The Watchmen Discussion Thread

It does make you rethink Moore’s contention that a comic book was the perfect medium for the story. You get so much information in the comic, from the sraight ahead narrative, to excerpts from Hollis’ book, to the Pyschologist’s notes, to the secondary plotline with the artists/writers on the island, to the black freigher strip… There was no way any director would have been able to weave all of that inormation into a comprehendaable film. I won’t say Snyer did a poor job, especially with the taaask in front of him, but I’m certainly at odds with my overall perception of the film.

Rorschach did kick some serious ass though -lol.

S

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:

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.[/quote]

See, so many of the book’s metaphors revolve around time. The book makes regular juxtapositions between time periods, and the chronology of events is pretty important to the overall narrative. Granted, I don’t know whether Big Figure’s incarceration of 20 versus 15 years is at all meaningful to the book, but, knowing the book, chances are better that it is than it isn’t.

Basically, if you’re trying to make a movie about Watchmen, messing up dates is not something you let slide.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It does make you rethink Moore’s contention that a comic book was the perfect medium for the story.
[/quote]

It doesn’t make you rethink it. There is nothing to rethink, he was right. Perhaps you meant to say it “brings to mind Moore’s contention”?

read the book, loved the movie enough to see it twice.

I could care less about a few dates being off or time frames as they didnt affect anything.

Rorschach is my freaking hero though… the jail scene was great… Also, I actually liked the meat cleaver scene… I think it showed his downward spiral and a lot more raw feeling.

The girl was crazy hot and I agree the mom was bad ass too…

I actually liked the ending more than the book… Overall, 4.5 out of 5 and honestly, I think it is one of the best movies I am going to see this year as I think most of the “big” films are just going to disapoint me after this film.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
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. [/quote]

Sure. I was aware that Mad Max predates the Watchmen GN and I wouldn’t be suprised if he used MM as inspiration, seeing as he used the premise of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button as the basis for one of his early stories.

The point I was making is that in cinematic terms, it isn’t a fresh idea - which may or may not have prompted Snyder to make the change. The basic concept has been recycled, and appeared in many other movies since Mad Max.

Anyone remotely interested in movies would be aware of that. If Snyder remained faithful to the GN, it is entirely possible that people who haven’t read the GN would view that particular event as yet another rehashed idea.

Which, of course, it isn’t: even if Alan Moore was inspired by Mad Max, the manner in which Rorschach punishes the child-murderer serves as the defining moment of Kovac’s transformation into Rorschach.

This goes back to what Stu said earlier about Rorschach “doing something by doing nothing”(which is an excellent way of putting it, BTW). The idea that Rorschach hands the child killer the keys to his own fate, and stands back waiting for him to open the door, is possibly the most important point for the character.

When Kovacs’ mind breaks, he isn’t supposed to fly into a frenzy and slaughter the killer out of rage (as he seems to). Instead, he allows the criminal to judge and punish himself for his own actions .

In fact, everything about the character of Rorschach leads into that one moment. Walter Kovacs is lost forever in the trauma of the event and is replaced by Rorschach - an individual (if you can call him that) with no real identity. Two people are supposed to die in that building: the child killer (literally) and Walter Kovacs(metaphorically). The Rorschach who emerges has no identity because he is intended to reflect whatever each person sees in him*, hence the ever-changing mask.

Even though he personally kills criminals from that point on, he is never emotionally invested in it. Their deaths are literally supposed to be the result of their own actions. Having Rorschach punish the child killer directly was a huge mistake, IMO. There are so many reasons why…

SPOILERS!!!

*Just as he is confronted by his own true nature when he is shown the Rorschach cards in the interrogation room. In a sense, he even judges himself by lying to the psychologist about what he sees: he can’t confront his own demons when face to face with ‘the mask’…

WATCHMEN : A deconstructional, post-structural, atheistic, nihilistic, existentialism, Freudo-Marxist, surrealistic, mega-masculine, and quantum mechanical anti-superhero post-modern masterpiece.

About the blue schlong, the thing that bothered me that most is that if Silk Specter was sucking on my fingers, I would have a mega raging boner that would have filled up the entire room. Obviously Dr. Manhattan caught teh ghey, no blue boner.

I would have also thrown down a little train action on her too, I mean if I could make several clones of myself… Shiiiiiiiit.

I read the book, and loved the movie. I liked the revised ending better also. I give it 8/10. I might like it even better when I watch it again. It struck me as a very rich movie that will require more viewings to take in all the details.

My only complaint was when we first saw Ozy, I was like “that little guy is Ozy and killed the Comedian”?, but that’s a small complaint.

Just as a matter of interest, does anybody have a link to Matthew Goode’s workout routine?

I know Dr. Manhattan got jacked by having his intrinsic field removed, but I want to stay natural…

[quote]roybot wrote:

I know Dr. Manhattan got jacked by having his intrinsic field removed, but I want to stay natural…[/quote]

I read in a recent “6 page ad report” that a certain supplement company is working on such a product as we speak.
(that’s how Jay plans on winning the Olympia in '09!)

S

[quote]roybot wrote:
Just as a matter of interest, does anybody have a link to Matthew Goode’s workout routine?

I know Dr. Manhattan got jacked by having his intrinsic field removed, but I want to stay natural…[/quote]

He used The Veidt Method.

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

He used The Veidt Method.[/quote]

How long do I have wait before BB.com makes up some random routine and calls it The Veidt Method?

In the meantime, I guess I’ll have to go with the intrinsic field subtractor…

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
roybot wrote:

I know Dr. Manhattan got jacked by having his intrinsic field removed, but I want to stay natural…

I read in a recent “6 page ad report” that a certain supplement company is working on such a product as we speak.
(that’s how Jay plans on winning the Olympia in '09!)

S

[/quote]

Won’t the fact that he’ll suddenly be a naked, blue-skinned giant be a bit of a giveaway?

[quote]roybot wrote:
pushmepullme wrote:

He used The Veidt Method.

How long do I have wait before BB.com makes up some random routine and calls it The Veidt Method?

[/quote]

If they hadn’t made Veidt so thin and unimposing in this movie… I’m sure it would be up by now.

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
mahwah wrote:
Going to see it this weekend.

I’ve read that they did leave out one of the side stories (The Black Freighter) but it will be included as a special feature on the DVD.

I can see how that would be confusing and difficult to include.

[/quote]

Alan Moore said that Watchmen used a lot of techniques that only work in comic form. The “story inside a story” that meshes perfectly with the outer story is one of those. I guess another one would be the recurring themes or pictures that spawn all the issues. One issue goes from bright and cheery colored to dark and heavy as the story progresses to strengthen the sense of impending doom.

It’s a very interesting series; one of those rare story where you can still be picking up new stuff on the fifth or sixth read through.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
roybot wrote:
pushmepullme wrote:

He used The Veidt Method.

How long do I have wait before BB.com makes up some random routine and calls it The Veidt Method?

If they hadn’t made Veidt so thin and unimposing in this movie… I’m sure it would be up by now. [/quote]

I never thought that they’d have the audacity to publish a feature on Shia Labeouf’s workout routine, either. I was wrong:

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/la_buff_enough_

They are probably photoshopping Matthew Goode’s biceps as we type.

[quote]roybot wrote:
Won’t the fact that he’ll suddenly be a naked, blue-skinned giant be a bit of a giveaway?

[/quote]

Well, no one complains about his giant GH head -lol

S

I read the comic and i think the change in the ending may have been disappointing for the comic geeks like myself but was necessary to make the movie more appealing to the main stream, i mean a bunch of squid aliens might have worked fine in the 80s but for this generation it would have just seemed stupid, my biggest problem was the fact that in the end dr.Manhattan was asked by adrian if he did the right thing in the comic he left adrian wondering in the movie he said yes

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
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. [/quote]

If you look in the scene where Veidt is watching all the tv screens and spots R. and night owl, one screen has mad max just a suttle reference, along with the comedians room number 3001 untill he throws the cup at veidt and reached for his gun, the cup breaks the 1 of the door and now reads 300, the last movie the director worked on…

[quote]ratm41 wrote:
I read the comic and i think the change in the ending may have been disappointing for the comic geeks like myself but was necessary to make the movie more appealing to the main stream, i mean a bunch of squid aliens might have worked fine in the 80s but for this generation it would have just seemed stupid, my biggest problem was the fact that in the end dr.Manhattan was asked by adrian if he did the right thing in the comic he left Adrian wondering in the movie he said yes[/quote]

I guess that makes a little sense (I dont think so, but I’ll grant you that)… But why involve Manhattan? I can see if they didnt want to use the “psychic squids” for whatever reason (really, much more sinister I think)… but why change the feel of it by using Manhattan to blow up multiple cities? He had nothing to do with it in the book. Why not just use some other kind of monster if you feel you must change the ending.

Yes, the moment where Adrian asks Manhattan if he did the right thing in the end, and then he says “nothing ever ends” is devastating to Adrian. Its much more poignant than the way they did it in the movie.