[quote]wfifer wrote:
SSC wrote:
SPOILERS (Guy I’m quoting didn’t use them properly…)
I don’t think it made as much sense for the two countries to become allies simple in response do Dr. Manhattan’s alleged attacks.
I liked that aspect of it…sort of like, “we’d better be good, because God’s watching us.”[/quote]
Cause we all know how well that works…
[quote]SSC wrote:
I’m sick of hearing about the fucking blue cock. It was only in the movie like three times… MAYBE. Probably not even as much as the comic, either. [/quote]
Well, damn. Maybe I’ll just wait for the DVD.
[quote]Vash wrote:
So is Bill Pearl . . .
Dammit. Can’t get to see this til at least Thursday.[/quote]
Bill Pearl is too old to play Veidt.
This movie is a dream come true for me.
The outrage a lot of people have over its content and “message,” speak, I think, to its success in re-framing the superhero movie in the same way Moore’s work in the 80’s re-framed the superhero comicbook.
5/5 stars.
The entire plot of Watchmen(Book and movie) is fucking retarded.
If you’re the only un-killable super-powered being on the planet you don’t fucking stop nuclear armageddon with innovation and diplomacy…
You put Nixon, The Russian premier and their respective “footballs” in a room and tell them:
“IF YOU DON’T START DISARMING YOUR FUCKING SHIT RIGHT FUCKING NOW, I’M GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU/RAPE YOU WITH MY GIANT BLUE PENIS”
and you make sure it’s ON THE FUCKING NEWS.
Toohuman
SPOILER ALERT******
For whatever its worth, the book is one of my favorites of all time, so filter this review through that lens.
I’ll start with the compliments:
They did a great job on the costumes
Visuals were very nice
Thats it really. The whole ending was botched completely, they moved lines around to places where they didnt belong, changed Veigdt’s character, his lair… So many things.
I get that they cant include everything in the book (Cut the Picture scene short,the Rorschach-Therapist sub story, the Black Freighter story, the Nostalgia bottle) but why did they change the little things they did? Why did they not give the guy who killed the girl the saw and set him on fire? Why did they not have Rorschach burn the kid with the cigarette? The midget in jail was in for 20 years, not 15. I know these are small, insignificant details, but I just dont get why they changed them.
The Doc Manhattan ending sucked in my opinion, and resulted in a changing of the Comedians entire monologue to Moloch. I guess if they wanted to change it for Hollywood they could have used some robots or whatever, but why did they incorporate Manhattan? Made no sense to change it. And because they did they had to “drop hints” about the ending (rorscach’s cancer line in Adrians office) further changing it even more.
The things they added really took away from the movie I thought. The fight scenes were much more brutal and longer than in the book, Rorschach didnt really get his due in the end either.
I see why Alan Moore doesnt associate himself with these projects. V for vendetta was pretty good I thought (again they totally changed the ending though), League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was an absolute abortion, and this one is just mildly above that.
Obviously there had to be SOME changes made, and I do agree, after thinking about it, that the actual ending in the comic would most likely have seened downright silly if they’d stayed with it… but the changes that effectively altered the characters’ personalities… most obviously the bit with Rorschach and the guy with the two dogs (kidnapped and killed the little girl).
Not only was I shocked with how Rorschach ‘disposed’ of him in the movie, but I kept thinking “no, no no!”. THe decision to just kill him with his own clever was just what you’d expect from some no-imagination, cookie cutter superhero-on-the-edge movie. I think the comic’s approach, Rorschachs sort of do something by doing nothing (watching the house burn) was much more poignant.
I’m still trying to figure out if I really liked it or not, as weird as that sounds…
S
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
SSC wrote:
I’m sick of hearing about the fucking blue cock. It was only in the movie like three times… MAYBE. Probably not even as much as the comic, either.
Well, damn. Maybe I’ll just wait for the DVD.
:P[/quote]
Don’t listen to him. There’s at least a dozen blue hog sightings in that movie. A more judicious use of the black speedo would’ve been good, at least IMO.
I need to watch this movie again in order to give a decent review. The friend I went with was on a time crunch and we were both thinking about getting out of there in time to do what he had to do. Not the ideal movie watching conditions.
Overall, I was pleasantly suprised. My main gripe is that the pacing was a little too slow.
It’s almost as if Snyder was approaching the material with a little too much reverence. He must’ve thought to himself: “if I don’t linger unnecessarily on every visual and piece of dialogue from the graphic novel, those fanboys are going to handcuff me in a burning building”.
Quite a few of the scenes could have moved along with more zip and the movie (and running time) would have benefitted greatly.
The fight scenes involving more than four people (especially the jailbreak) were quite reminiscent of those in 300: weave gracefully in and out of a horde of oncoming enemies, and dispatch each individual in as stylish a manner as possible. Rinse. Repeat.
I get that Doc Manhattan’s schlong is a boner of contention, but a blue demi-god would probably treat the entire planet as his personal washroom. It is mentioned in the graphic novel that it’s generally quite difficult to get him to wear clothes.
He only wears the speedo in public as a favor to the U.S. government, because it makes him ‘look the part’ of a superhero - it’s also why he burns the symbol into his forehead. In the movie, Manhattan only truly appears in public twice, and he is wearing clothes on both occasions: he wears the speedo in Vietnam and a suit during his television interview.
The rest of the time he is away from the public eye: either ‘at home’ on the military facility, on Mars, or with the rest of The Watchmen (the only people he genuinely trusts).
Physically, Manhattan doesn’t need clothes, and mentally he doesn’t conform to concepts like modesty and embarrassment. It’s just another ahem small, but significant example of his disconnection from the rest of the human race.
I never read the book, and I liked it a lot.
Great Action, the soundtrack was cool, and the cast was solid. I have no predisposed notions of Goode’s character, and that’s probably a good thing, from what I’ve read on this thread. Sure would have liked to see Carla Gugino’s rack, but you can’t have everything I guess. Ackermans’ underbite is really cute, but I saw her boobs a lot in Heartbreak Kid, so no surprises there.
I would have liked to have seen a deeper backstory in the lesbian relationship too.
As for Rorschach, he was awesome. Cool that he was played by the kid from Bad News Bears, how he went from being the stoner shooting the 3/4 court shot in Semi-Pro to playing Rorschach I’ll never know, but I’m glad he did.
I’m giving it an 8 out of 10.
Carla Gugino’s rack is on full display in Sin City.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Obviously there had to be SOME changes made, and I do agree, after thinking about it, that the actual ending in the comic would most likely have seened downright silly if they’d stayed with it… but the changes that effectively altered the characters’ personalities… most obviously the bit with Rorschach and the guy with the two dogs (kidnapped and killed the little girl).
Not only was I shocked with how Rorschach ‘disposed’ of him in the movie, but I kept thinking “no, no no!”. THe decision to just kill him with his own clever was just what you’d expect from some no-imagination, cookie cutter superhero-on-the-edge movie. I think the comic’s approach, Rorschachs sort of do something by doing nothing (watching the house burn) was much more poignant.
I’m still trying to figure out if I really liked it or not, as weird as that sounds…
S
[/quote]
Thats what I dont understand these “adaptations” … You either liked the story or you didnt. The book, in its entirety, it literally unfilmable. The experience of reading the book, of dwelling on the panels, flipping back to previous pages to check things out again, the way its laid out in sections instead of continually flowing piece, and much of the imagery is just flat out not possible in the film medium.
Having said that, and going back to my original point, why change things so much? There is a lot of “He stayed true to the book” talk floating around, which I guess is true in certain instances, but other times its way off, and for no good reason at all. Rorschach killing the guy with the cleaver, while it gets the job done, totally loses out on the Rorschach-ness of the event. No reason to change this as far as I can see. Maybe saves a few seconds of screen time. Kills the mood though.
And again, with the guy in prison, they change it to 15 years in the movie when its 20 in the book. Why? What possible point did that serve except to alter the script? I kind of get having to change the ending a little bit because you lose out on the whole Freighter story, which involves the artist and the bonus materials at the end of each chapter… but involving Doc Manhattan? Give me a break.
Some spoiler mixed in here:
As someone who only read part of the novel, I was pleased with the movie. After 24 hours of debate, though. My favorite, of course, was Rorschach. He could have given Batman a run for his money as far as who is harder. Was it just me, or did he look like a younger Clint Eastwood in the flick?
I liked Goode as Ozzy. Although I read some gripes about his slight size, he still beat that ass when he had to.
I didn’t get the Silk Spectre. With that outfit, what was she supposed to be, a lady of the evening? lol. She kicked ass too, of course, but her persona threw me a bit. I did like her backstory, however. That was good. No wonder her outfit and such seemed funny.
Dr. Manhattan seemed to be at odds with himself, mostly. I understand where someone said he was supposed to be apathetic, but I sorta liked the fact he was conflicted. Made him seem a bit more real to me. And I made it a point not to make a big deal out of his nudity. If I had power like that, I’d probably walk/float around naked too. I’m all-powerful, AND I’ve got a big stick! LOL!
I didn’t really care for Night Owl. He was boring to me. Don’t get me wrong, he put of a hell of a show when it came down to fighting, but other than that, kinda boring.
The Comedian was just as real as they come. He was like some of the darkest aspects of man rolled into one. Kinda like the “id” in all of us. Says and does what he feels like. The scene that really captured that feel was when he shot and killed the mother of his child. That was a powerful scene. Especially since he pointed out that Dr. Manhattan could have stopped him, but didn’t.
The overall story and ending was pretty entertaining through the end. I think the ending worked a lot better, and seemed more “real” than a bunch of giant squids that was mentioned previously. The soundtrack was alright, but I was actually more of a fan of the commercial’s soundtrack, what with Smashing Pumpkins and all. I give this movie an A-.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Ugh. The other annoying qualm I have is this. I’m sick of hearing about the fucking blue cock. It was only in the movie like three times… MAYBE. Probably not even as much as the comic, either. And it wasn’t even real.
I’m not saying this to YOU, Ghorig, because I know it’s more of an afterthought, but anyone who’s more interested in a fake CGI dick than a driving political message is a fucking moron or needs to grow up.[/quote]
Lol you see it a lot more than 3 times. FFS in one seen there are several blue cocks…that absolutely cracked my shit up. It was just really hard for me to take anything Dr. Manhattan did seriously cause there was always some blue cock in your face. The guy wears blue undies and suits at times in the movie so why not just save the cock for the sex scene and during the accident? I think the reason was for comedic value…now they may have been trying to mirror the comic but why all the cock in the comic then?
My take home point would be that we, the male consumers/fans, deserve some/tons of female nudity in the next film. I’d settle for some light orange boobies with neon pink nipples.
[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I think the reason was for comedic value…now they may have been trying to mirror the comic but why all the cock in the comic then?
[/quote]
In the book it is very understated(least detailed part of the picture, small), many readers don’t even realize it is there when they first read the book.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
And again, with the guy in prison, they change it to 15 years in the movie when its 20 in the book. Why? What possible point did that serve except to alter the script?
[/quote]
I noticed this too! and thought the same thing.
I would have to watch the movie again, which I don’t intend on doing any time soon. But, I vaguely recall some other years changed as well. I think that Laurie, when talking to Dan about her breakup, cited a different amount of years that she’d been together with Dr.
If that is correct, and that difference is consistent with the Big Figure alteration, then my guess would be that they changed when the CRIMEBUSTERS(Fine, Watchmen) originally formed. Maybe because Laurie was only 16 in the book? and they needed to make her older?
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
The Mighty Stu wrote:
Obviously there had to be SOME changes made, and I do agree, after thinking about it, that the actual ending in the comic would most likely have seened downright silly if they’d stayed with it… but the changes that effectively altered the characters’ personalities… most obviously the bit with Rorschach and the guy with the two dogs (kidnapped and killed the little girl).
Not only was I shocked with how Rorschach ‘disposed’ of him in the movie, but I kept thinking “no, no no!”. THe decision to just kill him with his own clever was just what you’d expect from some no-imagination, cookie cutter superhero-on-the-edge movie. I think the comic’s approach, Rorschachs sort of do something by doing nothing (watching the house burn) was much more poignant.
I’m still trying to figure out if I really liked it or not, as weird as that sounds…
S
Thats what I dont understand these “adaptations” … You either liked the story or you didnt. The book, in its entirety, it literally unfilmable. The experience of reading the book, of dwelling on the panels, flipping back to previous pages to check things out again, the way its laid out in sections instead of continually flowing piece, and much of the imagery is just flat out not possible in the film medium.
Having said that, and going back to my original point, why change things so much? There is a lot of “He stayed true to the book” talk floating around, which I guess is true in certain instances, but other times its way off, and for no good reason at all. Rorschach killing the guy with the cleaver, while it gets the job done, totally loses out on the Rorschach-ness of the event. No reason to change this as far as I can see. Maybe saves a few seconds of screen time. Kills the mood though.
And again, with the guy in prison, they change it to 15 years in the movie when its 20 in the book. Why? What possible point did that serve except to alter the script? I kind of get having to change the ending a little bit because you lose out on the whole Freighter story, which involves the artist and the bonus materials at the end of each chapter… but involving Doc Manhattan? Give me a break.
[/quote]
I agree that the method Rorschach uses to dispatch the child-killer was totally out of character. The only reason I can think of for Snyder to make such a change is that he may have considered the original version to be something of a cliche by todays standards. The old device of handcuffing someone near something explosive, and presenting them with the dilemma of dying or escaping by hacking off one of their own limbs may have been fresh when Watchmen was first published, but it has been used in quite a few movies since then.
Two examples that immediately spring to mind are the ending of Mad Max:
And more recently, the original Saw:
These obviously aren’t identical to the scenario played out in the Watchmen GN, but are perhaps similar enough to warrant such a change in the movie. Although I’m sure Snyder could’ve come up with something more appropriate than what did end up in the movie.
Mad Max the movie predates Watchmen the Book and is likely where Moore got the idea in the first place. I hate to say it, but leaving it out of the Watchmen movie was probably a smart choice. Though, doing so seriously warped Rorchach’s monologue.
More Spoilers
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
And again, with the guy in prison, they change it to 15 years in the movie when its 20 in the book. Why? What possible point did that serve except to alter the script?
I noticed this too! and thought the same thing.
I would have to watch the movie again, which I don’t intend on doing any time soon. But, I vaguely recall some other years changed as well. I think that Laurie, when talking to Dan about her breakup, cited a different amount of years that she’d been together with Dr.
If that is correct, and that difference is consistent with the Big Figure alteration, then my guess would be that they changed when the CRIMEBUSTERS(Fine, Watchmen) originally formed. Maybe because Laurie was only 16 in the book? and they needed to make her older?[/quote]
I think you guys are looking for something that isn’t there. Most likely they were slip-ups- either in the original script, a re-write, or the actors messed up and they rolled with it.
Oh, and did anyone else see the clips from Road Warrior playing on Ozymendias’ screens? I thought that was pretty funny.
Disclaimer: I am no fanboy.
As great as the movie was, and as visually impressive as it was, the book is just so much better.