, that final dialogue was hands down *awesome*, maybe one of my favorite scenes in a book, ever. In the movie, it just lacked any kind of a punch at all. Of course, they chopped out a lot of the dialogue at the end of Rorshachs speech, and it may well have been due to the religious (or anti-religious) undertone it had, but at any rate, the scene in the movie fell way short, in my opinion.

[wallus]

I tried to watch this movie and had to turn it off. Really really awful.

[igor67]

I was curious, but dubious about the movie at the outset, but I loved the ending. Mostly because I didn't see the last twist coming. I had read enough to know pretty much who the villian would be. There was just something wildly entertaining about sitting through the movie and then this, ridiculous over the top in any other context moral dilemma comes up. I liked it just for that while the rest was passable, but good enough to make the ending work.

[gregmag]

I wasn't around the site much when this discussion originally got going, but I wanted to weigh in. I've been an Alan Moore fan since (shortly) before he started writing for U.S. comics, a Watchmen devotee since the original series came out. I can't for the life of me understand the criticism that the movie dumbed down the story. As somebody who has the comic book ingrained in my consciousness, I want the movie to press my familiar buttons while also doing things that only the different medium can do, visually and rhetorically. I thought the Watchmen movie succeeded brilliantly, much like Sin City and V for Vendetta. The movie owes most of its success to Moore's original conception -- Zack Snyder arguably did just as good a job with 300, but I think 300 the graphic novel (though visually breathtaking) is juvenile and crypto-fascist. That's okay, though; Moore's original conception is one for the ages. The violence in the movie, for me, did what violence is supposed to do -- scared the pants off me and pounded very firmly into my consciousness Moore's view of the ugly world we live in.