Ozy didn't bother me that much, but he was obviously the villain. I don't know whether that was the way it was written/directed or acted.
Definitely acted. The dialogue and staging was close enough to the book, but where-in the book-Adrien was a stereotypical square-jawed blonde "superhero" type, here he was beady-eyed, spindy, eurotrash businessman. The other thing that bugged the hell out of me was that he looked like a blonde Seth Myers.
Quote:
The rest I liked--I had no major problem with it (other than Bubastis just seemed thrown in as an afterthought--wasn't she in the comic way earlier?).
Yeah from almost the beginning, I think. Bubastis in the book was there early on as foreshadowing as to how far along Adrien was with genetic engineering (later used to create the Squid of course).
Quote:
I think the R rating will ultimately hurt the theater sales.
"Watchmen" had one of the best opening days ever for an R-rated film, behind Friday openings for "The Matrix Reloaded" and "300," another Synder-helmed picture. The second "Matrix" film had an opening day of $37.5 million and "300" pulled in $28.1 million, according to figures available on the website for Box Office Mojo. The R-rated "Passion of the Christ" had a massive opening day as well, roping in $26.6 million on a Wednesday, according to the site.
Overall, Box Office Mojo reports, "Watchmen" had the fifth-highest opening for an R-rated movie. "Sex and the City" had a summer opening just ahead of the numbers posted by "Passion of the Christ" at $26.8 million. Among only superhero movies, the site reports that "Watchmen" had the eighth-highest opening day.
"Watchmen," however, had a stellar showing in its Friday midnight shows. The film opened with a $4.55-million take, ahead of recent midnight openings of franchise films such as "Quantum of Solace" and "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," according to the Hollywood Reporter. The midnight numbers are included in the $25.1 million.
By the way, on another topic, how freaky was it that the guy they cast as the child molester/murdered whom Rorschach killed looked like Pete Townshend?
Seriously. As the guy lay there, handcuffed to the coal stove, surrounded by his dead dogs, I half expected him to start screaming at Rorschach: "I was only researching a book, dammit"
The rest I liked--I had no major problem with it (other than Bubastis just seemed thrown in as an afterthought--wasn't she in the comic way earlier?).
Yeah from almost the beginning, I think. Bubastis in the book was there early on as foreshadowing as to how far along Adrien was with genetic engineering (later used to create the Squid of course).
I think thats one of the things they sorta dropped the ball on, as there was no actual explanation for Bubastis, which is kinda strange when they are trying to push the fact Manhattan is the only superpowered being out there, yet all of a sudden, this weird mutated tiger comes out of nowhere. It must have left some people confused or maybe they thought it was Battlecat!
I get the feeling that some people will believe that both Ozy and Comedian had superpowers (I didnt like the bit where Comedian punched that wall and smashed a huge chunk out of it), and adding Bubastis into the equation, without even so much as a throwaway one line explanation, takes things away from it being about normal humans rather than super powered ones.
Its a minor quibble, but its something that should have at least been explained briefly.
As for the r-rating thing, if it had been anything less, it would not have worked. Certain comic book adaptations need to be r-rated for them to really work.
I get the feeling that some people will believe that both Ozy and Comedian had superpowers (I didnt like the bit where Comedian punched that wall and smashed a huge chunk out of it),
Yep. In fact, after the film, Mrs G asked me if the other characters had powers. She assumed from the fight scenes (and catching the bullet) they did.
As for Bubastis, personally, I think they should have just left the cat out for the reasons you suggest.
Yeah, overall, the soundtrack was perfect for the movie. The quibbles I had were the lack of the Orbison/Costello song and the presence of the Dylan remake.
I normally like Dylan covers, even faux punk ones (see, e.g., Jason and the Scorchers doing "Absolutely Sweet Marie". But this was a poor remake.
I realize they needed a "single" for the film but I think they could have found a better band to do it.
Something that struck me as a weak plot point was the ending even though I liked it better that the alien squid. If you nuked NY and the other major cities there wouldn't be world peace and certainly not a newspaper pining for something to write about. Most likely there would be utter chaos. Possibly the biggest port in the nation and center of the financial world. Most likely the country would be in a socio-economic meltdown that would be difficult to recover from.
Another plot hole was that Dan tells Laurie that the Manhattan cancer connection makes no sense because SHE doesn't have cancer, but how would he know that for sure just by looking at her? In the comic she's screened when they kick her out of the complex, but that's not shown in the movie. This probably won't be a problem in the extended cut, though.
Other stuff that may be fixed in the extended cut are the Rorschach flashback scene I bitched about earlier, the man on the street perspective (which makes a world of difference to the ending), and MAYBE some of Ozy's characterization (though there's only so much you can do with a performance like that).
But one thing that'll always make me cringe is the part where Dan and Laurie cross Walter Kovacks in the street and there's a shot of him, and then a shot of Dan looking back. Why couldn't it be a long shot with the guy just standing there, waiting for the watcher to notice on second viewing? Why does every clever detail have to be a close up? That's indicative of everything I hate about Snyder's directing (AND THE WORLD), both in style and in substance.
Another plot hole was that Dan tells Laurie that the Manhattan cancer connection makes no sense because SHE doesn't have cancer, but how would he know that for sure just by looking at her? In the comic she's screened when they kick her out of the complex, but that's not shown in the movie. This probably won't be a problem in the extended cut, though.
See I didn't catch that(I've read the comic and filled in the blanks subconsciously), but my wife did(who hasn't read it) she asked how do they know she doesnt have cancer?
I heard a lot of mumbling and grumbling in the theater as people just couldnt follow it, I think the director didnt look at it as someone who hasnt read the book when he did the cuts.
There were quite a few points where my wife had questions and I had answers only becasue I read the book.
Something that struck me as a weak plot point was the ending even though I liked it better that the alien squid. If you nuked NY and the other major cities there wouldn't be world peace and certainly not a newspaper pining for something to write about. Most likely there would be utter chaos. Possibly the biggest port in the nation and center of the financial world. Most likely the country would be in a socio-economic meltdown that would be difficult to recover from.
I'm not sure about the movie, but in the comic only part of the city gets destroyed by the squid.
But one thing that'll always make me cringe is the part where Dan and Laurie cross Walter Kovacks in the street and there's a shot of him, and then a shot of Dan looking back. Why couldn't it be a long shot with the guy just standing there, waiting for the watcher to notice on second viewing? Why does every clever detail have to be a close up? That's indicative of everything I hate about Snyder's directing (AND THE WORLD), both in style and in substance.
Something that struck me as a weak plot point was the ending even though I liked it better that the alien squid. If you nuked NY and the other major cities there wouldn't be world peace and certainly not a newspaper pining for something to write about. Most likely there would be utter chaos. Possibly the biggest port in the nation and center of the financial world. Most likely the country would be in a socio-economic meltdown that would be difficult to recover from.
The new ending would not really work in the real world. And the reason is simple:
Rest of the world, including USSR, 5 seconds after the explosions: "THE SUPERAMERICAN HAS DESTROYED OUR CITIES! WAAAAR! KILL ALL AMERICANS!"
USA: "But, you know, he's not really human..."
Rest of the world: "HE'S AMERICAN! NIXON KEPT SHOWING HIM OFF, AMERICANS KEPT SHOWING HIM OFF, AMERICA KEPT SHOWING HIM OFF, HE'S ONE OF THEM!"
USA: "But..."
Rest of the World: "HE'S AMERICAN!!! We remember that whole 'superman is real and he's American' crack. You can't fool us."
USA: "Well, but he did destroy New York, too"...
Rest of world: "WHO GIVES A DAMN, AND HE ONLY DID IT ANYWAY BECAUSE NIXON HATED JEWISH LIBERALS BECAUSE OF OUR TOURISTS AND BUSINESS INTERESTS THERE!"
Etc...
Of course, the same thing (it wouldn't work) could be said about the original ending too, especially after 9/11. Al Quaeda didn't make the Russians and Americans team up to wipe out Islam. So why would an alien attack?
Something that struck me as a weak plot point was the ending even though I liked it better that the alien squid. If you nuked NY and the other major cities there wouldn't be world peace and certainly not a newspaper pining for something to write about. Most likely there would be utter chaos. Possibly the biggest port in the nation and center of the financial world. Most likely the country would be in a socio-economic meltdown that would be difficult to recover from.
I'm not sure about the movie, but in the comic only part of the city gets destroyed by the squid.
in the movie it appeared the whole city was flattened.
I felt kinda ripped off that this was a basic exact adaptation as well. What I liked about Iron Man and DKR is they were retellings of characters I know well, I felt like I saw something new, this in a way felt like a re-run.
Al Quaeda didn't make the Russians and Americans team up to wipe out Islam. So why would an alien attack?
Well Al-Qaida only attacked the US, it did unite Americans until the media decided division sells. The theory is that if we had a common enemy we would be united. But as you say if a bomb went off in Moscow especially at that time, they aint gunna wait to see if Manhattan went rogue, they're gunna nuke us.
Something that struck me as a weak plot point was the ending even though I liked it better that the alien squid. If you nuked NY and the other major cities there wouldn't be world peace and certainly not a newspaper pining for something to write about. Most likely there would be utter chaos. Possibly the biggest port in the nation and center of the financial world. Most likely the country would be in a socio-economic meltdown that would be difficult to recover from.
I'm not sure about the movie, but in the comic only part of the city gets destroyed by the squid.
in the movie it appeared the whole city was flattened.
To make matters worse, as the ending progressed they needed to show huge swaths of the city NOT being flattened (Dan's apartment, New Frontiersman office, etc.) even though the previous shots made it look like about a ten mile radius had gone up.
Obviously they fell into the "the bigger the explosion the cooler the shot" trap and didn't think through how that would affect the rest of the story.
Still, that's hardly an uncommon flaw in action/sci-fi movies so I gave it a pass.
I think it was very much an adaptation for the fans, like the exact opposite of LXG or Schumacher's Bat-nipples. The best ones are the adaptations that reach a ballance, like DKR or Iron Man.
I think the difference with this over a Dark Knight or Iron Man is this was more like an adaptation of a novel rather than a story about some comic book characters.
It'd be like doing adaptation of something like The Dark Knight Returns, in that there really should be as much of the original story included as possible, rather than writing a whole new story.
Iron Man and Batman are broad spectrum characters, who have changed a lot over the years, but Watchmen and Dark Knight are confined stories.
I think most fans of the comic book would be too pissed off if it was changed to much, just as any fan of a book by Stephen King, Dan Brown or whoever, would be pissed off if an adaptation of one of their books strayed too far from the source.
This film was certainly aimed at fans of the book first an foremost, where as most comic book adaptations are aimed at the non comic book reading public first, then moulded to make it acceptable to the fan boys!
I think it was very much an adaptation for the fans, like the exact opposite of LXG or Schumacher's Bat-nipples. The best ones are the adaptations that reach a ballance, like DKR or Iron Man.
I think as a fan though you'd like to see something new fleshed out of the material, I know I do. Though I'd rather see an exact adaptation like this than Elektra or Shumacher's take.
Al Quaeda didn't make the Russians and Americans team up to wipe out Islam. So why would an alien attack?
Well Al-Qaida only attacked the US, it did unite Americans until the media decided division sells. The theory is that if we had a common enemy we would be united. But as you say if a bomb went off in Moscow especially at that time, they aint gunna wait to see if Manhattan went rogue, they're gunna nuke us.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought-in the book-the only site that was destroyed was a portion of New York. That's why I drew the Al Quaeda comparison.
Like 9/11, in Watchmen (the book) the US was attacked by an outside force that posed a threat to the entire world. Unlike 9/11, in Watchmen that resulted in the US and USSR putting aside their differences.
I think the difference with this over a Dark Knight or Iron Man is this was more like an adaptation of a novel rather than a story about some comic book characters.
It'd be like doing adaptation of something like The Dark Knight Returns, in that there really should be as much of the original story included as possible, rather than writing a whole new story.
Iron Man and Batman are broad spectrum characters, who have changed a lot over the years, but Watchmen and Dark Knight are confined stories.
I think most fans of the comic book would be too pissed off if it was changed to much, just as any fan of a book by Stephen King, Dan Brown or whoever, would be pissed off if an adaptation of one of their books strayed too far from the source.
This film was certainly aimed at fans of the book first an foremost, where as most comic book adaptations are aimed at the non comic book reading public first, then moulded to make it acceptable to the fan boys!
I have no doubt that it was aimed at the fans of the comic, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake. As I said earlier I've already seen this version of Watchmen in comic form, if I had paid more than $2.50 I might have been pissed, but since that's what I paid I wasnt. It was a good movie, I was expecting great and not a rerun.
Just because it was one time comic event doesn't mean you have to do a panel by panel rip off, thats silly. Many scenes were forced because they were forced in the comic. Are you seriously saying that because it doesn't have the history of Batman it shouldnt be expanded and improved?
Al Quaeda didn't make the Russians and Americans team up to wipe out Islam. So why would an alien attack?
Well Al-Qaida only attacked the US, it did unite Americans until the media decided division sells. The theory is that if we had a common enemy we would be united. But as you say if a bomb went off in Moscow especially at that time, they aint gunna wait to see if Manhattan went rogue, they're gunna nuke us.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought-in the book-the only site that was destroyed was a portion of New York. That's why I drew the Al Quaeda comparison.
Like 9/11, in Watchmen (the book) the US was attacked by an outside force that posed a threat to the entire world. Unlike 9/11, in Watchmen that resulted in the US and USSR putting aside their differences.
I dunno I thought in the movie he said they were gunna blow up NY, Moscow, and a couple other cities.
Al Quaeda didn't make the Russians and Americans team up to wipe out Islam. So why would an alien attack?
Well Al-Qaida only attacked the US, it did unite Americans until the media decided division sells. The theory is that if we had a common enemy we would be united. But as you say if a bomb went off in Moscow especially at that time, they aint gunna wait to see if Manhattan went rogue, they're gunna nuke us.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought-in the book-the only site that was destroyed was a portion of New York. That's why I drew the Al Quaeda comparison.
Like 9/11, in Watchmen (the book) the US was attacked by an outside force that posed a threat to the entire world. Unlike 9/11, in Watchmen that resulted in the US and USSR putting aside their differences.
I think the big difference there is that the alien attack was sposed to suggest that the whole world would believe the aliens would not differncitate between one country and another, where as with Al-Qaida, not every country would view them as a threat to them, plus the knowledge of this terrorist organisation was not something unknown to them where as the alien came totally out of left field.
I think the alien being uniting the world was somewhat idealistic, but to me, made more sense than the Manhattan devastation. As you say, the first thoughts going through the Russians heads during a time of potential war would not be "Oh, its Doctor Manhattan" or "How many other countries have been hit", it would be "Fucking Americans, launch a counterstrike!"
I think it was very much an adaptation for the fans, like the exact opposite of LXG or Schumacher's Bat-nipples. The best ones are the adaptations that reach a ballance, like DKR or Iron Man.
I think as a fan though you'd like to see something new fleshed out of the material, I know I do. Though I'd rather see an exact adaptation like this than Elektra or Shumacher's take.
This may be heretical, but actually think the movie would have improved with a little less faithfulness in a few places, especially when it came to Rorschach.
While it was fun watching him kill a Pete Townsend lookalike, the whole bit with the shrink and the origin felt shoehorned in because they assumed that "the fans" needed to have it. In the book that was true. In the movie, however, I think it was sufficient to just note that Rorschach had kept working while the others had quit and show that he had clearly gone insane. We've all seen enough movies like "Taxi Driver" and "Lethal Weapon" that we could fill in enough of the blanks to know what motivated him.
Furthermore, in the book, the bigger point of the origin was how working with Rorschach over an extended period of time began to affect the doctor and how the reveal was built up to slowly. In the movie, it was "well, I've faked you out with references to butterflies and flowers for about five minutes, and now...because the fans demanded it...I'm going to tell you about the dead dogs and the child molester I murdered."
I would've rather they spent that time fixing some of the rushed details of the ending.
"well, I've faked you out with references to butterflies and flowers for about five minutes, and now...because the fans demanded it...I'm going to tell you about the dead dogs and the child molester I murdered."
"I'm not going to let you inside my head, btw here's why I do what I do."
I think the big difference there is that the alien attack was sposed to suggest that the whole world would believe the aliens would not differncitate between one country and another, where as with Al-Qaida, not every country would view them as a threat to them, plus the knowledge of this terrorist organisation was not something unknown to them where as the alien came totally out of left field.
I don't disagree with any of this. I was just pointing out that an argument could be made that the writers of the movie were justified in thinking that 9/11 had rendered the original ending "obsolete."
Quote:
I think the alien being uniting the world was somewhat idealistic, but to me, made more sense than the Manhattan devastation. As you say, the first thoughts going through the Russians heads during a time of potential war would not be "Oh, its Doctor Manhattan" or "How many other countries have been hit", it would be "Fucking Americans, launch a counterstrike!
Yeah. And, the the thing is: that could've been worked around if they'd spent a little more time showing, for example, the whole world seeing Doc withdrawing from humanity more and moreand using that withdrawal as the reason why the USA and USSR were starting to rattle their sabers a bit (time that could've been gained by, for example, cutting the Rorschach origin instead of rushing and-in my opinion-bungling it) .
"well, I've faked you out with references to butterflies and flowers for about five minutes, and now...because the fans demanded it...I'm going to tell you about the dead dogs and the child molester I murdered."
"I'm not going to let you inside my head, btw here's why I do what I do."
Presactly. Better to not show it at all than rush it.
I read the comic. I liked the comic. I certainly don't think it was the greatest comic of all time like most fanatics do. But I'm definitely willing to call it Alan Moore's Magnum Opus.
But My biggest problem with Watchmen has always been the fact that it's totally character driven; every time I read it, I always caught myself just drifting through the thought/speech bubbles just because I wanted to get to the next part that involved Rorschach rather than to immerse myself in the story. I might as well have just read The Question issues by Ditko. If it weren't for a few plot points of interest provided by the Comedian, I probably wouldn't have bothered buying the book.
In which case, the story's conclusion was just so ridiculous. What the Watchmen decide to do in the end makes sense according to their authoritative mentalities, which was Moore's point. But to say that they'd be given the opportunity to make such a decision based on what Ozymandias did is ludicrous. I mean, seriously: It wouldn't work. The world wouldn't just say, "Let's work together to thwart this mutual evil!"
If the movie's totally faithful, that means I'll just being seeing this same story played out on screen with beautiful visuals. I'm not sure if those visuals and the Rorschach segments will be worth ten bucks and 3 hours of my life.
It also makes me feel kind of dirty to go see it while knowing that the creator felt the rights to it were stolen from him. I mean, I'm not sure I agree with him, but it still feels weird to contribute to his misery.
I think as a fan though you'd like to see something new fleshed out of the material, I know I do. Though I'd rather see an exact adaptation like this than Elektra or Shumacher's take.
Oh yeah. The big difference between both sides of the spectrum is that at least Snyder is doing what he's doing with (perhaps too much) respect for the source material. Schumacher and whoever committed Elektra simply pissed on the original.
In which case, the story's conclusion was just so ridiculous. What the Watchmen decide to do in the end makes sense according to their authoritative mentalities
this was the take of many people in the theater, there were a lot of "that's it?" comments when the ending was unraveling in Antarctica....
I think the reason why Watchmen was considered un-filmable in the form the comic was is very evident in this movie. The Rorschach psychiatric sequences, the history of the characters ect needed fleshing out and in film time that's impossible unless you do a trilogy, or at least a part 1 and 2. and with the story telling technique of filling in the blanks that Moore used I don't believe people would have hung around for a sequel. thats why i think i would have liked to have seen more interpretation that verbatim.
In which case, the story's conclusion was just so ridiculous. What the Watchmen decide to do in the end makes sense according to their authoritative mentalities, which was Moore's point. But to say that they'd be given the opportunity to make such a decision based on what Ozymandias did is ludicrous. I mean, seriously: It wouldn't work. The world wouldn't just say, "Let's work together to thwart this mutual evil!"
The thing is: no matter which ending you're talking about (movie or book), Moore (and, in adapting him, Snyder) took pains to all but come out and say the plan wouldn't work in the long term. That's why Jon said "nothing ever ends." That's why the last scene in the story involves yet-another stained smiley face. Hell, that's why the motif is a clock (which keeps going around and around). Moore-an anarchist at heart-was saying that, no matter what, people are people, a liberal authoritarian is no better than a conservative one, and attempts to impose order on a world will always end in death and destruction.
