Watchmen

[Iroquois]

WATCHMEN
d. Zack Snyder, 2009

Well, it's finally here.

After spending twenty years in development hell, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's acclaimed superhero story Watchmen has finally been brought to the big screen. The film is directed by Zack Snyder, a man whose filmography so far has consisted of incredibly stylish but one-dimensional action movies such as 2004's remake of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead and 2007's swords-and-sandals blockbuster 300. He brings a lot of the same qualities to his adaptation of Watchmen (slick use of computer graphics, state-of-the-art visuals, graphic violence, etc.) except now he's working off a significantly stronger script than his prior films.

The story revolves around an alternate reality where superheroes actually existed and acted as law enforcement throughout the 20th century. The film is primarily set in 1985 (although it frequently jumps back and forth across the decades as multiple characters have flashbacks or, in one character's case, experience time in a totally different manner). However, superheroes are eventually outlawed and the remaining heroes all live vastly different lives. The film opens with the murder of one of the film's "heroes" - the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a psychopathic soldier with a brutal streak a mile wide. His death draws the attention of Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), a trenchcoat-wearing vigilante who scours the streets bringing his own particularly violent brand of justice to wrongdoers all over New York. He believes that the Comedian's death is part of something bigger and opts to tell the other surviving "masks" - the insecure Batman clone Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson), feisty token female Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), smooth-talking billionaire Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) and Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a naked blue man with God-like control over time and space.

I've been a fan of Watchmen for a couple of years now, and the film was highly anticipated ever since I heard it was actually being produced. Of course, I went in expecting it not to match the book (because I doubt any film adaptation could actually do that, no matter how long), but I was still holding out hope for it being a good film nonetheless. I think the latter part definitely came true. Even though the film's opening scene was not actually in the book (something I hoped was not a sign of things to come), the bulk of the film followed the book to a tee. At a guess, I'd say the content of the film was about ninety percent true to the book - sure, it left out plenty of subplots and characters (which Snyder claims will be featured more prominently in an extended cut he plans to release on DVD), but as for the main plot and much of the most important character development, it's all there. Despite several small changes here and there (noticeable to a fan, perhaps, although I doubt newcomers will get the difference) and a change to the film's big twist (more on that later), it's about as faithful an adaptation as you're likely to find anywhere. The book's various techniques, such as jumping back and forth between different times and places and use of overlapping dialogue, translate reasonably well to film as well.

Of course, this doesn't mean much to people who care about the film. Is it any good? I'd say it's definitely good. Despite Snyder's tendency to indulge his own particular style (namely, adding plenty of slow-motion and violence to various action scenes), he manages considerable restraint for most of the film. He also manages to handle the special effects competently (the most obvious example being Rorschach's trademark ink-blot mask, which has a pattern that changes frequently due to CGI), and that manages to make the film much smoother. Still, I'm missing out on what's probably the most important thing about Watchmen - the characters. As with his prior films, Snyder has elected to use relatively small-time actors (although I still managed to recognise a handful from other films) and they all elicit performances that range from decent to excellent. Being an ensemble cast, you would think it's somewhat difficult to pick a "best" actor, but there's no doubt in anyone's mind after they take in Haley's performance as Rorschach. Despite spending much of his screen time wearing a mask that covers his entire face, Haley brings the character to light perfectly through his incredible voice (a voice so deep and gruff that it leaves Christian Bale's Batman voice in the dust), embittered narration that sounds like it could've been lifted straight out of Taxi Driver and his multitude of small mannerisms that serve to humanise someone who is one of the most inhuman characters in the entire film. The only problem is that it overshadows all the other performances on offer - most of them are pretty good (with the possible exception of Akerman), but none of them hold a candle to Rorschach, a performance which should go down as an example of just how damned good acting in comic book films can be (clown-faced robbers aside).

The real question I'm trying to figure out it, what were the flaws here? Granted, I liked it a lot, but it doesn't feel truly brilliant. There are parts where it drags slightly, and I'm willing to bet the film is going to confuse people who aren't particularly familiar with the novel, but hell, it's their own fault they haven't gotten familiar with it first. While it's not really a masterpiece, Watchmen is still an incredibly solid superhero flick, a faithful adaptation of an incredibly poignant story and quite simply a very good film. I can only hope the rest of 2009's filmic output is capable of matching it.

GRADE: B+

[Pyro Tramp]

Well, i saw the midnight screening of it last night, though failed to anticipate the pure amount of nerdiness that would be there. Nonetheless, the film started to a round of applause as it started rolling. I won't bother with the narrative details since Iro's already summarised them but i'm not quite sure where the graphic novel has garnered an unfilmable reputation from, Naked Lunch- that's unfilmable, Watchmen just as a multitude of differing psyches to develop and a variety of morality's to contend with. Bearing that in mind, the film could have gone two ways- a character study or the sexed up flick Snyder's delivered. I would be perfectly happy to see a less visual orientated director make another version as i'm sure (future cuts of this one withstanding) there's another film left in the book.

As Iro mentions, the film is about 90% loyal to the source, however i found the changed dialogue to stick out like a sore thumb where it glossed over intricacies that made each character so interesting, maybe it was just because it was different or maybe it was just that it was somewhat oversimplified. Talking of bits standing out, some of the soundtrack choices were cheesy as hell. And i may as well mention the changed ending while here, at first i wasn't impressed but it does give a nicer flow and more contained feel to the plot (alien invasion was a bit outlandish). In changes for the better, the costumers are a lot cooler- NightOwl II especially and i found Walter Kocak (Rorsarch's alter ego) a lot more believable. As for Nixon, now he did seem a cartoon character, though maybe Langella's earlier performance of Tricky Dick casts too big a shadow or maybe it's Futurama tainting ever taking him seriously.

As i mentioned at the start, Watchmen was greeted with applause but silence as the credit rolled. It's about as good could be as expected with a director with a fetish for sexed up violence, Snyder basically copy and pastes the action scenes from 300 into Watchmen without particularly engage with the films themes but that kinda works in the film's favour as it retains a lot of loyalty to the novel. It's not breaking ground that Sin City and 300 haven't already and i really hope the future DVD cuts change the underwritten Dr Manhattan and reinstate several of the missed minor plot details that explain the psychological development of many of the characters; as such much of the character's actions seem only to be there because they're in the book. I think a second watch might be more favourable when i won't be occupied noticing differences from the source and take the film for what it is but at present it stands as sexualised, more action orientated take on the novel opposed to an intellectual companion. Fingers crossed for these promised extended cuts.

4

[Sedai]

I sat down to read the comics again last night. I got to issue three and then realized I was only setting myself up for the experience Pyro listed above; sitting in a chair comparing notes on two versions of the same material. I stopped reading, and will just watch the film on its own merits. Hopefully, I am able to do this.

Great review, Iro!

[The Prestige]

That was indeed a brilliant review, Iro. I must confess though that I hardly know a THING about the graphic novel besides a synopsis and a few notes on character profiles. I never even heard of Watchmen until all the huge fans went into overdrove once production had commenced, so I kinda feel like i'm missing out on something that's supposed to be special.

I won't be able to see this film until next week. But I ask you guys as fans, would it better to read the graphic novel first or watch the film? Originally I was just going to go and watch the film, thinking that I would be at an advantage due to the fact that I know very little of the source material, but now i'm not so sure..

It certainly sounds like an exciting film, that's for sure. And I've heard a lot about this Rorsarch guy being a fan favourite and a Humphery Bogart like character so i'm sure i'm bound to warm to him.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Nice reviews, Iro and Pyro!

I went for the midnight showing experience, because I like immersing myself in fan culture when it's something worthwhile. Last night did not disappoint. I was seated between a guy wearing a Watchmen teeshirt with a Watchmen wallpaper on his phone, and a woman who was actually reading the novel in the theater. :D Before the film started, there was palpable excitement in the air, and afterward, while there was no applause, the theater was decorated with clumps of people discussing what they'd just seen.

I have to say, I feel like the story telescoped on me a bit - I'd heard talk of the impossibility of bringing the story to celluloid, and didn't think it would be too much material. I see now that I was wrong there, as even with a long running time and a fairly well-paced story, much detail was missing. Sometimes, as Pyro menioned, it works better for that (the alien thing) and other times, a little more depth would have helped. The conclusion of Laurie's relationship with her mother, for instance, is prominent in the timeline of the storytelling, but would have been more impactful had there been more mention of her mother's overbearing urging for Laurie to become a vigilante. The other place that seemed really glossed over was the removal of the entire backstory on the psychologist, and all the street-corner folks. Snyder glosses over the very details that make the violence so important, and it's a disservice to Moore's work.

The other change that I found took things down a notch was the "superhero" nature of the characters. In Moore's novel, we are looking at a band of long-retired vigilantes. They're not super-strong or super-fast beyond what really fit and well-trained humans could possess. This is important, because that was half of the social commentary that set Watchmen apart from previous tales of masked avengers.

For my part, I read the novel only once, last Summer, and loaned my copy to friends months ago, so I was fairly able to take the film on its own merits, but was aware of the basic motifs in the original work. These changes are points that, in my opinion, weren't just departures from great original material, but weakened the impact of the film. Flaws aside, I enjoyed the movie and I think the core story comes across clearly and effectively, and is visualized beautifully.

The visualizations, especially early on, really hit the mark in bringing comic book art to the screen. The acting is, as mentioned above, uneven, but fantastic in many cases. Jackie Earl Haley's Rorshach is perfect. He'll get a lot of praise for this turn, and rightfully so. Equally spot on is Patrick Wilson as Night Owl II, whose characterization brings all the sadness and longing of the character from our first glimpse of him. Two others who are positively spot on are Malin Ackerman (as Laurie) and Carla Gugino (her mother). The one weak spot, cast-wise, was Matthew Goode as Veidt, who was too young and seemed insubstantial by contrast with the other characters. Overwhelmingly though, brilliant casting of actors who brought a lot of depth to the screen that is generally lost in a Snyder venue.

As a stand-alone work, I think we have a winner though. The story itself revolves around an ethical dilemma and that is well-presented and both thought-provoking and moving when we come to it. The brilliance of Moore's novel doesn't suffer from Snyder's slick brand of steroid treatments, and visually it's a treat.

[Sedai]

*Claps*

[MovieMan8877445]

That was indeed a brilliant review, Iro. I must confess though that I hardly know a THING about the graphic novel besides a synopsis and a few notes on character profiles. I never even heard of Watchmen until all the huge fans went into overdrove once production had commenced, so I kinda feel like i'm missing out on something that's supposed to be special.

I won't be able to see this film until next week. But I ask you guys as fans, would it better to read the graphic novel first or watch the film? Originally I was just going to go and watch the film, thinking that I would be at an advantage due to the fact that I know very little of the source material, but now i'm not so sure..

It certainly sounds like an exciting film, that's for sure. And I've heard a lot about this Rorsarch guy being a fan favourite and a Humphery Bogart like character so i'm sure i'm bound to warm to him.

Go see the movie before reading the graphic novel, since you haven't read the graphic novel yet. It'll make it so you can have more of an open mind to it.

[Yoda]

Go see the movie before reading the graphic novel, since you haven't read the graphic novel yet. It'll make it so you can have more of an open mind to it.
I'd respectfully disagree. Obviously I can't know how it would have been otherwise, but I think I got a good deal more out of the film by having read Watchmen. Just my opinion, though. :)

[rice1245]

yeah same here, i think it would be mildly confusing for a while and hard to catch on to all the names and everything without having read the graphic novel first

[Yoda]

Anyway, here's my review of Watchmen (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/watchmen.html), which I caught last night. Unfortunately 90% of my thoughts on the film would probably qualify as spoilers, so I had to be a tad vague about some things, but I think it adequately conveys my reaction to the experience as a whole.

Here's an excerpt:

Watchmen (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/watchmen.html)

http://www.movieforums.com/images/main/watchmen_main.jpg (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/watchmen.html)

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" So goes the Latin phrase written by Juvenal, a Roman poet. It translates roughly to "Who watches the watchmen?" It is a phrase which encapsulates the inevitability that any leaders which humanity might have will only be human themselves, and are liable to have the same flaws and problems as the people they watch over. This one phrase is the soul of Watchmen, the famed graphic novel, and it has survived largely intact through the metamorphosis into Watchmen, the film. ...READ MORE (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/watchmen.html)

4

EDIT: made a few minor alterations to the review shortly after it went up.

[meatwadsprite]

Here's my review of the big show , I had mixed feelings of it - but want to see it again.


Watchmen (1 view)

http://i43.tinypic.com/2yx55r6.jpg

A massive undertaking that has scared off the likes of acclaimed directors , fans of the novel could only fear for the worst when it was finally put in the hands of newcomer Zack Snyder. With the translation of book to film , you often lose a lot of sub-plots , characters , and themes - sadly Watchmen follows suit and though it's visual qualities are fully realized the story has lost much significance.

Snyder really doesn't know when and where to place violence and sex - which are abundant here probably more than anything I've seen , instead of overloading us with grotesque killing - I would prefer all the characters be introduced properly instead of being crunched together to make a 3 hour deadline. Many concerns over the length of the movie forcing the numerous cutting of corners , I think the novel could be done in three hours - obviously you can't waste time on numerous slow motion fights and must have at least 2-3 different events occurring at once (like the book).

Lots of my favorite scenes were absent from the film , so you really have to detach yourself from the book and realize that it is not what you are seeing on the screen. I was not able to do that with my first viewing of it , I really wanted all my favorite parts of the book fully uncompromised and animated. Maybe on subsequent viewings I can appreciate this on a film basis , but the sting will always be there that the movie could have had so much more in it - the news vendor , the deeper backgrounds of the characters , all the regular citizen characters which are almost completely absent.

There are so many problems I have with the story , that I'm forgetting to tell you about everything else. The acting was superb for most part , the visuals are so dynamic you stop appreciating them just because there's so many brilliant parts , and the music was appropriate most of the times , unnecessary some times , with the occasional perfect moments ("two riders were approaching"). All of these things are the benefit of the film medium , you don't get them in the book - these are the benefits of making a movie about the novel.

Perhaps it's not a shining adaptation or film , Snyder is often unable to create awe and suspense through dialogue or words - he relies on the violence to do the talking. Alan Moore's Watchmen is certainly not about violence or sex , it contains them and focuses on a much bigger picture. Snyder's Watchmen borrows from Moore's , but has it's priorities all mixed up.

Perhaps it's brilliant and I wasn't able to notice all the small tidbits of information fed throughout the film. Maybe I under-appreciated some of the film only moments and wasn't accepting what I saw , rather what I wanted to see. Maybe the movie was able to tie all these events into a nice knot rather than jam them into a small space , I'll only find out upon my subsequent viewings of it.

It wouldn't be the first movie to become a favorite of mine after an "unfavorable" first viewing.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/3.5box.gif

[Pyro Tramp]

Prestige, i'd always go for source material first otherwise you'll be comparing the book to the film and not the other way round. With the prior knowledge from the book, it certainly adds far more depth all round to characters and their deeper motivations.

[mark f]

That's true, but if the depth and motivations aren't on screen, why credit the movie for what the book does?

[Pyro Tramp]

Well, it's a film representation of Moore's work and i think if you can fill in the gaps Snyder missed, it makes for a more satisfying viewing knowing the subtexts. The film is just a simplified version of the story ultimately, it's good to go on knowing all of it imo

[SamsoniteDelilah]

interesting discussion re which to do first: read or see the film...

I'd read first, wherever possible. The book may color my viewing of the film by adding details, but the film can only detract from my reading by taking the surprises out, and sometimes supplying an actor in a role where I'd be better off picturing someone myself, to start out with at least.

[mark f]

I'm just looking at all movies compared to all novels. Older movies didn't seem so obsessed with adapting the source material so religiously, and since I've seen far more movies than I've read novels, I tend to rate the movies as movies period. You guys are just a lot more sophisticated than I am because you actually read still. But my point is that many movies have completely changed the themes and plots of some plays and novels, while others slavishly tried to reproduce the novel and never lived and breathed as movies. That's why I'm discussing what I am. I'm sure you can understand the characters better by reading the novel, but if the moviemakers change the characters, then you're dealing with a completely separate animal than the book. You have every right to compare/contrast the novel to the movie, but the movie still has to stand or fall on its own because no matter what book you pick, there's a 99.9% chance that more people have seen the movie than have read the book.

[MovieMan8877445]

I got back from seeing it a little while ago, Here's my review (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=507025&postcount=106).

[meatwadsprite]

Well there's The Godfather , No Country for Old Men , and then there's Watchmen.

[Pyro Tramp]

I'm just looking at all movies compared to all novels. Older movies didn't seem so obsessed with adapting the source material so religiously, and since I've seen far more movies than I've read novels, I tend to rate the movies as movies period. You guys are just a lot more sophisticated than I am because you actually read still. But my point is that many movies have completely changed the themes and plots of some plays and novels, while others slavishly tried to reproduce the novel and never lived and breathed as movies. That's why I'm discussing what I am. I'm sure you can understand the characters better by reading the novel, but if the moviemakers change the characters, then you're dealing with a completely separate animal than the book. You have every right to compare/contrast the novel to the movie, but the movie still has to stand or fall on its own because no matter what book you pick, there's a 99.9% chance that more people have seen the movie than have read the book.

I agree with what you're saying Mark but in this case it's basically a live action reproduction of the GN, i wouldn't call the film Snyder's intellectual property by any stretch- it's not another artists interpretation of a source, Moore retains near enough total authorship of the film so i wouldn't say they are two separate beasts.

[Justin]

Nice reviews....

[abudadi831o]

Some nice reviews on here, alot of what was on my mind was said in these reviews.

All in all I recon it was a good film, brought the novel into the 21st century nicely. However Veidt was dissapointing , he seemed more villainous and pompas than his comic book counterpart. In the novels when he destroyed NY I was convinced he was saving the world, and completly bought into his ethos. In the film I really, really wanted Dr Manhattan to break his foot off and shove it up his ass.
ADMIN EDIT: please use spoiler tags! We don't want to ruin the movie for anyone.

[christine]

Very good reviews everyone, enjoyed reading them. :)

I've not read the graphic novel but I was entranced by the film. Although there's all those back stories flickering around on the edges which remain a mystery to the likes of me, if you're quick enough you can pull together enough info to keep you hooked. It looked absolutely superb and that opening montage was so very good - and the music hey? anyone who has Dylan on the soundtrack has my vote :) . Yeah I guess they were cheesy musical choices but dammit they are great songs after all!

That guy Jackie Earle Haley, what a fantastic cinematic face he has.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Some nice reviews on here, alot of what was on my mind was said in these reviews.
All in all I recon it was a good film, brought the novel into the 21st century nicely. However Veidt was dissapointing , he seemed more villainous and pompas than his comic book counterpart. In the novels when he destroyed NY I was convinced he was saving the world, and completly bought into his ethos. In the film I really, really wanted Dr Manhattan to break his foot off and shove it up his ass.:rotfl: Hilarious, and a very valid point. The film tells a compelling story. The novel asks compelling questions.


christine, I'm really glad to see this kind of reaction from someone who hasn't read the book. I was wondering how it would come across, and since I'm taking two friends who haven't read it to see the IMAX screening tomorrow, I'm feeling more confident now. Hurray!

[Pyro Tramp]

Dylan was in the novel ;)

[meatwadsprite]

The opening montage is free for viewing , anyone who is interested.

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/030709-watchmen-movie-opening-titles-video.php

[spudracer]

Very good reviews everyone, enjoyed reading them. :)

I've not read the graphic novel but I was entranced by the film. Although there's all those back stories flickering around on the edges which remain a mystery to the likes of me, if you're quick enough you can pull together enough info to keep you hooked. It looked absolutely superb and that opening montage was so very good - and the music hey? anyone who has Dylan on the soundtrack has my vote :) . Yeah I guess they were cheesy musical choices but dammit they are great songs after all!

That guy Jackie Earle Haley, what a fantastic cinematic face he has.

As a fellow non-follower of the GN. I couldn't agree more with you Christine. I can't even find anything to add to that.

[meow_cat]

This is great news....can't wait to see this one myself!

[TheUsualSuspect]

Watchmen Reviewed


It's always hard to review films that are based on previous works, such as books, or in this case a graphic novel. The problem is that people want to always bring the most popular books to life on the big screen and it ultimately disappoints a lot of people because it's from a different vision then their own. This is why movies based on books not a lot of people have read are always good and ones that are based on big popular ones are mostly bad. Of course there are the few exceptions.

I think it goes without saying that the film would never be as good as the book. It's a statement that is so obvious that I'm surprised I'm even stating it here. In reviewing a film based of said literature, one should make the distinction of not really comparing the two. It's simply not fair. Comparisons will rise, no doubt, but the two mediums are vastly different. With books, you can go anywhere, do anything, nothing is limited. Film on the other hand, has so many limitations that it feels like it should be viewed in a category on it's own. You can only do so much with an actual camera, but with your imagination the limitations are endless. This is why I'll be reviewing the film and try not to compare it to the Graphic Novel.

So, where to begin? It's taken decades for this unfilmable epic to make it to the big screen, so a pat on the back to Synder and the crew for finally making it happen. He has done with other directors couldn't. Granted, we now have the technology to bring these things to life, something we did not have way back then. Even so, Snyder has proven himself to be a competent director, his last two films have been both financially and critically successful. Did he do a good job bringing Watchmen to the screen. I guess as good as it could of possibly been.

The film is a pretty accurate depiction of the novel, the changes that were made I had no opposition to. Things were obviously left out, some things I knew would be gone, some things I hoped would make it in. The film clocks in at 2 hours and 45 minutes, so it may seem like it will drag in places and near the end it does. Whenever Dr. Manhattan was on the screen, I was so happy. He was a marvel in the book and here as well. Every time he was on the screen I was glued to it, could not look away. Although, when on Mars when he is discussing he feelings with humanity, I found myself slightly bored. Which is a shame because it is a pivotal moment in the film. Billy Crudup plays a character devoid of any emotion. He pulls it off. I enjoyed his performance. During the trailer I was upset with his voice, but during the film I did not mind it. I loved his eyes and every little turn of his head.

Malin Akerman on the other hand has gotten a lot of flack for her performance and I say it was because the character isn't even likable. I found her annoying and whiny, here she just seems boring. No connection to Manhattan, but more importantly Dan. I just did not really buy their relationship on screen. She does look beautiful in (and out) of that suit though and can kick some ass. Speaking of Dan, Night Owl is two characters. A kickass superhero and an overweight man who needs his glasses to see. Wilson captured both pretty well. His nervousness is there and I thought he brought that character to life. The one casting spot the fans seemed to hate the most, I enjoyed quite a bit. Matthew Goode did a decent job here, much to my surprise, even though

Both Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan play the psychopaths in this flick. Morgan shows his stuff in the characters flashbacks, aging from a young arrogant bastard, to an old crying slob. After his introduction and flashback scenes he has nothing else to do with the film and I wanted to see more of his sorry ass. Haley was the highlight of the film for me. What a badass character he gets to play, with the mask on and off. He pulled it off extremely well.

Why oh why did the make-up department fail so badly though? Looking at Silk Spectre in her old age was horrible. She looks like she had play dough rubbed on her face, Nixon too. Even The Comedian to an extent, whose fight sequence went on a tad too long. Punching through walls, really?

The soundtrack was spot on, maybe too spot on for some, but I dug it. The film's highlight, other than Dr. Manhattan's origins telling, is the fantastic montage opening credits to the tune of Bob Dylan. I loved it. Couldn't get enough of it. It immediately sets you in this alternate universe and you know the history. Pick up the soundtrack, I know I will.

The film looks beautiful, no question . Sin City had it's own atmosphere, as did 300 and now Watchmen. I just didn't sit there and see this world they were living in, I felt a part of it. I loved the blue of Manhattan glowing everywhere, I loved the neon signs and the gritty streets.

Some parts did have the Zack Snyder stamp all over them, most notably the prison scene in which Night Owl and Spectre II fight off some prisoners down the corridor. Just seemed like 300 all over again to me. I did enjoy Rorschach kicking ass though. His pacing was a bit off as well, in the Graphic Novel I felt that they left out Adiran a lot, which is exactly what the film does as well, much to my dismay. His choice to have the characters seem more super than human was also a bit weird. This was most noticeable in the climax when characters are bouncing off solid objects and nothing really seems to happen to them.

A lot of the core themes and elements were sort of lost to me in the translation. Viewers will get lost in the gorgeousness of it and might miss the smaller parts that really make Watchmen what it is. These characters are not super at all, they all have problems. I feel that many people will miss this, the film kind of did. For instance, my friend who knew nothing about the graphic novel (he gave the film a 6/10) asked me why the black kid and the old fat guy were hugging at the end before the explosion. Seeing them was nothing more then a wink and a nod to the people who read the novel, no one else knew who the hell they were. Give me more little things with the main characters. Rorschach is suppose to be the psychopath, yet he seems to be the only one with a level head on his shoulders most of the time.

In the end, the film is a good adaptation of the book. I enjoyed it on it's own merits and on the comparison to the source material. So I guess they did something right with that one. I guess my small complaints are ones that fans seem to have, more needed with the core characters. I really wanted more on Kovacs back story. I wanted to see him make the mask dammit. At times it tries to be brilliant, like the novel, but it doesn't come off like that. I wanted the entire film to be brilliant, but ended up with an entertaining movie that I would love to watch over again and again.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

I forgot to mention, my experience here was just as bad as Slumdog. There were two RABID fans beside, spewing out the dialogue before the characters would say it, laugh at blue penis, and their laughs were loud and annoying, like Pee Wee Herman amped up to the max.

I wanted to smash their face in with a meat cleaver.

[Sedai]

That's the third person I have heard (read) mention Comedian punching through a wall. I am stunned as to why people are surprised by this. Stunned, I tell you. When i was in Jr. High, I was wrestling around with a friend and I went to go after him and he dodged out of the way. My hand went right through the wall. I was about 92 pounds at the time. Comedian punched through a regular old wall; it wasn't cement or anything.

Actually, None of the characters exhibited heightened abilities beyond what acrobats/martial artists do, except Veidt. Obviously Manhattan did, but I am talking the other characters here. Rorschach did some parkour style stuff, but I have seen people do that in the real, so that isn't super power stuff. Owl and Spectre do kick some ass, but it was on a level with Batman or something like that.

Also, I am re-reading the comic, and they mention (in issue 3 I believe) that Manhattan and Comedian are the only ones with any real powers. Was Comedian enhanced or something, like Captain America? They don't go into specifics, and I can't recall exactly what had been done to him. They do mention he had some heightened abilities in the comic, though. Veidt was clearly changed for the film.

[Iroquois]

The wall Comedian punched through at the start looked like was covered in marble, though. The only explanation I can think of is that it was fake marble added for decoration.

[Sinny McGuffins]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2008/08/01/watchmen460.jpg

The visuals were amazing. But with Synder directing and having artist Dave Gibbons on board, the film was always going to favour the visual side of things. But on the whole I liked it, just wish there was more story from the comics. Though I suppose in movie terms it would have dragged had they added much more. That's why a TV mini-series would have made a lot more sense, and been the perfect way to adapt Alan Moore's Watchmen. A platform that would have been able to include all the subplots with Bernard and Bernie, Hollis Mason, Max Shea and even the giant squid. But whadda'ya gonna do?

For the film, I thought the new ending worked well. And though the added sex and violence was unnecessary I didn't have any problems with a lot of the minor changes. But like other MoFo's, I really didn't like the super-human abilities the regular heroes had. It works for Ozymandias, since he's shaped himself to be the perfect human, but the rest of them really didn't need to be throwing enemies around like tennis balls.

Was anyone else pleasantly surprised by Dr. Manhattan's soft-spoken voice? It wasn't anything like what I heard in my head, but it worked even better than I ever imagined. Loved Rorschach, of course. But Jeffery Dean Morgan as The Comedian really stood out as the best performance for me, by far. Even though he had limited screen time, he owned every scene he was in.

The music was good. Though some choices were a bit odd. I didn't like hearing "Ride of the Valkyries" while Manhattan and Comedian were in 'Nam, for example. Felt it came too close to parody. But I'm sure most would agree, the opening credits were incredible, stunningly so. I sat there watching them in awe the first time on Friday, and did the same again when I saw it last night.

I really enjoyed Watchmen, but that might be because of my love for Moore's comics, which at times it was very faithful to. Seeing the characters and the artwork of the comics brought to life was the real treat for me, which is why I'll probably watch it at least one more time while it's still in theatres.

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/geekspeak/watchmen%20group%20grab-thumb-550x232.jpg

4

[Sedai]

After reading Yoda's comments about the added super powers, I went into the film looking for it. It just isn't there to the extent some others seem to have thought it was. Who throws people around like tennis balls?

[Yoda]

I'll have to see it again to offer up more specifics. I'll wrap all this in spoiler tags, just in case...

You already touched on Veidt, though, who basically jump-flies across the room at one point, which I thought was pretty goofy. Off the top of my head, I admit that the bulk of the over-the-top stuff comes from him. I think he punches Rorschach and sends him flying across the room in the same scene.
Most of it wasn't super-human, or anything resembling super-powers, but still way too strong for an actual human, especially one who's een retired from this stuff for years. The strength of the punches was pretty out there, if I recall correctly (I may not). No, it's not supernatural, but it's not really realistic, either. You'd probably have to take a world-class boxer and ramp their strength up a good 50% to have the kind of force some of those blows seemed to have.

It's, of course, possible that some of this is exaggerated in my mind for whatever reason; possibly because the sound of each hit was amped up to a ridiculous degree most of the time. But I'll definitely be seeing this again, probably in IMAX, so I'll make a point to note specifics. :)

[Sedai]

No, you are spot on about him, and he was changed for the film. Not sure why they decided to give him abilities like that. No one else seemed over the top to me, though.

He also caught a bullet, which is clearly meta-human stuff.

[Yoda]

You may be right; the sound may have tricked me into thinking the blows were more forceful than they were, but I'll definitely be on the lookout next time through. Regarding the other bit...

He did this in the graphic novel, too, and it was actually even less believable then, as he didn't have any kind of glove on. I don't think it was ever explained, either. I'd actually chalk the film version, with the glove (which might be special somehow, I suppose) as an improvement, though I would have preferred it be removed altogether.
Been going through the film in my mind and leafing back through the novel over the last couple of days, and the film is actually more faithful to the source material than I'd originally realized. There are a few changes -- some of which I think make it worse...but there are several undeniable improvements. I've got a crazy week in front of me, but I'll try to sit down and catalogue a few of the more interesting changes at some point.

[Sleezy]

I didn't like hearing "Ride of the Valkyries" while Manhattan and Comedian were in 'Nam, for example. Felt it came too close to parody.

Actually, "Ride of the Valkyries" does have a connection to the book. In Hollis Mason's biography "Under the Hood," he describes a scene in which his boss at the auto-repair shop, wearing a set of fake breasts and listening to "Ride of the Valkyries" at full volume, finds out that his wife has been cheating on him with the chief mechanic. And despite his anguish, the scene is so bizarre to everyone present, that they can't help but start laughing. I'm sure Snyder included the song to pay homage to that.

You may be right; the sound may have tricked me into thinking the blows were more forceful than they were

No, I'm with you on this one, Chris. A lot of the blows were clearly exaggerated:

I recall Comedian punching out a chunk of a concrete pillar, Veidt puts the Comedian through a marble kitchen counter top, Nite Owl breaks an attacker's arm so hard that he almost tears it off at the elbow, and that's just a few. The characters also seemed to be extremely durable. I happened to comment many times that I would just give up after someone threw me across the room into a statue.

Also, in general terms of each character's heightened ability:

Besides Veidt pulling some Spring-heeled Jack stuff later in the film, I have to mention that I wasn't thrilled about the kind of nimble stuff Rorschach did, either. That guy sprang from a standing position and scaled a bar ladder like it was nothing.

[Sedai]

Did you see it, Sleezy? Thoughts?

[TheUsualSuspect]

The scenes that stuck out for me is when The Comedian punched the edge of the wall and it broke apart.

But more obvious to me was the end fight in which Rorschach kept flying into hard cement pieces, that broke off and he just got up and kept fighting. It just didn't look natural to me.

[Sleezy]

Did you see it, Sleezy? Thoughts?

Yup. :yup:

Liked most of it, didn't like some of it. The film does, ultimately, feel like Watchmen though, and that goes a long way. It could have very well been changed beyond recognition by someone less concerned than Snyder about giving fans something they can appreciate. Paul Greengrass, for example, was planning on making major changes, and setting the film in 2006. So thank God that got canned.

If you want to read my full review, CLICK (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=507485&postcount=15). :)

[Sedai]

Oh yay! Out of all of us here on the site, I figured you and Holden would be the least forgiving. With both of you clocking in around 4 boxes of popcorn, I consider the film to have passed the litmus test!

I loved it. Yes, it had its flaws, but, they didn't bother me too much.

[Sleezy]

Oh yay! Out of all of us here on the site, I figured you and Holden would be the least forgiving. With both of you clocking in around 4 boxes of popcorn, I consider the film to have passed the litmus test!

I loved it. Yes, it had its flaws, but, they didn't bother me too much.

Yeah, I find myself much more forgiving these days than I used to be. But it's hard to look at Snyder's Watchmen and not appreciate that it's as good as it is, considering what might have happened. Of course, there were personal favorites that got trimmed off, but what are you gonna do? At least there's a gargantuan DVD to look forward to. :)

[Sedai]

I am curious as to the content of said DVD. Is there any info about it out yet? I know there is a longer cut for the DVD, but, beyond that, I am clueless.

[Sinny McGuffins]

Who throws people around like tennis balls?When I said enemies were being thrown around like tennis balls I didn't mean it literally. I meant that the heroes were punching and kicking their foes so hard and with so much force that they would be sent flying into walls that would crack and across rooms with ease. I never got the impression that Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and even Rorschach could fight that good from reading the comics. That's why, to me, it stood out so much.

He [caught a bullet] in the graphic novel, too, and it was actually even less believable then, as he didn't have any kind of glove on. I don't think it was ever explained, either.I thought it was kinda explained. Veidt was the prime example of "The Veidt Method". He says, "Through meditation and intellectual exercise, we may come to use of minds in ways we never thought possible." So the bullet catch could be put down fast reflexes and focused energy.

Which is why I didn't mind Ozymandias having superior strength and speed. He's tuned his body and mind to perform at the very best of their abilities.

Actually, "Ride of the Valkyries" does have a connection to the book. In Hollis Mason's biography "Under the Hood"Oh yeah, forgot about that little story. But for the sake of the film they could have done with using a different song for that scene that didn't recall Apocalypse Now.

[Yoda]

I am curious as to the content of said DVD. Is there any info about it out yet? I know there is a longer cut for the DVD, but, beyond that, I am clueless.
That's hard to answer, because a separate DVD containing Under the Hood and Tales of the Black Freighter: Marooned comes out later this month (the 24th, I think). Since that's being sold separate from the actual DVD, I don't know if the DVD that comes out 6 or 7 months from now will include it. We can probably assume some super-deluxe version (complete with stained smiley button and replica Rorschack mask, no doubt) will have it.

Really, though, that's all I want; an extended cut, some cool making-of documentaries, and the between-the-chapter stuff that fills out the characters and back stories a bit more. That alone should make for an absolutely killer DVD.

[Yoda]

I thought it was kinda explained. Veidt was the prime example of "The Veidt Method". He says, "Through meditation and intellectual exercise, we may come to use of minds in ways we never thought possible." So the bullet catch could be put down fast reflexes and focused energy.

Which is why I didn't mind Ozymandias having superior strength and speed. He's tuned his body and mind to perform at the very best of their abilities.
Yeah, you're right, it was kinda explained, though I still find that to be a pretty unsatisfying explanation. I mean, don't get me wrong; I love the graphic novel. But I don't think it's perfect, and -- to me -- this is one of those things I think it'd be better without.

[Sedai]

I agree with Sinny on the Valkyrie thing. I felt it pulled me out of the flick too much, and had me thinking about Apocalypse Now, instead. I think it came across as sort of corny, actually.

[Sinny McGuffins]

I can't wait for the Saturday morning cartoon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

[Sedai]

Love it! ^^

[sharkfan]

I'd respectfully disagree. Obviously I can't know how it would have been otherwise, but I think I got a good deal more out of the film by having read Watchmen. Just my opinion, though. :)
Absolutely--reading it will allow the reader to provide her interpretations prior to seeing the story unfold according to the director, producers, and the studios. One is active, the other passive. Now, that does not mean people cannot read a film, but if one thinks about the process of reading as compared to watching, one is more dymanic for the reader while the other is a more passive experience.

[Sleezy]

I can't wait for the Saturday morning cartoon...

LOL! :rotfl:

[sharkfan]

Even though the film's opening scene was not actually in the book (something I hoped was not a sign of things to come), the bulk of the film followed the book to a tee. At a guess, I'd say the content of the film was about ninety percent true to the book - sure, it left out plenty of subplots and characters (which Snyder claims will be featured more prominently in an extended cut he plans to release on DVD), but as for the main plot and much of the most important character development, it's all there. Despite several small changes here and there (noticeable to a fan, perhaps, although I doubt newcomers will get the difference) and a change to the film's big twist (more on that later), it's about as faithful an adaptation as you're likely to find anywhere. The book's various techniques, such as jumping back and forth between different times and places and use of overlapping dialogue, translate reasonably well to film as well.
And another person posted
The film is a pretty accurate depiction of the novel, the changes that were made I had no opposition to.

I disagree that the film is as accurate to the original text (Moore's story). The structure to the original shares similarities, but the story is definitely different. With the limited time I have, I will highlight some of these discrepancies. Due to some trouble with the spoiler function, I will describe them in more general terms in order to keep hope alive for anyone who has not seen the film.

Character abilities (one chracter in mind) were not explained and should have been.

Character lines at key moments that were from the book were out of place because important information was not included. It did not always make sense to have a given line at all--it almost seemed to be there so that fans would recognize them.

The absence of some context made the appearance of some chracters awkward and confusing. As well, some character appearances seemed odd when they were, more or less, wink-wink moments from the book.



These are just a few ideas that I noted when watching the film. I certainly do not think the film is terrible, but Snyder's claim about being faithful extends as far as the skeleton of the original story and portions of character development. Much was changed to make Snyder's Watchmen distinct from Moore's Watchmen.

[sharkfan]

I don't know if my comments on the film are gone or what--they are not appearing at the moment on my post above--apologies if they are not here. I will have to post them later. In general (in case my points remain absent above), I noted issues of character development, character lines, and theme that differ fairly wide of the mark of the original text.

[Sedai]

Your post is trashed, Shark.

[The Spirit]

Daaaaag yo

on a separate note I like the film

[meatwadsprite]

I hope we see more of the Bernie and the kid in the directors cut , also I want the party scene with Comedian - I really can't believe that wasn't in there.

After watching again , there's so much stuff in there that isn't necessary and that wasted time that could have been used for the several missing parts. Rosasrch's backstory is severely trimmed , he doesn't feel nearly as important as he did in the book - all problems aside I hope the directors cut will include more story and not more "violence and sex" like Snyder has stated.

Assuming the directors cut does turn out better than the theatrical one , I would end up giving it a 4. In Snyder I do not trust. :)

[Sedai]

I also hope we get more Rorschach back story in the longer cut. I think we will. I also hope they end is extended a bit for more Veidt/Manhattan dialogue.

[Sleezy]

I also hope we get more Rorschach back story in the longer cut.

Yes! It bothered me so much that they emasculated his biography, turning all that glorious monologue and painful memories into a fleeting scene. Why was there more substantial content of Rorschach in prison instead? This, I can't understand.

I'm also hoping to see more Manhattan backstory:

They did a good job mirroring the feel of that chapter with the jumps in time, but for efficiency, they only used it to tell the viewer the most basic information needed about Jon Osterman. They completely omitted the fact that a "fat man" had stepped on Janie's watch, and that at the time Jon was transformed, it was his intention to fix it. This is easily one of the most complex and rewarding metaphors I've ever read in any piece of fiction. The struggle between the "watchmaker" ideology and the nuclear age is hidden between the lines, but powerful. And relevant, I would argue, given the events of the story. Shame it was omitted.

[sharkfan]

Your post is trashed, Shark.
Huh? I guess you mean the information was missing, so I updated it in fairly general terms.

[sharkfan]

Yes! It bothered me so much that they emasculated his biography, turning all that glorious monologue and painful memories into a fleeting scene. Why was there more substantial content of Rorschach in prison instead? This, I can't understand.

I'm also hoping to see more Manhattan backstory:

They did a good job mirroring the feel of that chapter with the jumps in time, but for efficiency, they only used it to tell the viewer the most basic information needed about Jon Osterman. They completely omitted the fact that a "fat man" had stepped on Janie's watch, and that at the time Jon was transformed, it was his intention to fix it. This is easily one of the most complex and rewarding metaphors I've ever read in any piece of fiction. The struggle between the "watchmaker" ideology and the nuclear age is hidden between the lines, but powerful. And relevant, I would argue, given the events of the story. Shame it was omitted.
This may seem like a minor point, but it is significant to the character. I was a little curious about why that part was left out, given the film highlighted the date at the boardwalk.

[rufnek]

Older movies didn't seem so obsessed with adapting the source material so religiously . . . my point is that many movies have completely changed the themes and plots of some plays and novels, while others slavishly tried to reproduce the novel and never lived and breathed as movies.

I’m not sure your generality about older movies not being “so obsessed with adapting source material” is accurate, but I guess it depends on one’s definition of “older” and how much material can one change in a movie-from-book adaptation before it becomes a totally new creation.

Seems I can recall many examples of older movies that are very faithful to the books and plays that preceded them. For example, The Petrified Forest was almost exactly the original play with Bogart and Howard recreating their roles. The Philadelphia Story was written as a play for Katherine Hepburn who also played the female lead in the essentially unchanged film. The later remake was a musical but followed essentially the same plot. Mr. Roberts was a very accurate reproduction of that hit play, both of which starred Fonda as I recall. I understand 12 Angry Men also was an accurate recreation of the play.

One reason for the success of The Maltese Falcon (1941) was that it has virtually the same characters, scenes, and word-for-word dialogue of the very popular original book. The Caine Mutiny as a book won the 1951 Pulitzer Prize. The movie follows most of the book very faithfully but ends as Willie Keith returns to duty, whereas the book’s ending comes 5 years later. The Big Sleep (1946) also copied the dialogue and plot of the original book, right down to one of the murders never being fully explained. Night of the Hunter was almost exactly like the 1953 best seller, as I recall. The screenplay for The Third Man (1949) was adapted by Graham Greene from his own Novella. The changes are few and IMHO opinion minor in To Kill a Mockingbird (1955). Mildred Pierce, The Postman Always Rings Twice and other books by the author were followed very closely in their transfer to the screen. The biggest difference I recall between the book and 1939 film of Gone With the Wind is that in the book Scarlett had 2 children (by her first two husbands) in addition to “Bonnie Blue” fathered by Rhett. A Place in the Sun was very like the original book as I recall.

Sometimes the filmmaker simply has to shorten a long book. The 1939 film version of Wuthering Heights with Lawrence Olivier was based on 16 of the 34 chapters of the book. The East of Eden film (1955) was loosely based on about the last third of the much longer original book. David Copperfield (1935) eliminated several characters and incidents from Dickens’ original novel, yet reviewers said it captured “the spirit of the book and period.”

Some movies had to be watered down because the original material was too racy. For example, Erskine Caldwell was tried for obscenity over his 1933 book God’s Little Acre, so the 1958 film had to skirt several parts of the plot and dialogue in the original book. From Here to Eternity was another toned-down film changing Pruitt’s girl from a prostitute to a “hostess.” On the big screen, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof skated all around the subjects of homosexuality and infidelity—in fact, I don’t think any of Tennessee Williams’ works ever made it to film without major surgery.

To Hell and Back was the story of Audie Murphy’s heroism during World War II, based on a very popular autobiography that he “wrote” (with the help of a ghostwriter) before he ever became a movie star. In the film, the front-line troops look so clean and so free of danger that I figured “It couldn’t have really been like that!” So I read the book and discovered it is the most bloody, violent account of war I’ve ever read. People introduced on one page are blown to bits in mine fields 3 pages later. Death and suffering are on every page.

I’ve never seen the 1920 film version of The Last of the Mohicans, so I can’t say whether it follows the book closely or not. Yet even with Wallace Beery playing the Indian villain Magua, the film was selected in 1995 by the Library of Congress as “culturally significant.” The 1936 remake took lots of liberties with the original book (generally regarded as one of the first major novels written in the Americas) and inserted a love story between Hawkeye and the colonel’s eldest daughter. The popular 1992 remake was based on the 1936 script, not the book, yet is undoubtedly the most historically accurate of any of the versions.

On the other hand, some films redo the original book to give it more drama or a happier ending. For instance in Ben Hur the book, Messala is injured but not killed in the chariot race and lives on for some years afterward. On screen in On the Waterfront, Brando defeats the mob, frees the longshoreman, and leads them back to work. In the book, his character is found stuffed in a barrel, dead from multiple ice-pick wounds. In The Young Lions, anti-Semitism is played down and Brando’s German character is rewritten to be more sympathetic than the Nazi rapist who shot unarmed prisoners in the book. Some of John Wayne’s later book-based films were changed to maintain his hero image. In The Searchers, for instance, his character is darker and is killed by an Indian squaw he’s chasing in a raid on an Indian village and doesn’t live to witness his niece’s rescue. In The Shootist, the filmmakers thoroughly mess up the book’s ending so that it doesn’t look like the old gunman’s life was a total waste (in the book, it’s the widow’s son who shoots the wounded old gunman in the back, steals his guns and horse and the money left for his mother, and runs off to be a gunfighter).

In some cases, one can plainly see changes made by studios to enhance the popular appeal or to show a star to his or her best advantage. A great example is This Gun for Hire, the break-through film for Alan Ladd’s career. First of all, the original story was written by an Englishman and set in England, but the American studio moved the setting to the US. In the movie, Ladd’s character has a disfigured wrist (so they tell us, but the bump is hardly noticeable) that supposedly is why the killer is so bitter and withdrawn from human society. In the book, the killer has a cleft palate which of course would subject him to stares and abuse much more than a vague bump on the wrist. But the studio wasn’t going to let handsome Ladd play a character with a facial deformity.

I can think of only two movies that were completely changed from the books on which they were based. One-Eyed Jacks kept the western setting in California but the story was completely different in plot and characters. Paint Your Wagon kept the title and some of the songs from the original musical, but came up with a totally different story line. On stage, the play was about a miner trying as a single parent to raise a teenage daughter in a rough California mining camp.

And in both those cases, the changes were for the better.

[Yoda]

This may seem like a minor point, but it is significant to the character. I was a little curious about why that part was left out, given the film highlighted the date at the boardwalk.
Er...because the movie was crazy long already? They've got to shave time off somewhere.

Not to be too blunt, but isn't the fact that the film is different from the novel a given? I don't think anyone's disputing it, really. When they say that it's "faithful," they don't mean perfectly so. The statement refers to typical levels of similarity between other book-to-film adaptations, as well as a general sense of what one would reasonably expect from the process. Measured against real-world examples, and not some ideal of a perfectly analagous adaptation, the film is certainly "faithful" to the text . It retains the same basic message, themes, and subtexts. Not perfectly, but substantially.

Anyway, if you want to go into more specifics, but are having trouble with the spoiler tags, just click on the red exclamation point on the Post Reply page, and enter the film's title. Voila. :)

[meatwadsprite]

Much better credits song ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC-u2yIsawM&feature=channel_page

[Sleezy]

Er...because the movie was crazy long already? They've got to shave time off somewhere.

Watchmen seems like the kind of film you could tinker with endlessly during editing. I often wonder, with these kinds of films, how much influence the studio has on the director's vision at this stage. I certainly could have done with less of the violence or extraneous action for the sake of a little more backstory, but violence is a crowd-pleaser for the ones who might not care so much about the story. So it's always a give and take.

Not to be too blunt, but isn't the fact that the film is different from the novel a given? I don't think anyone's disputing it, really. When they say that it's "faithful," they don't mean perfectly so... It retains the same basic message, themes, and subtexts. Not perfectly, but substantially.

Now that I've seen Watchmen, I've been struggling with whether or not I would have preferred a 100% strict interpretation with identical shots, costumes, sets, etc. The film certainly already hit home on a lot of these (some of the sets especially were damn near verbatim to Dave Gibbons' illustrations).

I think in some cases, I would have preferred a closer adaptation. But having also seen Sin City and 300, I think there's definitely a lot of danger in copying the material frame for frame. We all know that. A film ought to be representative of the original work, but it's got to be a film also.

That said, I started to watch Resident Evil: Extinction today, and realized that those films have trended in a significantly different direction than the games on which they are based. And that doesn't seem right to me. Some changes must be made, of course. I get that. But in the past, a lot of films have taken an existing story and bastardized it into something only slightly resembling its predecessor. When that happens, is it even fair to retain the same title?

I'm a writer, so perhaps I'm coming from a biased perspective. Adaptation ought to be a subtle art that fosters the telling of a story in only little changes (or at least changes that make sense). But to alter something dramatically? No way. I don't buy that something should be up for a re-imagining. A director with a vision isn't over the original work, and often, re-imaginings fail anyway because (a) they're just not the same, (b) they're just not that good, or (c) we never needed a re-imagining in the first place.

[Pyro Tramp]

Ok, this has turned into a more detailed list of my gripes. I agree with Sinny on the music, reference or not it was far too close to parody and the love making song when they were on Archie was REALLY cheesy from what i remember.

In regard to the violence, that was Snyder making it his own imo, which is why i think a different director with a less sexed up style could make a substantially different character driven film. I can mostly let that go but it did verge on becoming too much at the end. I would have liked a bit more of Veidt as well, i know in the book he hardly appeared but his gymnastics show could have served as a decent context to his strength and reflexes but for non GN readers doubt that would matter. Another thing is i thought he was too young and Manhattan's respect for him at that flashback meeting wasn't there to help understand his empathy in the scheme. Which even at the end, still felt like Veidt was the bad guy, didn't really feel that moral dilemma as much, probably as Dan didn't accept it like in the GN. Would have liked to have seen that stockmarket convo as well so he was a bit more of a character instead of pop up villain.

I would have loved to have more backstory on each character as well, thought the therapist sessions with Walter in jail should have been included. Didn't like the change to the story with him killing the kiddie murderer, thought the more sadistic GN way shaped his character better, even if the resemblance to Saw would have sucked. On the flip side though, the backstory devoted to each character in individual chapters works with the GN format but as it was, the film felt far too fractured where that translation effected the pacing.

I think they introduced the tachyons too early which weakened the how godlike Manhattan's perception of time was and far reaching. Him finding out about Dan and Laurie was underwritten which ties into explaining his perception of time and also his reasons for going to Mars. His 'miracle' dialogue seemed forced and conclusion reached too quickly and don't remember him doing that Vulcan mind meld thing with Laurie in the GN. Also, when he drew his symbol there was no reasoning for that. And obviously the aforementioned 'watch' bit and the circumstantial chain of events.

As for the DVD, i believe Tale of the Black Freighter is going to added into it, since it's 26mins was shot for the film, though would imagine that will disrupt the pace a bit. Hollis Mason as his extra bit included, which i expected since when Dan and Rorschach are in the bar the shot almost goes to the back of a Knot Top. However if they follow that plot thread all the way through, don't know if has different implication to his reaction at the end.

[sharkfan]

Er...because the movie was crazy long already? They've got to shave time off somewhere.

Not to be too blunt, but isn't the fact that the film is different from the novel a given? I don't think anyone's disputing it, really. When they say that it's "faithful," they don't mean perfectly so. The statement refers to typical levels of similarity between other book-to-film adaptations, as well as a general sense of what one would reasonably expect from the process. Measured against real-world examples, and not some ideal of a perfectly analagous adaptation, the film is certainly "faithful" to the text . It retains the same basic message, themes, and subtexts. Not perfectly, but substantially.
Regarding that specific scene, would thirty seconds of extra footage have changed the film really? Would it really make the film "crazy long"?

Of course, things changed or lost in translation is a given. Yet does that have to mean altering characters and events to the point that it changes the story? Unless there is a standardized definition of "faithfulness" in terms of book-to-film translations, there will be disagreement about what "faithful" really means here. Snyder claimed to be faithful to the text, and he was--as long as it served the story he wanted to tell, which was not Watchmen as it reads on the page. To that end, Snyder is not really that successful in being "faithful." The movie he put together was fine, but it was not Moore's story. And this is not an expectation of a "perfectly analagous adaptation": it is a response to a film that was purposely organized and crafted to tell a different story. A deeper comparison of both texts shows this.

[Sleezy]

Of course, things changed or lost in translation is a given. Yet does that have to mean altering characters and events to the point that it changes the story? Unless there is a standardized definition of "faithfulness" in terms of book-to-film translations, there will be disagreement about what "faithful" really means here. Snyder claimed to be faithful to the text, and he was--as long as it served the story he wanted to tell, which was not Watchmen as it reads on the page. To that end, Snyder is not really that successful in being "faithful." The movie he put together was fine, but it was not Moore's story. And this is not an expectation of a "perfectly analagous adaptation": it is a response to a film that was purposely organized and crafted to tell a different story. A deeper comparison of both texts shows this.

Hmm. I think you're taking a very strict view of what it means to be "faithful." From what you're saying, it seems you think the film isn't faithful unless it's an exact translation page for page. But consider this. The Watchmen Motion Comic, which is a strict translation that still omits pieces of dialogue here and there, runs over 5 hours. Snyder's film couldn't have possibly run that long. Warner Bros. would have refused to market such a long film because audiences - even devout fans - are hard-pressed to sit for that long, and just wouldn't take the plunge.

You have to understand that translating any kind of novel to film is an unnatural process. It can't be done page for page. Edits have to be made, and yes, what you generally end up with is rarely what you started with (in varying degrees). That's just the reality. As a writer myself, I can tell you that distilling a large body of copy into a fraction of its size is the hardest thing in the world, but as long as the goal is to serve the function of the medium while retaining the core spirit and ethos of the source, it's got the best chance of working out.

All you really have to do is go read about the previous iterations of Watchmen that were in the works at one point or another, and that will make you realize just how thankful we ought to be that Snyder has done what he's done. It's as close as it was going to get, which is still surprisingly parallel. It's not Moore's story, you're right... at least not in the strictest sense. But you can't say that it isn't Watchmen either. It goes through the same motions, makes (or attempts to make) the same social commentaries, and arrives at the same place as the graphic novel. It's not perfect. Some of the changes are goofy and uninspired. Some of the deepest commentary is altered or missing. But there's still WAY more Watchmen here than something else, I'd argue. And considering the source, that's damned impressive.

[linespalsy]

Haven't seen the movie and it's up in the air right now whether I will or won't, but I just read Tom Spurgeon's review (http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/index/cr_review_watchmen_film/) and always find his writing thoughtful, sober and direct (which is not the same as saying "I always agree with him.")

WARNING: There is something like a spoiler about the ending change so if you care about that...

[sharkfan]

Hmm. I think you're taking a very strict view of what it means to be "faithful." From what you're saying, it seems you think the film isn't faithful unless it's an exact translation page for page.
That is an incorrect assumption. It also an assumption that a story cannot be told well or very close to the original without making unnecessary changes like the ones Snyder made.
But consider this. The Watchmen Motion Comic, which is a strict translation that still omits pieces of dialogue here and there, runs over 5 hours. Snyder's film couldn't have possibly run that long. Warner Bros. would have refused to market such a long film because audiences - even devout fans - are hard-pressed to sit for that long, and just wouldn't take the plunge.
Apples and oranges--one is a cartoon with some motion while the other is live action with real people. They have different expectations.
You have to understand that translating any kind of novel to film is an unnatural process. It can't be done page for page. Edits have to be made, and yes, what you generally end up with is rarely what you started with (in varying degrees). That's just the reality.
I know the intricacies involved quite well. But the problem is people have a tendency to invoke "[e]dits have to be made" in order to tell a different story. Maybe the "edits" were not that significant to you, but they all add up to a different narrative.
All you really have to do is go read about the previous iterations of Watchmen that were in the works at one point or another, and that will make you realize just how thankful we ought to be that Snyder has done what he's done.
I do not believe anyone should be "thankful" for what "Snyder has done what he's done." Exactly why do you think you owe anything to him? Praise what you want praise (or critique it), but be thankful? I think not. What this "make[s] [me] realize" is that the story could have been told closer to the original text without changes as they were made.
It's as close as it was going to get, which is still surprisingly parallel.
Well, that is just sad then. As a movie,it was all right--not great but all right--but in comparison as a "faithful" adaptation, it falls short. Just because the skeletal structure of the story is visible does not mean the story is "faithful." And one does not have to be a purist to see this is the case.
It's not Moore's story, you're right... at least not in the strictest sense. But you can't say that it isn't Watchmen either. It goes through the same motions, makes (or attempts to make) the same social commentaries, and arrives at the same place as the graphic novel. It's not perfect.
I certainly can say it is not Watchmen, and I do say that since I read the original source material as the Alan Moore story. It is the same reason why Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings is not Tolkien's story. This is an interpretation of it, which is what you are getting at (it sounds like). I definitely did not believe it would be "an exact translation page for page" but did think it would be more accurate to the original source.
Some of the changes are goofy and uninspired. Some of the deepest commentary is altered or missing. But there's still WAY more Watchmen here than something else, I'd argue. And considering the source, that's damned impressive.
"Damned impressive" is one thing, but it is not "faithful."

Feel free to point out a few scenes that stand out to you, and I'll comment on them. Some scenes were good for the film as well as characters generally, yet more were telling a different story.

[Powdered Water]

OK, I finally saw it and I think I'd give it a solid 3.5. I'll be interested to read some more of the regulars opinions after repeated viewings of this flick. I have a suspicion that it isn't going to hold up very well. That's just my personal feeling though I could very well be wrong.

Overall I liked the movie quite a bit. I'm one of the few that hasn't read a single one of the comics (I'm sorry, I still can't bring myself to call them graphic novels) and one thing I've been thinking about all day is how much I would now really like to go ahead and read them. Because the characters in the movie for the most part were just fascinating.

So who can pm me and tell me the real ending? I'd like to know what got changed if you have a minute. The ending to me was pretty typical movie fare and I have a feeling the "real" ending was probably quite a bit better. Anywho. It was pretty OK and I'll check back in later with more random thoughts.

[Sleezy]

That is an incorrect assumption. It also an assumption that a story cannot be told well or very close to the original without making unnecessary changes like the ones Snyder made.

That's a little subjective, and I never said that anyway. Read my review (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=507485&postcount=15). I make it very clear that the two versions aren't entirely parallel, and that some of the changes Snyder has made are goofy and unnecessary.

But the word "unnecessary" itself is subjective. You might find some of his changes unnecessary with respect to the original story, where I find that they solve a problem to facilitate the film. We can get into which one ought to trump the other, but the original question is: Is Watchmen a "faithful" adaptation?

You said:

Of course, things changed or lost in translation is a given. Yet does that have to mean altering characters and events to the point that it changes the story?

That question is too elastic to answer. You could say that by altering anything, you're changing the story. This is dangerous - particularly in a subjective discussion such as this one - because it's easy to say that the film isn't "faithful" because there were changes you didn't agree with. There are certainly changes I disagreed with, but the changes themselves don't destroy the entire composition. Again, there are degrees of adherence. I don't think anyone will dispute that the movie is different from the book. But the movie is also very much the same. So what is "faithfulness" predicated on? We can argue endlessly.

Apples and oranges--one is a cartoon with some motion while the other is live action with real people. They have different expectations.

Either this is an attempt at straw man, or you missed my point. It doesn't matter that they're different versions with different expectations. I'm talking about running time. The motion comic includes nearly everything, and moves at a brisk pace. And it's still 5 hours long. You can't have a 5 hour long film. You just can't.

You say that altering characters and events creates a version that's not faithful to the original. Consider the alternatives. You can cram the entire film with everything in the book exactly as it happens/appears/etc., which gives you a film that's 5 hours long. Or you can make omissions only, which by your logic means you would also end up with an unfaithful translation... just in a different way.

I know the intricacies involved quite well. But the problem is people have a tendency to invoke "[e]dits have to be made" in order to tell a different story.

I don't think Snyder intended to tell a different story because of some personal agenda. If he had, he wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to include so much detail - big and small - that reflects the source material. The sets are nearly identical. Many of the lines are verbatim. Much of the art design borrows directly from the book. Many of the events happen exactly as they did in the book. It takes FAR more effort to make things fit than it does to re-write them altogether. I'd say the film proves Snyder wasn't just in the business of doing his own thing.

Maybe the "edits" were not that significant to you, but they all add up to a different narrative.

Again, we're going to argue semantics. What do you mean by "signficant"? Yes, the edits to Manhattan and Rorschach's biographies neuter some of the deeper themes of the book. Yes, the identity of the "culprit" behind the global attack is different. But while these kinds of changes can hurt, you can't honestly say that they render Watchmen unrecognizable. That's spitting in the face of all the effort Snyder and crew put into making every part of the film they could manage reflective of the source work.

I hate to be blunt, but do you have any idea what kind of burden that is? You're talking about distilling a 400-page, tightly packed novel - celebrated around the world by rabid fans - into a good film with a manageable running time and a strong enough marketing backbone to appease the studio. You might not like that last part, but the studio funds the film. In a world where well-known properties like Halo and The Avengers get canned or delayed, it's a miracle that a 3-hour film about little-known superheroes ever got made, particularly since it's been through the ringer so many times. Because we're fans, it's easy to expect a strict interpretation because the source material is so good. But you're mistaken if you think Watchmen is going to get special treatment.

I do not believe anyone should be "thankful" for what "Snyder has done what he's done." Exactly why do you think you owe anything to him?

Because he worked hard to bring Watchmen to life as "faithfully" as he could, even despite the difficulty surrounding the movie getting made. Being a director means ultimately serving an audience, but it also means making tough decisions and pulling everything together. Personally, I think he did an admirable job. He's certainly no Uwe Boll, who just makes films for himself and chastises anyone who isn't pleased with his work. Snyder delivered an undeliverable, gargantuan project; and it's not only 85 to 90% accurate I'd say, but it's also quite entertaining. Feel free to disagree, but either way, to say that you don't think he deserves thanks is pretty selfish and degrading.

What this "make[s] [me] realize" is that the story could have been told closer to the original text without changes as they were made.

Okay. What would you have done?

Well, that is just sad then. As a movie,it was all right--not great but all right--but in comparison as a "faithful" adaptation, it falls short. Just because the skeletal structure of the story is visible does not mean the story is "faithful." And one does not have to be a purist to see this is the case.

Man, if you seriously want to say that Snyder only achieved the skeletal structure of Watchmen, then you've missed it. You've spent so much time expecting that you've failed to notice the merits I've already mentioned. When you've got a film that follows largely scene for scene as the graphic novel, contains a large portion of the original text, includes a wide range of Watchmen-specific details, and arrives at all the same conclusions, you've got a hell of a lot more than a skeleton. That's just crazy talk.

A good example of a skeletal structure would be the film I mentioned in another post: Resident Evil: Extinction. Sure, it's got the same title as the games, a select few of the characters, a corporation called Umbrella, and... oh yeah... zombies. But the similarities end there. You don't have to be a purist to see how much more faithful Watchmen is than that.

I certainly can say it is not Watchmen, and I do say that since I read the original source material as the Alan Moore story. It is the same reason why Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings is not Tolkien's story. This is an interpretation of it, which is what you are getting at (it sounds like). I definitely did not believe it would be "an exact translation page for page" but did think it would be more accurate to the original source.

But I'd like to know how much more accurate you realistically thought it was going to get. I can guarantee Snyder did more fighting for accuracy than we'll ever know. He already had to fight to ensure that all of us would get to see Dr. Manhattan's junk, much to the chagrin of the studio. You can imagine why they'd be reluctant. But hey, it was in the book.

I'm glad you brought up Lord of the Rings. Here's a book with a FAR larger scope, but much the same restrictions for translating to film as Watchmen. Yes, there are substantial changes. I don't think anyone would argue that the films are nothing more than an interpretation of Tolkien's book. But given the sheer magnitude of that work, you're only ever going to end up with an interpretation of varying degrees of faithfulness, or not at all. To argue that its "faithfulness" is nonexistent because it can't possibly be translated with perfect accuracy is just downright unfair.

Feel free to point out a few scenes that stand out to you, and I'll comment on them.

No, I think the burden is on you to show what would have been, in your eyes, a "faithful" adaptation.

[Pyro Tramp]

Caught the flick again just now, still enjoyed and think my original rating holds. The main flaws as a film (not adaptation) i feel are in Veidt's plan which is quickly realised by characters and i still feel he's not given enough development or screen time- like how long his plan had been in the works- i didn't buy it. Second is Dr Manhattan for much same reasons.

[Sedai]

I loved the homage to this pic in the film:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Vj_day_kiss.jpg

[Iroquois]

Snyder does have a tendency to inject at least one act of lesbianism into every film he makes.

[Sedai]

It was a big deal in the comic, and the reason she was murdered, so it's OK here...

Yes, I totally have a big ol crush on Apollonia Vanova's Silhouette...

http://www.thepromotionpeople.ca/images/ApolloniaVanova.jpg

[FILMFREAK087]

Okay, didn't read the comic, but always meant to. Personally I don't see what people find so confusing about the story. I think it mostly worked very well dealing with the many themes. The only complaint, which sounds silly for the genre, some of the dialog seemed cringe-worthy, and the girl playing Silk Spectre just seemed kind of annoying.

[sharkfan]

I make it very clear that the two versions aren't entirely parallel, and that some of the changes Snyder has made are goofy and unnecessary.
You could have stopped right here because you probably agree with me more than you are aware of it.
But the word "unnecessary" itself is subjective. You might find some of his changes unnecessary with respect to the original story, where I find that they solve a problem to facilitate the film. We can get into which one ought to trump the other, but the original question is: Is Watchmen a "faithful" adaptation?
So who determines the definition for "unnecessary" and "faithful"? One can argue about that all day long, and what ends up happening is defense of one's definition.
You could say that by altering anything, you're changing the story. This is dangerous - particularly in a subjective discussion such as this one - because it's easy to say that the film isn't "faithful" because there were changes you didn't agree with. There are certainly changes I disagreed with, but the changes themselves don't destroy the entire composition. Again, there are degrees of adherence.
Dangerous, eh? Don't you think that is a bit dramatic? What is "dangerous" about it?

One should not become so entranced that because something is subjective, such as in reading a film text and comparing it to a written/drawn text, it cannot be discussed or should be dismissed. If one takes this approach, everything is in "danger" of being subjective in its most general sense. The focus here is a storytelling comparison, which, yes, does have a degree of subjectivity (the story was drawn and written and has gaps in it that provide the reader space to imagine and think). But the film is based off a source that has evidence as to what happens in that story: there is specific evidence to support a reading as being "faithful" or not, which does not necessarily have to comment on changes here and there to fit a modern film format. Some changes may conflict with one's personal interpretation, but they also conflict with the official narrative--literally what actions take place in the original story. These may not "destroy the entire composition," but they certainly play an important role in shaping the story toward a different direction. Now, is this bad? Hell, that is an interpretation.
Either this is an attempt at straw man, or you missed my point. It doesn't matter that they're different versions with different expectations. I'm talking about running time. The motion comic includes nearly everything, and moves at a brisk pace. And it's still 5 hours long. You can't have a 5 hour long film. You just can't.
Talk about fallacies--you are presenting an either-or fallacy in place of one you assume I have made. And I did not miss your point. My point is that one is a cartoon intended for viewing outside a theater on a DVD player while the other started as a theatrical release. Sure, you can compare them, but they have built within them different expectations for different audiences. Yes, yes, I know this is the same with the book and the film. But I have not said anything about absolute translation from one medium to another.

You say that altering characters and events creates a version that's not faithful to the original. Consider the alternatives. You can cram the entire film with everything in the book exactly as it happens/appears/etc., which gives you a film that's 5 hours long. Or you can make omissions only, which by your logic means you would also end up with an unfaithful translation... just in a different way.
Those are two alternatives out of many. They are also extremes that you are using to highlight your case for the better. However, I did not say--ever--that the film had to reflect the book page for page. Regarding the second point, which is not all that clear what you mean by "can make omissions only" really, you have stated something quite accurate: change a story to fit another framework for telling a similar but not the same story results in a differnt story. And it is not "my logic" but logical, period. Again, spin "faithful" into whatever way you wish.

Maybe "faithful" and "unfaithful" is turning you off here. Use "different" or "alternate" if you wish in place of "unfaithful" since that word triggers all sorts of craziness.

I don't think Snyder intended to tell a different story because of some personal agenda. If he had, he wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to include so much detail - big and small - that reflects the source material. The sets are nearly identical. Many of the lines are verbatim. Much of the art design borrows directly from the book. Many of the events happen exactly as they did in the book. It takes FAR more effort to make things fit than it does to re-write them altogether. I'd say the film proves Snyder wasn't just in the business of doing his own thing.
Isn't this a bit subjective? Ha, ha, ha.

The point is that this is more belief or even preference than verifiable fact. My commentary is not on the sets or costumes, which I thought were good (although I would have liked to see those pipes from the book in the film). Sure, these can be connected to the story which some say is "faithful" to the original, but these elements of stroytelling also are disconnected in the sense that they are props, not the story itself. Yes, they help with the story, but they are not the story.
But while these kinds of changes can hurt, you can't honestly say that they render Watchmen unrecognizable. That's spitting in the face of all the effort Snyder and crew put into making every part of the film they could manage reflective of the source work.
Did I ever say "that they render Watchmen unrecognizable"? What do you mean by that anyway?

Admiring the "effort" put into "making every part of the film they could manage reflective of the source work" is separate from the story. Hell, son, I can admire every commerical I see for its artistic renditions of reality and its appeal to my senses, but I do not have to admire the message or bow down in gratitude for being distracted for thirty-frakking seconds.
I hate to be blunt, but do you have any idea what kind of burden that is? You're talking about distilling a 400-page, tightly packed novel - celebrated around the world by rabid fans - into a good film with a manageable running time and a strong enough marketing backbone to appease the studio.
What is "that"? Is it "making a different story" that is like Watchmen?

I must apologize for not recognizing the "burden" that Snyder "bore" when he decided to attempt to bring to the big screen a story that he knew would be difficult from the outset. Excuse me for not considering his poor situation, having the "burden" of an opportunity of a lifetime, one that will probably not be replicated for a long time (if ever).
You might not like that last part, but the studio funds the film.
Ah, yes--the harsh realities of film--perhaps you should have stated, "Hardly anyone probably likes that last part." I doubt anyone outside of that part of the film industry actually "likes" that, given what results. But your point about studios is a separate issue, one that is being used to distract readers from the central point.
In a world where well-known properties like Halo and The Avengers get canned or delayed, it's a miracle that a 3-hour film about little-known superheroes ever got made, particularly since it's been through the ringer so many times. Because we're fans, it's easy to expect a strict interpretation because the source material is so good. But you're mistaken if you think Watchmen is going to get special treatment.
I think you just made Alan Moore's point about his Watchmen being unfilmable. Snyder has taken a different spin it, and that has been my point all along. Sure, I have colored "spin" with different descriptions, but that is the central point I have made.
Because he worked hard to bring Watchmen to life as "faithfully" as he could, even despite the difficulty surrounding the movie getting made. Being a director means ultimately serving an audience, but it also means making tough decisions and pulling everything together.
But this is the expectation, correct? Should he be automatically rewarded for doing what he should have been doing with this film regardless of accuracy to the text? This is not necessarily so. (Yes, I am imposing my “should” on the “should” that anyone can subjectively interpret.)
Snyder delivered an undeliverable, gargantuan project; and it's not only 85 to 90% accurate I'd say, but it's also quite entertaining. Feel free to disagree, but either way, to say that you don't think he deserves thanks is pretty selfish and degrading.
Now you are really being subjective. Heh, heh, heh. Come on—laugh a little.
Okay. What would you have done?
Oh, that is clever. Delivering your very own red herring, are ya? Well, give me a team of people and a large budget, and I'll do it. Absent that, I'd need to plan it out--as would anyone. Your attempt to put the "burden" of a problematic film on me within the span of a somewhat speedy electronic answer is more or less silly. You could mention some scenes, as I stated previously, for commentary (which would hopefully open more dialogue for folks here to add to), but you seem reluctant to do that.
Man, if you seriously want to say that Snyder only achieved the skeletal structure of Watchmen, then you've missed it. You've spent so much time expecting that you've failed to notice the merits I've already mentioned.
Oh, the shame! You've got me, man! POW! BIFF! ZOT!

Of course, you are basing your claim here on a personal proposition, which, as you mentioned, is wide open for interpretation. So you can assume you know my position in its entirety if that makes you feel better. However, just because you claim, "if you seriously want to say that Snyder only achieved the skeletal structure of Watchmen, then you've missed it" and "[y]ou've spent so much time expecting that you've failed to notice the merits I've already mentioned," that does not make it so. As well, I may agree or disagree with the "merits already mentioned." The absence of something does not necessarily guarantee its absence. But you have assumed all you need to know already.
When you've got a film that follows largely scene for scene as the graphic novel, contains a large portion of the original text, includes a wide range of Watchmen-specific details, and arrives at all the same conclusions, you've got a hell of a lot more than a skeleton. That's just crazy talk.
You are right: that is, indeed, "just crazy talk." To say the film "arrives at all the same conclusions" ignores the book's ending, which is far more open ended than Snyder's film, which provides specific answers. That, by definition, is an alteration, which results in a different story (even if you do or do not choose to see that). "[A] wide range of Watchmen-specific details" does not mean that all of the "Watchmen-specific details" are actually accurate to the book or even needed. (But you noted this as "goofy and unnecessary" changes, so we agree there.)
A good example of a skeletal structure would be the film I mentioned in another post: Resident Evil: Extinction. Sure, it's got the same title as the games, a select few of the characters, a corporation called Umbrella, and... oh yeah... zombies. But the similarities end there. You don't have to be a purist to see how much more faithful Watchmen is than that.
Sure, but being "more faithful" is not parallel to "faithful" (there is that word again--watch out for "faithful" disputation!).
But I'd like to know how much more accurate you realistically thought it was going to get.
Hey, buddy, yer treadin' some "dangerous" waters...of course, I joke.

How about keep the ending the way it was intended? How about keep characters accurate to the presentation in the book? How about not including side characters in the film if they really have no place in the Snyder version of the story? These are just some ideas that I bet you will want to dispute. (Hey, I'm all for that. I'd like to exapnd on said issues.)

So tell me--"I'd like to know how you realistically thought it was going to get." Really, what kind of question is that? Should readers have no expectations? Yes, expectations are invitations to disaster, but not having them is unrealistic.
I can guarantee Snyder did more fighting for accuracy than we'll ever know. He already had to fight to ensure that all of us would get to see Dr. Manhattan's junk, much to the chagrin of the studio. You can imagine why they'd be reluctant. But hey, it was in the book.
Hey, who doesn't want to see a digital dingaling?

What you are saying shares much in common with students who write bad essays but say they should have earned a better grade: "I deserve an A because I put all of this effort into my [D-] paper." I am not commenting on his effort: I am commenting on his end product. I may appreciate what he has done behind the scense and in the film at times, but that does not automatically mean he should be praised or thanked.
I'm glad you brought up [I]Lord of the Rings. Here's a book with a FAR larger scope, but much the same restrictions for translating to film as Watchmen. Yes, there are substantial changes. I don't think anyone would argue that the films are nothing more than an interpretation of Tolkien's book. But given the sheer magnitude of that work, you're only ever going to end up with an interpretation of varying degrees of faithfulness, or not at all. To argue that its "faithfulness" is nonexistent because it can't possibly be translated with perfect accuracy is just downright unfair.
I’m glad you’re glad…we’re all glad.

Then you acknowledge that this is Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings, not Tolkien’s. This is not an attack on the obvious but a simple, truthful observation: carefully planned changes to characters and events along the way altered the story to fit a narrative that Jackson wanted to tell. This is open for criticism and praise as is Snyder’s Watchmen.
No, I think the burden is on you to show what would have been, in your eyes, a "faithful" adaptation.
You made claims that I wanted evidence of that could have been discussed and open to everyone. I initiated the question. Hence, your redirect is not at all appropriate and is a signal that you do not want to defend your position. Had I more time, I may have been willing to engage this. But, really, the “burden” was requested of/suggested for you, and you chose not to take it. That is fine if you choose not to engage it further.

[sharkfan]

Snyder does have a tendency to inject at least one act of lesbianism into every film he makes.
One of the poingant additions Snyder contributed to the film story was the opening with the Minutemen, which--at odds with a lot of people, according to online reviews--I liked. One part of this was the horrible death scene of The Silhouette. The contrast between the glory of the first generation of masked vigilantes and the "less glorious moments" was nicely done.

Praise what works, eh?

[sharkfan]

Okay, didn't read the comic, but always meant to. Personally I don't see what people find so confusing about the story.
FILMFREAK087, what did you make of the scene where The Comedian says, "So this is what gets you hot?" What do you think he meant by that?

As well, regarding Ozymandias' abilities, what was your reaction to them? Was it clear where they came from, and did it matter?

I am curious about your reaction to these two scenes because you did not read the comic, so your response will not be affected by it.

[sharkfan]

I loved the homage to this pic in the film:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Vj_day_kiss.jpg
The alternate world idea was played well in the opening, I think. Look at the reactions from people around them in the film too...

[Sleezy]

You could have stopped right here because you probably agree with me more than you are aware of it.

I'm agreeing that Snyder has made edits - some goofy, some sensible. I'm agreeing that the film differs with the book. I'm NOT agreeing with your suggestion that the film is not "faithful." Please, let's not lose the original question.

So who determines the definition for "unnecessary" and "faithful"? One can argue about that all day long, and what ends up happening is defense of one's definition.

You're right. This is what people do. Before I replied, I knew we'd only end up agreeing to disagree. You knew this, too:

Unless there is a standardized definition of "faithfulness" in terms of book-to-film translations, there will be disagreement about what "faithful" really means here.

But then you said this:

The movie he put together was fine, but it was not Moore's story. And this is not an expectation of a "perfectly analagous adaptation": it is a response to a film that was purposely organized and crafted to tell a different story.

Your choice to use the phrase "different story" is misleading. It's different in that the dialogue, in some cases, is distilled down from the original text. It's different in that, in some cases, events happen in a slightly different way than they did in the book. However, I would argue that in the end, the film is as much as 90% parallel to Moore's story, based on evidence that I have outlined, which is far from only a "skeletal structure."

Also, by saying "was purposely organized and crafted to tell a different story," you seem to suggest that Snyder intended to tell a different story than Watchmen. I'm arguing that he intended to adapt Watchmen as faithfully as he could, and would have done so with 100% attention to accuracy had it not been an impossibility.

And with respect to the changes I disagreed with... none of them were, I believe, made for the purpose of deliberately steering the film away from Watchmen. It's not like Snyder and crew looked at things and said, "Oh, we don't like this, so let's change it." Even the major change at the end, which is probably the most calculated move the screenwriter made, doesn't really alter how the story operates. It refines the catalyst without changing the outcome. So really, the story is only different by default, and not in the way your comment suggested.

Dangerous, eh? Don't you think that is a bit dramatic? What is "dangerous" about it?

Misleading people into thinking the film is a different story based only on the semantics that changes were made. To me, this is just as dangerous as film critics who haven't read the graphic novel, but attack its merits by criticizing the film. It's an irresponsible position to take.

[COLOR=black]One should not become so entranced that because something is subjective, such as in reading a film text and comparing it to a written/drawn text, it cannot be discussed or should be dismissed. If one takes this approach, everything is in "danger" of being subjective in its most general sense.

I don't think objectivity is even possible here, except in acknowledging the boundaries of the argument. For example, we would venture into an issue of objectivity if one of us refused to agree that changes must be made when a literary work is translated to film. I think we can both agree that, as much as we might not like it, a square peg does not fit into a round hole.

The focus here is a storytelling comparison, which, yes, does have a degree of subjectivity (the story was drawn and written and has gaps in it that provide the reader space to imagine and think). But the film is based off a source that has evidence as to what happens in that story: there is specific evidence to support a reading as being "faithful" or not, which does not necessarily have to comment on changes here and there to fit a modern film format. Some changes may conflict with one's personal interpretation, but they also conflict with the official narrative--literally what actions take place in the original story. These may not "destroy the entire composition," but they certainly play an important role in shaping the story toward a different direction.

That's a very thoughtful and level-headed description, and I agree with every word you said. But again, I'm having trouble seeing how Watchmen - by way of its changes - trended in a "different direction" enough to warrant noting. They're so incredibly similar that, compared to nearly every other book-to-film adaptation we could examine, the dividing line between them is extremely fine.

Talk about fallacies--you are presenting an either-or fallacy in place of one you assume I have made. And I did not miss your point. My point is that one is a cartoon intended for viewing outside a theater on a DVD player while the other started as a theatrical release. Sure, you can compare them, but they have built within them different expectations for different audiences. Yes, yes, I know this is the same with the book and the film. But I have not said anything about absolute translation from one medium to another.

You're not saying anything at all. What does it matter that they have "different expectations for different audiences?" You haven't said anything about absolute translation, but you also haven't suggested what the film might have done to pass as "faithful" in your eyes... which judging by everything you've said so far, is impossible. You said:

Snyder claimed to be faithful to the text, and he was--as long as it served the story he wanted to tell, which was not Watchmen as it reads on the page. To that end, Snyder is not really that successful in being "faithful."

Am I correct in assuming that in the above statement, you equate "faithful" with "Watchmen as it reads on the page"? It looks pretty conclusive to me.

If that's the case, then my point stands. The motion comic IS Watchmen as it reads on the page. This, the Snyder film could never have been (and the running time is just one example of many that illustrates why not). So, by your logic, the Snyder film could never have been "faithful." And your standard of "faithful" is where I take issue.

If you think me incorrect in my assessment above, please illustrate why.

Those are two alternatives out of many. They are also extremes that you are using to highlight your case for the better.

They're the only alternatives we can consider because you haven't outlined any others. It's your definition of "faithful" that I'm questioning here. You can't say that there are many alternatives in which the film, to you, would have seemed "faithful," and then not describe them.

However, I did not say--ever--that the film had to reflect the book page for page.

You said:

Snyder claimed to be faithful to the text, and he was--as long as it served the story he wanted to tell, which was not Watchmen as it reads on the page. To that end, Snyder is not really that successful in being "faithful."

Sure, the film doesn't have to reflect the book page for page. But to be "faithful," according to you, it seems that it does.

Regarding the second point, which is not all that clear what you mean by "can make omissions only"

I'm referring to a scenario in which the filmmaker chooses only to delete content rather than add new content or alter existing content by re-writing or otherwise. For example, if Snyder had cut out the alley mugging scene, it's not as bad as if he had changed it. Just because something is omitted doesn't mean it never happened; it just isn't included in what the viewer is allowed to see.

you have stated something quite accurate: change a story to fit another framework for telling a similar but not the same story results in a different story. And it is not "my logic" but logical, period. Again, spin "faithful" into whatever way you wish.

The scenario you just mentioned certainly happens, and I used the Resident Evil films as an example. I don't believe you can say that Watchmen fits a different framework, except through an extremely strict standard of what constitutes an exact framework.

I'm also not spinning a definition of "faithful." I'm trying to coax you into unveiling yours.

Maybe "faithful" and "unfaithful" is turning you off here. Use "different" or "alternate" if you wish in place of "unfaithful" since that word triggers all sorts of craziness.

I think we're on the right track here. You can say Watchmen is "different," but not "a different story." The two are not equal. You can say Watchmen includes "various changes" all day long, and I won't complain. But "faithful" is a heavy word in the English language, particularly when it's applied to the adaptation of book to film. By saying something is "faithful" or "not faithful," you're making a decisive statement one way or the other.

It's my argument that where other films veer tremendously from their source works, to the point where characters, events, and outcomes are altered far beyond the source material, the alterations in Watchmen are so inconsequential that they don't even come close to putting the film off course.

Isn't this a bit subjective? Ha, ha, ha.

Your entire point about how faithful the film managed to be is subjective.

The point is that this is more belief or even preference than verifiable fact. My commentary is not on the sets or costumes, which I thought were good (although I would have liked to see those pipes from the book in the film). Sure, these can be connected to the story which some say is "faithful" to the original, but these elements of stroytelling also are disconnected in the sense that they are props, not the story itself. Yes, they help with the story, but they are not the story.

Okay, I agree with this. Costumes are props, not the story itself. I only mentioned costumes to beckon a reaction from you on what instead constitutes "the story itself." So, to you, where does the story lie? In the plot? In the dialogue?

This might seem like a non-issue, but I believe where the story lies depends on one's own preference. With Watchmen, the dialogue could have been entirely different, but the plot exactly the same, and many would have been fine with that. Personally, I find the story in the end more than the means. To illustrate that:

It doesn't bother me so much that Rorschach cleaved the murderer's head instead of burned him alive, as long as the result was the same. That's not to say I would tolerate seeing Rorschach kill him by sticking dandelions up his nose, because it's the larger idea that needs to be retained. Rorschach, consumed by rage over the murderer's actions, exacts the brutal revenge that rests at the heart of his own doctrine.

Did I ever say "that they render Watchmen unrecognizable"? What do you mean by that anyway?

I'm talking about a scenario in which the changes made in Watchmen altered the film to such a degree that one could say it was a different story.

Admiring the "effort" put into "making every part of the film they could manage reflective of the source work" is separate from the story. Hell, son, I can admire every commerical I see for its artistic renditions of reality and its appeal to my senses, but I do not have to admire the message or bow down in gratitude for being distracted for thirty-frakking seconds.

I think you're talking about a different idea. You're suggesting that you shouldn't admire Watchmen simply because it's a released film. But what you said last time was:

I do not believe anyone should be "thankful" for what "Snyder has done what he's done."

The fact that you chose not to outline why notwithstanding, and instead only quote my words, you still managed to say that you don't think Snyder is owed thanks for making the film. Not only does that seem ungrateful to me - filmmakers don't owe us anything either; we reap the benefits of their hard work - it also seems degrading because the guy obviously spent more time focusing on accuracy than the vast majority of filmmakers who translate story to film ever do. While other directors, screenwriters, and studio executives turn a blind ear to fans to avoid having to market their film to a niche audience, Snyder and Warner Bros. actually listened. Robert Rodriguez did the same for Sin City, and although I feel the strict translation doesn't work well in that case, I still applaud the man for making it happen.


What is "that"? Is it "making a different story" that is like Watchmen?

I don't believe that's what Snyder has done, except in the extreme sense that the film doesn't match page-for-page with the novel.

I must apologize for not recognizing the "burden" that Snyder "bore" when he decided to attempt to bring to the big screen a story that he knew would be difficult from the outset. Excuse me for not considering his poor situation, having the "burden" of an opportunity of a lifetime, one that will probably not be replicated for a long time (if ever).

You can mock my words all you want. It doesn't change the fact that as attractive a project Watchmen is, it's not one that can be easily realized... particularly because it's so difficult to market and initially only appeals to fans of the novel. Suffice it to say, if Snyder had screwed this one up, it could have meant a serious blow to his young career.

Ah, yes--the harsh realities of film--perhaps you should have stated, "Hardly anyone probably likes that last part." I doubt anyone outside of that part of the film industry actually "likes" that, given what results. But your point about studios is a separate issue, one that is being used to distract readers from the central point.

Not true. I'm using it to illustrate why people can't always go crying about changes to a film. You see this all the time with the Harry Potter crowd. The elitists - and even some of the moderates - loathe the films because they include so many changes. But the films aren't made solely for these people. They're also made so that the studio can recoup its funding, and hopefully cash in. It's so easy to forget that film is a lucrative industry, and studios put millions of dollars into a project upfront in a (sometimes) blind attempt to make profit.

To get this back to Watchmen so that you don't accuse me of distracting anybody, those who might criticize the film's alterations would do well to remember that if the powers that be were less sympathetic and more coin-hungry, things might very well have been much worse. The fact that the film does mirror the book so closely - particularly one of this level of depth and convolution - is really a marvel.

I think you just made Alan Moore's point about his Watchmen being unfilmable. Snyder has taken a different spin it, and that has been my point all along. Sure, I have colored "spin" with different descriptions, but that is the central point I have made.

You haven't made any point. You've made statements. You haven't illustrated why Watchmen is not "faithful," except that it doesn't match the novel "as it reads on the page." You haven't illustrated how that might have been rectified. You haven't outlined what sort of "spin" Snyder allegedly put on the film to make it a "different story"... only that he did. You're arguing on a house of cards.

But this is the expectation, correct? Should he be automatically rewarded for doing what he should have been doing with this film regardless of accuracy to the text? This is not necessarily so. (Yes, I am imposing my “should” on the “should” that anyone can subjectively interpret.)

Well, like I said, who says the film must be accurate to the text? Personally, I think artistic interpretation is a slippery monster, but I don't think it's entirely unwarranted. I certainly don't think it was Snyder's job all along, without doubt, to translate Watchmen as accurately as possible. It certainly wasn't on the agendas of Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer when they adapted Spider-Man and X-Men, respectively... and yet, they're largely praised for them.

But you're right, it's a personal expectation. I wanted to see a predominantly accurate adaptation, and I got it. Now, if he had employed major changes, such as setting the story in 2009, I would have considered that a violation. You might think the changes he made ARE substantial, but again, I'm waiting to hear why.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Oh, that is clever. Delivering your very own red herring, are ya?[/quote]

Where is the red herring? You continue to suggest that the film was not "faithful" without a detailed reason and/or an iteration you would have been satisfied with. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask for your thoughts directly, nor do I believe that I'm making an attempt to change the subject.

Well, give me a team of people and a large budget, and I'll do it. Absent that, I'd need to plan it out--as would anyone. Your attempt to put the "burden" of a problematic film on me within the span of a somewhat speedy electronic answer is more or less silly. You could mention some scenes, as I stated previously, for commentary (which would hopefully open more dialogue for folks here to add to), but you seem reluctant to do that.

Well, I think since you initially made the bold statement that you did, the burden rests with you. But I'll entertain you for the sake of begging an answer... which unfortunately means attempting to guess at scenes you may have taken issue with.

I should like to add this, however: the film is not a sprinkling of individual scenes, but rather a collective whole. I'd rather not start separate arguments on the accuracy of separate scenes without understanding them in the larger context. Simply put, if you intend to say that you would have added something back in, that means you must be willing to omit content elsewhere.

Please comment on how you might have "fixed" these scenes:


The news station scene
Dr. Manhattan's backstory
Rorschach's backstory
The prison escape sequence
Any of the scenes with President Nixon
The final sequence beginning with Rorschach and Nite Owl's arrival at Ozymandias' Antarctic Base



Of course, you are basing your claim here on a personal proposition, which, as you mentioned, is wide open for interpretation. So you can assume you know my position in its entirety if that makes you feel better. However, just because you claim, "if you seriously want to say that Snyder only achieved the skeletal structure of Watchmen, then you've missed it" and "[y]ou've spent so much time expecting that you've failed to notice the merits I've already mentioned," that does not make it so. As well, I may agree or disagree with the "merits already mentioned." The absence of something does not necessarily guarantee its absence. But you have assumed all you need to know already.

Okay, then. Correct my assumptions and lay out your position. You said Watchmen was only the "skeletal structure" of the graphic novel. Please illustrate why. And don't cry red herring, either. When you engage in an argument of a position, you must have evidence... even in a subjective war of opinions such as this one.


You are right: that is, indeed, "just crazy talk." To say the film "arrives at all the same conclusions" ignores the book's ending, which is far more open ended than Snyder's film, which provides specific answers.

Wait, wait, wait. We need to get some clarification on this. I'll agree that the ending was the most diced portion of the film...

...with Rorschach and Nite Owl arriving on foot instead of speeders, Manhattan growing a conscience too quickly, Manhattan being blamed for the world destruction instead of a giant extraterrestrial caterpillar, Laurie and Dan NOT having sex in Ozymandias' Antarctic complex, the absence of Manhattan's conversation with Ozymandias, and Laurie/Dan's slightly different meeting with Sally Jupiter.

But...

Rorschach and Nite Owl still arrive, Manhattan still arrives at the miracle perspective, Ozymandias still attempts to vaporize Manhattan (killing Bubastis in the process), the same concept of an outside, alien danger unites the world's nations, Laurie and Dan still codify their love, Manhattan's speech about "nothing ever ending" still gets attributed to him about the ending's events (just from a different mouth), Rorschach still gets zapped by Manhattan, Ozymandias still realizes his shortsightedness, Manhattan still leaves to invent life in some other galaxy, Laurie and Dan still rectify their relationship with Sally, Sally still shows her love for Eddie Blake, the rebuilding New York is still shown as a progressive, peace-loving society, and Rorschach's journal is still about to be uncovered by the press.

These are the things that, in my view, the story is hinged on. I don't see how the film's ending is any more definitive than the book. The same things happen... perhaps in a slightly different way, but it still arrives at the same place.

That, by definition, is an alteration, which results in a different story (even if you do or do not choose to see that). "[A] wide range of Watchmen-specific details" does not mean that all of the "[FONT=Verdana]Watchmen-specific details" are actually accurate to the book or even needed. (But you noted this as "goofy and unnecessary" changes, so we agree there.)

You're starting to reveal your position. You're essentially saying that just because there are a lot of details, doesn't mean they're all there... or even accurate. Which is true; I never said "many" equals "all." But by saying that, are you suggesting that the film should include all of those details, lest it be only a skeletal structure of the book? That was the original topic. I'm trying to understand what, in your mind, constitutes a "skeletal structure."

And yes, some of the changes are unnecessary. But the ones I take issue with are circumstantial. They don't alter any degree of accuracy enough to throw my hands up.

Sure, but being "more faithful" is not parallel to "faithful" (there is that word again--watch out for "faithful" disputation!).

Likewise, saying the film is "not faithful" is a much too polarized statement. We're talking degrees here. And anyway, my whole argument isn't simply that Watchmen is more faithful than other adapted films. Let's not desensitize this. My argument is that Watchmen is 85 to 90% accurate, which is FAR more faithful than most other adapted films, and faithful enough to say that the film - barring extremely minor, inconsequential changes - retains the same characters, plot, and deeper themes as the novel does.


How about keep the ending the way it was intended?

How would you say the book was intended to end any differently than is represented in the film? Above, I've outlined changes to the end, but I've also outlined how they're inconsequential considering that the same ends are reached. Feel free to indicate why you disagree, if you haven't already.

How about keep characters accurate to the presentation in the book?

Which characters are inaccurate to you, and why? The only character I would argue is slightly inaccurate is Ozymandias...

...he comes off as much too transparent and shifty early on, but I wouldn't say it's enough to call him inaccurate because he still spouts the same stuff and does the same things. I made peace with this one because Snyder knew that the vast majority of people who were going to see this already knew he was the villain anyway, and if he had been a goodie-goodie through the whole film and then was suddenly killing millions, we'd probably be chatting about how unwarranted that felt on film versus in the novel.

How about not including side characters in the film if they really have no place in the Snyder version of the story?

To which side characters are you referring? I don't recall any speaking characters in the film who weren't in the book. The only one that was actually turned into a face was the news reporter who grills Manhattan in the studio, but all that dialogue was in the book anyway. And the guy's there and gone.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]So tell me--"I'd like to know how you realistically thought it was going to get." Really, what kind of question is that? Should readers have [I]no expectations? Yes, expectations are invitations to disaster, but not having them is unrealistic.

Well, first of all, you misquoted me. I said "I'd like to know how much more accurate you realistically thought it was going to get," not "how inaccurate." Completely different ideas.

Second, I think there's such a thing as too lofty expectations. Sure, we'd all like to see the novel turned into film verbatim, because we love it so much. But you've got to be realistic, too. As an example, you might believe that the film is not accurate at all, and you're entitled. But if that was the case, then I would want you to outline your reasons why. I think you'd expect the same from me. So, in our discussions, I think we've come to the agreement that you think the film was less accurate than I did. I'm just trying to find out why.

Hey, who doesn't want to see a digital dingaling?

And a blue one, at that.

What you are saying shares much in common with students who write bad essays but say they should have earned a better grade: "I deserve an A because I put all of this effort into my [D-] paper." I am not commenting on his effort: I am commenting on his end product. I may appreciate what he has done behind the scense and in the film at times, but that does not automatically mean he should be praised or thanked.

Well, your analogy isn't entirely parallel. Whereas the student is in complete control over his or her grade, a number of people had a hand in shaping Watchmen (for good or ill). I've already indicated that Snyder had to fight the studio on what would ultimately end up in the film. So it wasn't laziness or indifference on his part.

Also, your analogy assumes that Snyder's Watchmen is a D- paper. I beg to differ. It's not 100% accurate, and it's not a perfect film. But it's also far from being a horribly flawed picture. If we were to throw this in with other comic book films, I don't think this comes anywhere close to the level of craptasticality as Catwoman, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or The Spirit (all of which I would grade as D- or below).

And where I come from, effort does get rewarded. It might not pull out that A+, but if you put in genuine effort (instead of just saying you did), that goes a long way. And if you still end up with a poor product, well... I'd say that means you need a tutor. (Personally, I think Snyder is doing just fine on his own. :))

Then you acknowledge that this is Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings, not Tolkien’s. This is not an attack on the obvious but a simple, truthful observation: carefully planned changes to characters and events along the way altered the story to fit a narrative that Jackson wanted to tell. This is open for criticism and praise as is Snyder’s Watchmen.

I agree that saying the Lord of the Rings film trilogy is Peter Jackson's in that it isn't word for word, scene for scene, Tolkien's book. But I would still argue that Jackson retains the same characters and themes as the book. There are deliberate changes to the films - not necessarily to foster a divergent story Jackson is intent on telling, but to facilitate the adaptation to the requirements of film.

For example, it's easier to buy in the book that 3,000 or so refugees withstand 10,000 Uruk Hai because those are just numbers, and we aren't privvy to a real context that would shed doubt on that. But in the film, you see how inept these people are, how decrepit the castle is, and how ruthless and unfeeling the Uruks are. And there is no way you buy that the refugees could hold out without some help. Hence, elves. Sure, it's not how Tolkien told it. But it also doesn't leave everyone scratching their heads in disbelief.

I'm not a Tolkien purist. I recognize the changes. I know why they were made. But I'm not about to say that the story still isn't Lord of the Rings, as imagined by Tolkien. To say otherwise might be accurate with respect to the changes, but would also be inaccurate with respect to the things that remain the same (which are much more numerous).

You made claims that I wanted evidence of that could have been discussed and open to everyone. I initiated the question. Hence, your redirect is not at all appropriate and is a signal that you do not want to defend your position. Had I more time, I may have been willing to engage this. But, really, the “burden” was requested of/suggested for you, and you chose not to take it. That is fine if you choose not to engage it further.

Well, this is an amusing bit of tactical parrying. Since you made the claim that Snyder's film is "not faithful" because it isn't "Watchmen as it appears on the page," I challenged you to defend that position with evidence. The fact that you said...

Feel free to point out a few scenes that stand out to you, and I'll comment on them.

...is irresponsible to me. Our entire conversation is predicated on why you think the film is not faithful. Until you comb through the film and pull out examples, coupled with some thoughtful and convincing commentary, I can only assume what you're displeased with. It's not my job to posit scenes for you. I would have no idea where to start. I've done this anyway, further above.

And don't say you don't have time. With every reply, you've had the opportunity to say, "Look, I thought this scene was inaccurate because..."

[MovieMan8877445]

Holy.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Why is that last spoiler a spoiler?

[Sleezy]

Why is that last spoiler a spoiler?

Lol, it was late, and I had written a lot. I fixed it. :laugh:

[GodsOtherMonkey]

Scenes of raining city streets at night, subject walking down the alley through the rain to the sound of jazzy synth composition, ala Blade Runner. Rorschach is similar to Gaff in hat and coat. No cane, though. :nope:
This movie is like QT’s Kill Bill in that it mimics and borrows from the style and look of other directors and production designers to a ridiculous extent. To the point is can be called a collage. This at first might cause one to grin, but on repeat viewings (like Kill Bill) the genius of the film emerges.:idea:

Complaints,
All the scenes of Nixon should have been deleted in the edit. Lookeded out of place in this movie. Lame. :sleep:
The dialogue should have had more work done on it. Rorschach’s narrative (monologue) should have been edited more.:drevil:
A few of the songs used are lame. That originates with the comic, I think.:shrug:
Never read the comic. Not interested. :goof:

Overall,
The Director of Photography and Director are awesome in their filming of this movie. These shots are really great. Beautiful and will live forever for how it is shot. Masterpiece. In the class of Leone and Peckinpah for shot composition. :yup:
Overall, I think the edit is really good. Just a little too much that takes away from the overall feel. A little more trimming needed. :dizzy:
The story, a breakthrough. Opens up possibilities for a new attitude in storytelling for film. Really, this is the biggest contribution (of the comic and the film). :up:
Production is top notch. Looks great. Only Nixon scenes suck.
Scale of 1 to 10, I give it a 9.
Instant classic.:cool:

[MovieMan8877445]

Scenes of raining city streets at night, subject walking down the alley through the rain to the sound of jazzy synth composition, ala Blade Runner. Rorschach is similar to Gaff in hat and coat. No cane, though. :nope:
This movie is like QT’s Kill Bill in that it mimics and borrows from the style and look of other directors and production designers to a ridiculous extent. To the point is can be called a collage. This at first might cause one to grin, but on repeat viewings (like Kill Bill) the genius of the film emerges.

Funny that you should mention Kill Bill, because I thought the opening Comedian fight scene was straight out of one of the Kill Bill movies.

[The Prestige]

I think I will take Yoda and Pyro's advice in reading the graphic novel first. Though it does mean that I will probably miss out on watching this film in cinemas ):

It does sound very intriguing and you got to give respect to Snyder for at least attempting to film the 'unfilmable'.

[GodsOtherMonkey]

Admittedly, I will never again listen to “The Times They Are A-Changin'” by Bob Dylan the same way again. The song is forever changed in my perspective, and for the better.

[The Spirit]

Jeebus that was a long post.

[sharkfan]

And don't say you don't have time. With every reply, you've had the opportunity to say, "Look, I thought this scene was inaccurate because..."
First off, you do not control the narrative here, so do not tell me about time constraints, good sir. Second, the reason for not going into details is I tried that days ago and had some trouble with the spoiler function; rather than "spoil" the film for anyone who has not seen it, I have referred to it generally for the time being. So all of your points about me not being specific is quite silly since you spent a lot of time on them.

However, I'll try that spoiler function again to see if I have the same issue. At least, you did pose some scenes that I can comment on.
I'm NOT agreeing with your suggestion that the film is not "faithful." Please, let's not lose the original question.
There has been no act on my part to "lose the original question," yet there really never was "an original question" to begin with--only statements back and forth. But I will entertain this for a bit. According to dictionary.com, a definition of "faithful" means "adhering or true to fact, a standard, or an original; accurate." Another one more favorable to your cause is "marked by fidelity to an original; "a close translation"; "a faithful copy of the portrait"; "a faithful rendering of the observed facts." This is the term you are defending. If you interpret it any differently, do so. However, I do claim that the story has been chnaged enough to make it a different Watchmen and a different path to a similar end. Maybe this is a non-issue for some, but it apparently makes a difference here. Thus, one's definition of "faithful" is subjective and probably not the best use of time (as I indicated to some degree in my last reply).
You're right. This is what people do. Before I replied, I knew we'd only end up agreeing to disagree. You knew this, too:
Then, you knew what you were getting into, so do not feel disappointed when you realize you said a whole lot that, afterward, takes you back to where you started.
Your choice to use the phrase "different story" is misleading. It's different in that the dialogue, in some cases, is distilled down from the original text. It's different in that, in some cases, events happen in a slightly different way than they did in the book. However, I would argue that in the end, the film is as much as 90% parallel to Moore's story, based on evidence that I have outlined, which is far from only a "skeletal structure."
No, it is not "misleading." It is a fact. Try to argue that the changes made tell the same story. You will be hard pressed to prove it. While the film does include a lot of the comic story within it (and I never said it did not), the parts that were altered or removed change the story enough to make it a separate story, no matter how similar it is to the original. Your stating "I would argue" indicates your opinion, not fact, so try not to press it like it is fact.
Also, by saying "was purposely organized and crafted to tell a different story," you seem to suggest that Snyder intended to tell a different story than Watchmen. I'm arguing that he intended to adapt Watchmen as faithfully as he could, and would have done so with 100% attention to accuracy had it not been an impossibility.
You can argue about "adaptation" if you like, but that does not eliminate the fact that this film was purposely organized and crafted to tell a different story. From dictionary.com, some definitions for "adaptation" are "[a] composition that has been recast into a new form" and "[s]omething, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation." This sure as hell reads like "purposely organized and crafted to tell a different story."

Maybe you are taking a negative view of that wording, but this is what happens in film. Who is denying that the storytelling method does not change for film? How changes are made makes a difference.

And with respect to the changes I disagreed with... none of them were, I believe, made for the purpose of deliberately steering the film away from Watchmen. It's not like Snyder and crew looked at things and said, "Oh, we don't like this, so let's change it."
That is a denial of bias inhernet in every person and organization. If you really believe your claim, you are, then, arguing preference (which you are), and that makes this no longer an argument.
Even the major change at the end, which is probably the most calculated move the screenwriter made, doesn't really alter how the story operates. It refines the catalyst without changing the outcome. So really, the story is only different by default, and not in the way your comment suggested.
Yeah, it works for the film. Once again, as I said before, the film is fine. I'm not going to praise it, but I will say it works fine as a film. But it does "alter how the story operates" by "refining the catalyst" and "changing the outcome."
Misleading people into thinking the film is a different story based only on the semantics that changes were made. To me, this is just as dangerous as film critics who haven't read the graphic novel, but attack its merits by criticizing the film. It's an irresponsible position to take.
I will not allow you to get away with claiming that "t's an irresponsible position to take" or that I am "[m]isleading people into thinking the film is a different story based only on the semantics that changes were made." Trying to manipulate people by attempting to change what I have said to fit your biases is pedestrian at best.

But to merely state that some changes were "goofy" or "unnecessay" while highlighting your praise is an attempt to bury what should be criticized. As well, it is a preference that is as "dangerous" as anything that "dangerous" in this category falls into.
I think we can both agree that, as much as we might not like it, a square peg does not fit into a round hole.
Ha, ha, ha--anything can be made to fit into anything, such as a book into a movie.
But again, I'm having trouble seeing how Watchmen - by way of its changes - trended in a "different direction" enough to warrant noting. They're so incredibly similar that, compared to nearly every other book-to-film adaptation we could examine, the dividing line between them is extremely fine.
"Extremely fine" is too fine a dividing line. Simply stating that the stories move in "different directions" is good enough.
You're not saying anything at all. What does it matter that they have "different expectations for different audiences?" You haven't said anything about absolute translation, but you also haven't suggested what the film might have done to pass as "faithful" in your eyes... which judging by everything you've said so far, is impossible.
You can read, right? Hence, I have "said something." In fact, I make a good point that you are not mentioning. You are trying to compare a version of Watchmen to another, but the expecatations for them are quite different. So the time discrepancy to make mention of should not apply to this comparison since there is not going to be an expectation of similar running time.

Your fixation about arguing the inarguable is intriguing.
Am I correct in assuming that in the above statement, you equate "faithful" with "Watchmen as it reads on the page"? It looks pretty conclusive to me.
You make an asusmption here, which, based on your responses, is popular with you. Any book, page by page (unless it is a very simple story), is impossible to film. Of course, changes should be expected. But changes alone are not even a part of my criticism.
If that's the case, then my point stands. The motion comic IS Watchmen as it reads on the page. This, the Snyder film could never have been (and the running time is just one example of many that illustrates why not). So, by your logic, the Snyder film could never have been "faithful." And your standard of "faithful" is where I take issue.
Well, I can only point out so many times that there is a difference between the two regarding running time, so I'll have to leave you to your flawed comparison.
If you think me incorrect in my assessment above, please illustrate why.
I have--several times in fact.
They're the only alternatives we can consider because you haven't outlined any others. It's your definition of "faithful" that I'm questioning here. You can't say that there are many alternatives in which the film, to you, would have seemed "faithful," and then not describe them.
It is quite the hasty generalization to assume they are "the only alternatives we can consider because you haven't outlined any others." You choice to approve of two options does not end the list, nor does my unwillingness at this moment to highlight all other possible scenarios.
Sure, the film doesn't have to reflect the book page for page. But to be "faithful," according to you, it seems that it does.
You like fallacies, especially hasty generalizations and card stacking. What "seems" is not "is." At this moment, it is not my concern to convince you of anything, particularly since you are attempting to argue a preference, which is not arguable.
Just because something is omitted doesn't mean it never happened; it just isn't included in what the viewer is allowed to see.
Yeah.
I'm also not spinning a definition of "faithful." I'm trying to coax you into unveiling yours.
There is no need for such manipulative tactics. However, you are taking a very particular "spin" on "faithful," which, whether you agree with it or not, is a preference you have been focusing on quite intently.
I think we're on the right track here. You can say Watchmen is "different," but not "a different story." The two are not equal. You can say Watchmen includes "various changes" all day long, and I won't complain. But "faithful" is a heavy word in the English language, particularly when it's applied to the adaptation of book to film. By saying something is "faithful" or "not faithful," you're making a decisive statement one way or the other.[QUOTE]
This has been the point the whole time.

"Faithful" is as "heavy" as any word one wants to emphasize, and it is your choice to make an issue of it. As stated above, "faithful" encompasses so many interpretations that it is a word that can be used to support any proposition. It is, therefore, probably not as helpful to get hung up over it.
[QUOTE]It's my argument that where other films veer tremendously from their source works, to the point where characters, events, and outcomes are altered far beyond the source material, the alterations in Watchmen are so inconsequential that they don't even come close to putting the film off course.
So are you saying that Watchmen's "faithfulness" is dependent upon the accuracy of other films? What should it matter what has happened with other films? Sure, in a larger context of cinematic storytelling, there is something to be said for including more source material than other film adaptations. But that should not distract from the issue.

As well, you highlight how things worked for the film, which is in line with what I have said--that the film was fine (not as good as it could have been or should have been). But the film story is separate from the book story. It is your choice not to see how the story has been altered.
Your entire point about how faithful the film managed to be is subjective.
Regarding how "the film managed to be" is subjective for everyone since there is absolute list of public documents to uncover the process of how "the film managed to be." Duh. If you meant something else by this, say so.
This might seem like a non-issue, but I believe where the story lies depends on one's own preference.
Yes, this is the case when discussing any story. Hence, with a comparison like this one, there are those who prefer the film story and its limitations and those who prefer the book story and its limitations. And there are those who like a mix of both. So everything is subjective, and this back-and-forth dilly-dallying is pointless: enlightenment achieved!
Personally, I find the story in the end more than the means.
Ah, but the means are quite important in achieving the end.



It doesn't bother me so much that Rorschach cleaved the murderer's head instead of burned him alive, as long as the result was the same. That's not to say I would tolerate seeing Rorschach kill him by sticking dandelions up his nose, because it's the larger idea that needs to be retained. Rorschach, consumed by rage over the murderer's actions, exacts the brutal revenge that rests at the heart of his own doctrine.
I think you're talking about a different idea. You're suggesting that you shouldn't admire Watchmen simply because it's a released film.
No. I am saying that "admiring" "every part of the film they could manage reflective of the source work" is not the same as admiring the film. These are separate issues. One can connect them, but they begin by being separate.
The fact that you chose not to outline why notwithstanding, and instead only quote my words, you still managed to say that you don't think Snyder is owed thanks for making the film. Not only does that seem ungrateful to me - filmmakers don't owe us anything either; we reap the benefits of their hard work - it also seems degrading because the guy obviously spent more time focusing on accuracy than the vast majority of filmmakers who translate story to film ever do.
Why does anyone need to be "thankful" to Snyder for him doing what he does? Maybe you are interpreting "thankful" differently. Snyder had his own reasons for taking on this story, but I would not be so quick to applaud him just yet. Everyone has an agenda: movie studios, for instance, are concerned with the immortality of their corporations, so their concern will be profits. To think that Snyder is only concerned with idealistically reepresenting this story is a denial of human preference: So while I do not hate the film, I am not convinced by your preference to praise Snyder for telling a version of teh story that I am not particularly taken by. Yes, that is a preference--but not when compared to the source text.
While other directors, screenwriters, and studio executives turn a blind ear to fans to avoid having to market their film to a niche audience, Snyder and Warner Bros. actually listened.QUOTE]
Are you Snyder? Ha, ha, ha...

Come on--don't you think that is the way is should be in general? There are cases to be made that would counter this idea, but when books are made into films, there should be some degree of communication with the fan base (at least with "experts" on a given book, such as with The Lord of the Rings--and even thse films--as good as they are--do not represent Tolkien's book accurately).
I don't believe that's what Snyder has done, except in the extreme sense that the film doesn't match page-for-page with the novel.
O.K. You do not have to believe it.
You can mock my words all you want.
I am not "mocking your words" as much as I am showing that the project should not be seen as a "burden" as much as an "opportunity," which he probably saw it as. However, in my opinion, it was not an opportunity well taken.
[QUOTE]It doesn't change the fact that as attractive a project Watchmen is, it's not one that can be easily realized... particularly because it's so difficult to market and initially only appeals to fans of the novel. Suffice it to say, if Snyder had screwed this one up, it could have meant a serious blow to his young career.
Yeah, well, it probably is good enough to avoid being "screwed up." But saying that something is "hard work" should not be reason enough to excuse mistakes. I think a lot of people here are highlighting these "mistakes" or "missed opportunities." I am certainly not the only person who finds parts of the story as problematic.
I'm using it to illustrate why people can't always go crying about changes to a film.
Sure, they can complain. Although I must confess that it must be distressing to be around people who literally "cry" about film changes. I mean, it's bad enough when babies cry like frakking machines, but people crying over film? Man, that would get on anyone's nerves.
To get this back to Watchmen so that you don't accuse me of distracting anybody,
You bastard! How dare you distract from "the original question"!
those who might criticize the film's alterations would do well to remember that if the powers that be were less sympathetic and more coin-hungry, things might very well have been much worse. The fact that the film does mirror the book so closely - particularly one of this level of depth and convolution - is really a marvel.
I hope you are not using this as an additional shield to support your preferences.


You haven't made any point. You've made statements.
Strictly speaking, "points" are "statements." While statements are not necesarily read as "points," I did make one that you chose to ignore. The point is that one cannot "expect a strict interpretation because the source material is so good." So Snyder's claims about being "faithful to the book" should not be expected to go unnoticed when he has changed things to make the story fit about three hours of film. So Moore's reaction to the project is understandable. You made his case.

You haven't illustrated why Watchmen is not "faithful," except that it doesn't match the novel "as it reads on the page." You haven't illustrated how that might have been rectified. You haven't outlined what sort of "spin" Snyder allegedly put on the film to make it a "different story"... only that he did. You're arguing on a house of cards.
Do you live on a slippery slope? I ask because you certainly use that fallacy quite a bit. I guess you missed the post a page or two back when I had difficulty with using spoilers. I'll try to fix that here. And that is why these comments have been general. But to say I am "arguing on a house of cards" is nonsense. I'd like to write some specific comments, but I find that responding to your unnecessarily long post more fun.

Despite what I point out, though, it is unlikely that you will agree. Hence, you can see why I am in no hurry to sidetrack other things to appease you.
Well, like I said, who says the film must be accurate to the text? Personally, I think artistic interpretation is a slippery monster, but I don't think it's entirely unwarranted. I certainly don't think it was Snyder's job all along, without doubt, to translate Watchmen as accurately as possible.
Hence, you are predisposed to favor and/or ignore changes if the film story suits your preferences. Not everyone agrees.
But you're right, it's a personal expectation. I wanted to see a predominantly accurate adaptation, and I got it.
Yes, in your eyes.
Now, if he had employed major changes, such as setting the story in 2009, I would have considered that a violation. You might think the changes he made ARE substantial, but again, I'm waiting to hear why.
I have said so quite a bit, and I do not have to repeat myself.
Where is the red herring?
You are trying to put the "burden" on me rather than address the issue, so, yes, you were attempting to use a distraction. The issue, if you do not know, is not what I would have done (which is a non-issue) but what actually happened on screen.
I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask for your thoughts directly, nor do I believe that I'm making an attempt to change the subject.
Asking "for your thoughts" reads a lot differently than "Okay. What would you have done?" You know this.
Well, I think since you initially made the bold statement that you did, the burden rests with you. But I'll entertain you for the sake of begging an answer... which unfortunately means attempting to guess at scenes you may have taken issue with.
How generous of you. Your posts are quite the entertainment, I tell you.
I should like to add this, however: the film is not a sprinkling of individual scenes, but rather a collective whole. I'd rather not start separate arguments on the accuracy of separate scenes without understanding them in the larger context.
Hey, it does not matter to me.
Simply put, if you intend to say that you would have added something back in, that means you must be willing to omit content elsewhere.
Where do you get this proposition from? No, I do not hold to that limitation.

Please comment on how you might have "fixed" these scenes:
You assume, of course, that I would want to fix these scenes, but let us go through them. Just so you know, these are scenes that are not that damaging for the film--as I said, the film was fine (this is the last time I'll claim that).

The news station scene: assuming you mean where Manhattan is highlighted as a cancer risk, I did not find it as a bad move for the film but as a change from the original. It was more dramatic than the book but also not that reasonable. The government would probably have controlled any attempt to prevent that kind of a surprise. The reaction expected is supposed to be emotional, and it may be that I am affected by the book too much that I did not find it convincing.
Dr. Manhattan's backstory: altering the father-son relationship changes the original idea on choice in Manhattan's early life. Removing the "fat man" from stepping on the watch alters the theme on chance or "maricles" if you will. Again, this was a small change that affects the whole story simply because they were left out. It doesn't ruin the film, but it changes the story.
Rorschach's backstory: yeah...the absence of more of the sexual interactions involving Walter the boy and teenager affects the development of the book's indication of his sexual hang ups/quandaries, but it is, yet again, not damning for the film. It was a good, quick reference. The issue of homosexuality in this alternate universe was probably best left out since it seemed not to be a focus of the film, but I can see how people might be turned off to this because it does play a role in defining the costumed freaks.
The prison escape sequence: more dynamic fight scenes impresses people, and this scene is an example of that. Of course, this is an interpretation of the book, which is fine. But making Dan and Janie(?) more dynamic and active than one could percieve in the book does change things. What stood out was Silk Spectre and Nite Owl watch as Rorschach goes into the restroom to kill the small guy, and I read it as they knew what he was doing, which changes how these characters are read. Is it a big change? No, but it is a change that acts in accord with changes overall.
Any of the scenes with President Nixon: this was a change from the book that paints Nixon somewhat more of a president who wants to fire the nukes than negotiate. There is more negative commentary about Nixon in the film than in the book.
The final sequence beginning with Rorschach and Nite Owl's arrival at Ozymandias' Antarctic Base: slight changes were made but were not bad for the film story. I will need to review the film again to note the role this plays in the total context of the film.
You said Watchmen was only the "skeletal structure" of the graphic novel. Please illustrate why.film story that is missing and using additional details to shape a different body to fit that skeleton. Even though a lot of the story's structure remains, changing the direction of Dr. Manhattan's role in the film alters the whole thing. Keeping audiences guessing about how Veidt can do what he does physically leaves people guessing about how he is able to throw Edward Blake around his living quarters when Veidt himself is but a windy breeze away from being pushed over. Making Dreiberg more active (although in smaller ways, according to memory) changes his role. Pushing a particular read for the ending even shapes the story differently. So while a lot of the structure is in the film, the changes, for others and myself, are enough to warrant highlighting and commentary."]
And don't cry red herring, either.
Why you...punk. "Cry" is such a heavy word in the English language.
When you engage in an argument of a position, you must have evidence... even in a subjective war of opinions such as this one.
Your idea about "argument of a position" intrgures me: do go on...
Wait, wait, wait. We need to get some clarification on this. I'll agree that the ending was the most diced portion of the film...
Ah-HA! You admit it! Just laugh a bit...

...with Rorschach and Nite Owl arriving on foot instead of speeders, Manhattan growing a conscience too quickly, Manhattan being blamed for the world destruction instead of a giant extraterrestrial caterpillar, Laurie and Dan NOT having sex in Ozymandias' Antarctic complex, the absence of Manhattan's conversation with Ozymandias, and Laurie/Dan's slightly different meeting with Sally Jupiter.



But...

Rorschach and Nite Owl still arrive, Manhattan still arrives at the miracle perspective, Ozymandias still attempts to vaporize Manhattan (killing Bubastis in the process), the same concept of an outside, alien danger unites the world's nations, Laurie and Dan still codify their love, Manhattan's speech about "nothing ever ending" still gets attributed to him about the ending's events (just from a different mouth), Rorschach still gets zapped by Manhattan, Ozymandias still realizes his shortsightedness, Manhattan still leaves to invent life in some other galaxy, Laurie and Dan still rectify their relationship with Sally, Sally still shows her love for Eddie Blake, the rebuilding New York is still shown as a progressive, peace-loving society, and Rorschach's journal is still about to be uncovered by the press.
unites the world's nations," even though you refer to Manhattan. He was a man and is something different but not an alien. This is a departure that began from the beginning of the film (one could argue the book as well but not to the same degree). As well, it is not believable that the Soviets would be so quick to join forces with the U.S. after a U.S. agent supposedly destroyed a chunk of the "evil empire.""]






But by saying that, are you suggesting that the film should include all of those details, lest it be only a skeletal structure of the book? That was the original topic. I'm trying to understand what, in your mind, constitutes a "skeletal structure."
Oh, it can't do that. Hey, I am not about to say that things cannot change, but to what degree they do makes a big difference. As I said ealier, you and I probably agree more than anything else but disagree over the importance of differences between the two stories. While I feel somewhat encouraged to delete about half of this entire reply, knowing that it is long and drawn out, I don't think I will. Hey, I read your reply, so you should read mine. Just drink some sambuca when reading...
And yes, some of the changes are unnecessary. But the ones I take issue with are circumstantial. They don't alter any degree of accuracy enough to throw my hands up.
Well, bully.
Which characters are inaccurate to you, and why? The only character I would argue is slightly inaccurate is Ozymandias...
We can discuss this if you note differences in your interpretation of characters I mention above.
To which side characters are you referring? I don't recall any speaking characters in the film who weren't in the book.

Well, first of all, you misquoted me. I said "I'd like to know how much more accurate you realistically thought it was going to get," not "how inaccurate." Completely different ideas.
I know--I did that purposely to highlight the silliness of the question.
Second, I think there's such a thing as too lofty expectations. Sure, we'd all like to see the novel turned into film verbatim, because we love it so much. But you've got to be realistic, too.
Welcome to the real world, hippies!

I suspect that someone who wanted "to see the novel turned into film verbatim" will speak up. I never thought that would happen.
But if that was the case, then I would want you to outline your reasons why. I think you'd expect the same from me. So, in our discussions, I think we've come to the agreement that you think the film was less accurate than I did. I'm just trying to find out why.
How dare you try to be civil now! I'm gonna find you and tear you a new corn shoot! (If you have been drinking sambuca by this point, you hopefully are laughing. If not, bring on the barbarism!)

Sir, I'm gonna have to get back about other scenes that I did not say anything about since answering that will require a second read of the film (at least).
And a blue one, at that.
So you like blue, cinematic dingalings, do you?
Well, your analogy isn't entirely parallel. Whereas the student is in complete control over his or her grade, a number of people had a hand in shaping Watchmen (for good or ill). I've already indicated that Snyder had to fight the studio on what would ultimately end up in the film. So it wasn't laziness or indifference on his part.
Be it Snyder or the whole of the film departments putting it together, the analogy stands. While you can argue against Synders "laziness or indifference," some things regarding his selective choice of faithfulness are not for interpretation. For instance, he was quoted as saying that the ending was different in the script he read and stuck with it. He chose a different end--regardless of the degree it helps or hurts the story.
Also, your analogy assumes that Snyder's Watchmen is a D- paper.
I could have said B, B+, or whatever grade--the implication is the same: I deserve a better grade because of my effort.
It's not 100% accurate, and it's not a perfect film. But it's also far from being a horribly flawed picture.
"Horribly flawed" may be too strong--I need to see it again.
If we were to throw this in with other comic book films, I don't think this comes anywhere close to the level of craptasticality as Catwoman, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or The Spirit (all of which I would grade as D- or below).
Oh, come on! League was pure genius! Even Mr. Hyde's top hat was gigantic--clever, clever!
And where I come from, effort does get rewarded. It might not pull out that A+, but if you put in genuine effort (instead of just saying you did), that goes a long way. And if you still end up with a poor product, well... I'd say that means you need a tutor. (Personally, I think Snyder is doing just fine on his own. )
To a degree effort is rewarded, but that does not provide enough reason for disappointment in a final product. While I may admire Ralph Bakshi for his animated interpretation of The Lord of the Rings, I will in no way praise it for the terror unleashed from within its bad method of storytelling (the same goes for his Cool World). In this case, I am not particularly in the mood to praise Snyder for this version, but that may change with the "special DVD" edition.
I agree that saying the Lord of the Rings film trilogy is Peter Jackson's in that it isn't word for word, scene for scene, Tolkien's book.
Hey, so does Jackson!
But I would still argue that Jackson retains the same characters and themes as the book.
Sure, but that does not constitute telling the book's story.
There are deliberate changes to the films - not necessarily to foster a divergent story Jackson is intent on telling, but to facilitate the adaptation to the requirements of film.
See, that is not true. The writers made specific changes to characters and events to tell a version of Tolkien's story, one that would appeal to film audiences. And that makes it quite a different tale.
For example, it's easier to buy in the book that 3,000 or so refugees withstand 10,000 Uruk Hai because those are just numbers, and we aren't privvy to a real context that would shed doubt on that. But in the film, you see how inept these people are, how decrepit the castle is, and how ruthless and unfeeling the Uruks are. And there is no way you buy that the refugees could hold out without some help. Hence, elves. Sure, it's not how Tolkien told it. But it also doesn't leave everyone scratching their heads in disbelief.
Yeah, so a film story can work, but that is different from telling the source story, such as reflected in sending Faramir with captured hobbits to Osgiliath or having Aragorn cut off the head of The Mouth of Sauron or making the ents riot in Isengard, having been enraged by the riot leaders Merry and Pippin.
I know why they were made. But I'm not about to say that the story still isn't Lord of the Rings, as imagined by Tolkien. To say otherwise might be accurate with respect to the changes, but would also be inaccurate with respect to the things that remain the same (which are much more numerous).
Eh...I gotta disagree. The story "imagined by Tolkien" was unfilmable, and Jackson fashioned one that was; in the process, it became a Perter Jackson story, not a J.R.R. Tolkien story. I am happy to argue this with you in another thread.
Well, this is an amusing bit of tactical parrying.
Yes...amusing.
It's not my job to posit scenes for you. I would have no idea where to start.
You will do as you are told, tool!

O.K. That was my last joke. Enjoy the sambuca bottle that you are likely drinking from by now. Remember: "it's all a damn joke."

Good joke.

Everybody laugh.

Roll on snare drum.

Curtains.

[GodsOtherMonkey]

Whether or not this film is faithful to the comic is of no importance. This is a film. A film should be judge on its own merits. Just pretend the comic never existed.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Is anyone other then those two really reading all that.

[MovieMan8877445]

Is anyone other then those two really reading all that.

Nope.

[meatwadsprite]

I am publishing a book about it "Sharkfan vs Sleezy : A Watchmen Debate".

[FILMFREAK087]

FILMFREAK087, what did you make of the scene where The Comedian says, "So this is what gets you hot?" What do you think he meant by that?

As well, regarding Ozymandias' abilities, what was your reaction to them? Was it clear where they came from, and did it matter?

I am curious about your reaction to these two scenes because you did not read the comic, so your response will not be affected by it.


Well, I am not quite sure what scene you're referring to with regard to the Comedian.

As for Ozy's power, I assumed he had genetic modifications, as the reporter mentioned about his company's work in his interview. Also, I thought that's where the green tiger came from.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Green?

And to clarify the first question. It's when Hooded Justice beats the hell out of The Comedian for trying to rape Silk Spectre, he says that while on the ground.

[FILMFREAK087]

Green?

And to clarify the first question. It's when Hooded Justice beats the hell out of The Comedian for trying to rape Silk Spectre, he says that while on the ground.

Oh, I guess I would read into it that he is insinuating that he has a pseudo S&M motivation behind his vigilantism, or possibly referring to a sexual dysfunction.

[Yoda]

He's implying that Hooded Justice is gay, which is either insinuated or stated outright in the graphic novel (can't recall which, and I don't have a copy with me right now).

[spudracer]

Wow...hadn't noticed the novel from sharkfan before. It'll take me a week to get through that.

[TheUsualSuspect]

He's noted as being gay in Under The Hood I believe.

[Justin]

Is anyone other then those two really reading all that.

Not me...

[Sedai]

I read it all.

[Golgot]

How about an interlude?

Watchmen: The Saturday Morning Cartoon (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797)

[Sedai]

Hilarious!

[TheUsualSuspect]

I like this one better...

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485903

[Iroquois]

On an unrelated note, I would like to thank everyone who gave me +rep for this review.

[meatwadsprite]

I prefer this one myself ... http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/476119

[sharkfan]

Wow...hadn't noticed the novel from sharkfan before. It'll take me a week to get through that.
:(

Sorry, guys--I never intended to get into these long posts when I started commenting on anything here. Doing that can be easy, but it is more of a distraction than anything else for everyone else. This forum is a space to talk about film seriously but also is not that serious, so I'll do my part to avoid those lengthy responses.

About the film, another thing that this film does well is combine the anti-hero qualities with costumed heroes as well as tie in political and sexual context. Comics today have these, sort of, wink-wink moments where reference to such issues are rather simplistic, whereas Watchmen planted itself firmly in a political and sexual discussion. The film does that more than other comic films. Sure, Superman films have done that (the second and/or third Reeves film), but Watchmen approaches it more critically. So I am curious as to cinema's response to the movie--how it will represent "masks" after this point.

[sharkfan]

I am publishing a book about it "Sharkfan vs Sleezy : A Watchmen Debate".
That was not my intention, but I helped it get to that point.

SIGH

Why, oh why, did I take a big bite? Eating is hard work when you are a shark. It is hard work, I tell you.

[Powdered Water]

Don't sweat it Shark, I also read it all and I think you to should continue on as if we weren't even here, typically that's when the best, most informative posts are created. Sleezy will most likely deliver another rebuttal when he has the time, so by all means do your stuff.

[sharkfan]

Don't sweat it Shark, I also read it all and I think you to should continue on as if we weren't even here, typically that's when the best, most informative posts are created. Sleezy will most likely deliver another rebuttal when he has the time, so by all means do your stuff.
Thanks! I mean to say that I did not intend on drifting from the focus of film analysis, which seems to have happened. I am happy to engage in any film subject but just get lost in posts where the focus drifts. It also takes a long time to provide thoughtful responses, and I'd rather post on specific items (pertinent to the thread) than lose that focus and misinterpret meanings.

But I'm happy you liked it. In general, my experience has been that such posts (that I have contributed to) drive people away, and that is the last thing I want to do. And it is so easy to insult people without non-verbal cues.

By the way, where does your name (Powdered Water) come from--inspired by something? (Yeah, this is off topic.)

[Thursday Next]

Well, I finally got round to reading the graphic novel this past weekend, so now I can finally get excited about the film! It looks like the kind of film that needs to be seen on the big screen so I'm going to try to get out to see it this week sometime, hopefully. I did like the novel. I will try not to compare too much, although I am bemused at the idea of the ending being different. I do like Matthew Goode and don't have a problem with him being cast as Ozymandias...although of course I'll have to wait until I've actually seen the film to nsay whether the casting is successful.

[sharkfan]

Well, I finally got round to reading the graphic novel this past weekend, so now I can finally get excited about the film! It looks like the kind of film that needs to be seen on the big screen so I'm going to try to get out to see it this week sometime, hopefully. I did like the novel. I will try not to compare too much, although I am bemused at the idea of the ending being different. I do like Matthew Goode and don't have a problem with him being cast as Ozymandias...although of course I'll have to wait until I've actually seen the film to nsay whether the casting is successful.
Great--let us know what your thoughts are on the film itself and your comparison analysis (if you want).

Enjoy the film!

[Thursday Next]

Saw Watchmen last night. Three hours including ads but it didn't drag at all, which was good. I could have watched another half hour of it at least. It's a good film. It's not a great film, but it's a good film.

Now, as I said before, I only read the novel last weekend, so I haven't spent the last 3+ years in a fangirl panic over the casting, but I'll give my thoughts. Patrick Wilson is Dan Dreiberg/Night Owl. Really good. And Jackie Earle Haley spot on as Rorschach, too (aside - I always thought it was pronounced like 'raw shark', but they pronounce it like 'raw shack'...must just be me being dense). The Comedian was good, and Dr. Manhattan. Goode as Ozymandias was fairly indifferent, (possibly struggling with the accent?) and Akerman as Silk Spectre was the worst, in my opinion. Which is a problem, since she is in many ways the human/emotional centre of the story.

Now, there's bound to be changes. Even though the comic lays it out frame by frame, there's no way a film is going to be - or even should be - a frame by frame copy. Some changes I thought were actually for the better, others for the worse.

I liked the opening credits, with a lot of the backstory of the original group played out over The Times They are A Changing. There's a lot of backstory and they were never going to fit it all in as it was in the novel. I do wonder how easy it was for people who haven't read the novel to work out who everyone is in the film, because it took me quite a while when I was reading it.

I did not like the gratuitous ramping up of the violence to cartoon standards. Not because I'm squeamish about violence, but because it's violent enough the way it is and a lot of the added in gore just looked silly, and possibly even detracted from the humanity of the characters, which is a real shame considering morality, humanity and justice are all key themes of Watchmen. It almost doesn't make sense to have Nite Owl and Silk Spectre ripping flesh and cracking limbs and breaking necks all over the place. It lessons the horror and moral ambiguity of the Comedian and Dr. Manhattan's actions in Vietnam, for one thing. And the changing of the way Rorschach disposed of the chuild-murderer was also unnecessary and showed his character in a different light completely.

Apart from the Bob Dylan, the soundtrck, as has been mentoned before on this thread, was a bit silly and obvious. Ride of the Valkyries in Vietnam? No, too close to parody. All Along the Watchtower? It's had its film moment already in Withnail and I. Hallelujah during the sex scene? At least it wasn't the Alexandra Burke version...

Speaking of the sex scene, how embarassing. I cringed and a good few people in the cinema laughed out loud. Partly the dreadful choice of music which was far too prominent and partly because Laurie and Dan just don't have any chemistry in this film, sadly. Nor do Laurie and Jon, which makes it difficult to accept her as his reason for returning to Earth.

There may be spoilers here, I don't know how much counts as a spoiler anymore, after all, I must be the last person on the planet to see this film...The change to the film's 'big twist', I actually liked. It made more sense and did away with the need for the missing writer/island subplot. But I did think a few of the other twists in the plot were flagged up too early. The pyramid thing, Laurie's flashback, Rorschach's identity. Laurie's realisation on Mars lacked power, partly because the backstory was trimmed down so Hooded Justice barely appears and we don't get the sense of her hatred of the Comedian that comes across in the novel. I knew they would cut the 'Tales of the Black Freighter' bit, but I would have liked to see a little more of the News-stand guy and the comic-reading kid. It makes the ending more powerful if you know a bit about these ordinary people on the street. Similarly, missing out the reference to Hiroshima mean the comparison with Hiroshima and Adrian's actions at the end is missing from the film

The special effects were mostly good, although the make up was awful. Why couldn't they just have got a 67 year old to play the older Sally Jupiter? She looked ridiculous. And I won't even start on Nixon and his nose... I liked the Arctic base, though, and Adrian's pet.

So yeah, I liked it, I'd see it again, but it's not brilliant, and not a patch on the novel.

[spudracer]

Nice review Thursday!

[Thursday Next]

Nice review Thursday!

Thanks! :) Although it's not so much a review as a random collection of my thoughts about the movie in no particular order...

[spudracer]

I know it's not really a review, but I like how you compared aspects of the GN with the movie. Moreso, the way you approached it, I guess. I don't know.

You're borderline when it comes to the two groups that compose the audience for the film, those who have read the GN, those who have not. I fall in the latter group, but yet you make it easily understandable, because you were in that latter group not that long ago.

Does that make more sense?

[Vertical Gun]

How cool is this movie? I have some Watchmen two trailers I will Post later.

[MovieMan8877445]

How cool is this movie? I have some Watchmen two trailers I will Post later.

Hmm, I wonder who this is.

[Justin]

Can't tell without the extra "N".

[Vertical Gun]

Im going to start another Vertical Gun's Top 100 soon. Watchmen is on there. I hope you guys like it.

[Iroquois]

:indifferent:

[Justin]

I have no idea.

[Lennon]

This HAS to be a joke.

[spudracer]

It's mikeython1. They both have the same IP address.

[MovieMan8877445]

Is mikeython1 Vertican Gunn, then? This honestly has me confused.

[Justin]

I think mikeython1 is pretending to be Vertical Gunn....

[mikeython1]

It was a little April Fool's joke. ;) And no I am not really Vertical Gunn.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Opening credit sequence is back...for now.

Scroll down

http://pixelatedgeek.com/2009/03/watchmen-opening-credits-video/

[tramp]

Watchmen
4.5

I wasn't sure if I should just tab this or post here, but ultimately decided to post here.

I just went through quite a few reviews that were written by MoFos back in March, and it seems that every one I read was written by someone who read the graphic novel. I didn't and it was fascinating to read the reviews. I gather I have a completely different perspective.

Whoa. That was simply amazing filmmaking. I was mesmerized from that first opening sequence where I was introduced clearly to this alternate universe and history. Then, as I was watching that first fight scene, I knew I was watching a comic book film. I loved every camera shot and set up, the slow motion, all of it.

I noticed most of the reviewers here weren't thrilled with Crudup's Dr. Manhattan. I have no idea if it is because you read the novel, but he was the moral center for me and I could not take my eyes off him. I was fascinated. I was also shocked that I could feel so much about a character without looking into his eyes. His demeanor didn't strike me as cold as much as it was numb, distant, and just sad. His realization at the end -- his revaluing of life -- was an interesting moment and in retrospect, clearly led to that ending. An ending that struck me as incredibly original. But the whole film was like that. Nothing was as you expected.

I loved this movie, and I didn't even want to see it. My son talked me into it; I honestly felt that since I hadn't read the novel, I really wouldn't have any interest. But it isn't often when a film explores human nature in such an entertaining -- and disturbing -- way. There were times when I was quite repulsed by some over the top violence (not sure that was totally necessary), but always, I was soon able to be drawn back in. I had to know what would happen next. I'm sure I was lost a bit from time to time, but nothing that took away from my enjoyment of the characters or the story.

Anyway, this was pretty amazing stuff. I'm sure there are flaws here, but I'm still too overwhelmed to even care about them. Zack Snyder should be proud, imo. :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Are you going to read the GN now?

[tramp]

Probably not. I know the story now! ;)

I did think of a few flaws in the film, btw -- one, too much Chandleresque narration. At one point, I really wanted Rorschach to shut up. That's where it dragged a bit for me.

I also think Thursday Next hit the nail on the head with this:

I did not like the gratuitous ramping up of the violence to cartoon standards. Not because I'm squeamish about violence, but because it's violent enough the way it is and a lot of the added in gore just looked silly, and possibly even detracted from the humanity of the characters, which is a real shame considering morality, humanity and justice are all key themes of Watchmen. It almost doesn't make sense to have Nite Owl and Silk Spectre ripping flesh and cracking limbs and breaking necks all over the place. It lessons the horror and moral ambiguity of the Comedian and Dr. Manhattan's actions in Vietnam, for one thing. And the changing of the way Rorschach disposed of the child-murderer was also unnecessary and showed his character in a different light completely.

Not sure what you meant about "changing the way" Rorschach disposed of the child-murderer, but I have to say that scene and the prison scene with Rorschach was pretty intense and very disturbing. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, per se, but it made not give a damn if he lived or died. I had absolutely no empathy or sympathy for him whatsoever, and said to myself, "good" at the end...

I loved the soundtrack though -- having lived through the 70s/80s probably helped. :)

[Iroquois]

Not sure what you meant about "changing the way" Rorschach disposed of the child-murderer, but I have to say that scene and the prison scene with Rorschach was pretty intense and very disturbing. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, per se, but it made not give a damn if he lived or died. I had absolutely no empathy or sympathy for him whatsoever, and said to myself, "good" at the end...

In the GN, Rorschach handcuffs the murderer to the furnace, hands him a saw and then proceeds to set fire to the building. The idea was allegedly lifted from Mad Max where the guy had to cut through his wrist to save himself from fiery death. I agree with Thursday, this way was a much better way of dealing with it.

[tramp]

Yea, I'd have to agree with you guys.

[n3wt]

I thought Watchmen was a great film I really enjoyed it :yup: Not ever reading anything on the Watchmen graphic novels before I thought the movie was so good im planning on reading the GN's now.

The charactors were very different from your usual "Superhero" which I love, so they wernt following the same stereotype of "Im powerfull so im going to wear my pants oversome tights." My favorite charactor was Rorschach, he was awesome even though he wasnt the biggest he was definatly the craziest of them all. Looking back at the story of how he became so twisted was I thought very disterbing, with the little girls story and what he progrest in doing.

I was so freaking gutted at the end when Dr Manhatten killed him! As Rorschach was so strong minded and he had to let the people know he had to be killed to keep the world from having another war, but still come on he shouldnt of died IMO

Basically everything in the movie that happened is because Dr Manhatten got his feelings hurt. I have to say I was disapointed at how ******y Dr Manhatten seemed. I know he was a scientist but he did come across as a little girl sometimes.

The overall visuals of the film were outstanding and I have seen it twice since owning it. Also I have found (because I had no idea about any of the charactors or story) that apon second veiwing it was even better.

My rating for Watchmen is 5

[Iroquois]

I was so freaking gutted at the end when Dr Manhatten killed him! As Rorschach was so strong minded and he had to let the people know he had to be killed to keep the world from having another war, but still come on he shouldnt of died IMO

I liked Rorschach and even then I knew he had to die.

Basically everything in the movie that happened is because Dr Manhatten got his feelings hurt. I have to say I was disapointed at how ******y Dr Manhatten seemed. I know he was a scientist but he did come across as a little girl sometimes.

"******y"? Anyway, that was kind of the point. Despite being a demi-god, Manhattan is still somewhat human, retaining his fair share of flaws such as being susceptible to emotional duress. I don't see how being a scientist necessarily makes him a cold, emotionless being different to anyone else.

As you were.

[n3wt]

Iro what I meant by the term "Scientist" is that in most movies scientists are whiney little ******s and I assumed he was but obviously I got the wrong impression. It did seem to me mind that the longer he was turned into the superhero that he was getting more and more colder to everyone and everything hense why he went to mars.

[tramp]

What do you mean about Dr. Manhattan's feelings being hurt? I'm not following you. :confused:

[Joe_Cool]

Theres so many reviews on this movie that i dont think i will write one myself :P
but either way i thought this movie was really good, it went into great depth...whihc is why it was probablly around 4 hours
which is good, because your getting your money's worth

but i do any one comment about it....i liked the comic's ending better

[Iroquois]

Iro what I meant by the term "Scientist" is that in most movies scientists are whiney little ******s and I assumed he was but obviously I got the wrong impression. It did seem to me mind that the longer he was turned into the superhero that he was getting more and more colder to everyone and everything hense why he went to mars.

Yeah, at least in the second part of that post, you show you understand. But still, what's with referring to scientists in movies as "whiny little ******s"? Seriously, dude, to say nothing of the fact that you're using one stupid-sounding insult, but I'm curious as to what examples of "whiny" scientists you're talking about.

What do you mean about Dr. Manhattan's feelings being hurt? I'm not following you. :confused:

Manhattan gets hurt in two different ways. First, Silk Spectre II decided to leave Dr Manhattan - who, as Manhattan claims, is the only thing that keeps him caring about the fate of the world. Second, when he is accused of giving people cancer (mainly his original girlfriend, who personally berates him for it), it makes him realise just how much trouble he is to everyone and just decides to leave.

[n3wt]

Yeah, at least in the second part of that post, you show you understand. But still, what's with referring to scientists in movies as "whiny little ******s"? Seriously, dude, to say nothing of the fact that you're using one stupid-sounding insult, but I'm curious as to what examples of "whiny" scientists you're talking about.
Its my bad what im trying to say and failing to do so is that MOST of the time scientists seem to be dweebs not like big matcho type of guys... do you get what im trying to say? Its just my poor intelect I suppose.

http://www.caughtoffside.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mad_scientist.gif

[Iroquois]

Yeah, that's just stereotypes at work. Don't worry about it.

[n3wt]

Thats the word I was thinking about Stereotypes :laugh:

[Sharedin]

Watchmen was a great movie. It is unlike any other superhero movie, but still has that formula.

[Golgot]

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/315/watchmena.jpg

Watchmen

Pretty good and faithful visual realisation of the novel, but let down particularly by the key actress (who seems to have been hired more for her willingness to flash her tats in a gratuitously-silly sex scene, rather than her ability to bring a bita gravitas to the screen).

It's a big ask for a superhero flick to have gravitas, but the story pitches for it, and i thought they were in with a shout for a bit. Rorschach's sociopathy was well carved, The Comedian hit most of the right notes & Crudup's CGI Dr Manhattan was working well (altho a later epiphany was always going to be a tough sell while playing a glowing deadpan mystery of physics....)

Thought they could maybe have helped him out on Mars with some visual flurries of his CGI-self, reflecting the shifting thoughts not present in his voice. And perhaps they coulda over-written the way the actor's eyes searched for eye-contact - seemed too human a failing for this pupil-less demi-God. What really blew that scene for me though was the strange 'breaking the 4th wall' moment when Laurie hit the crystal ship thing 'into camera'. Felt like she was hitting the screen. If it was deliberate, it was rubbish. If it was accidental, it was rubbish. Surely it's tricky enough to convince the audience a giant glowing man is talking to his human lover on Mars without throwing in that kinda ****.

Then there were some of the sloppier choices and executions in the ending...


Haven't got a huge prob with the 'alternate' ending of Dr M being the scapegoat (altho it does add 'agency' to the threat where before it was a random, new, accidental threat - i do wonder whether the global powers wouldn't spot the ruse given that 'someone' had done this at a suspiciously key moment in global relations etc).

The changes & handlings I found daft were:

The enormity of Veidt's action seemed to be fumbled to me. The actor mumbled many of his lines, which didn't help, and the destruction moment somehow just didn't hit home with the horror it needed to (I feel a studio hand in this perhaps, it being so close to the end etc - not wanting to finish so overtly on such a bummer)


What's with the "You've deformed humanity" bit? It's a pretty weak rejoinder to Veidt's actions. Thought Dr M's 'this won't last' reminder in the book of all human machinations being ephemeral etc was a better cuss and balancing rejoinder to what had gone on before. It could maybe work as an argument of him just expanding the range of human ferocity etc, but it wasn't given much space to breathe. Gave the lonely-Veidt pan-out end a fairly hollow and woolly feel.


A little thing - Why vapourise the scientists with the Dr M light-machine thing? The oddness of no-one else being made a 'superman' is already inherent, so why remind us of it? (I don't remember anything in the book on this either - seemed odd, as surely the military would want to make more Dr Ms - or their opponents would. I only remember a vague Silar-like 'put the pieces together'
propensity in the human Dr M being mentioned as possible explanation - IE only he could survive the process.

The last thing is the super-heroeness of the vigilantes. Why can they suddenly punch through walls and such? Seemed excessive (as with the violence of the intro scene, altho you could argue it fits the world. You get the feeling Snyder gets off on this **** tho - rather ironic given its partially what the story is out to condemn - human propensity to embrace our darker sides etc). Why does Rorsh's mask move? It's never explained. Looks good, seems daft. Kinda sums up the film.

(It's patchy ;))

3

(Now to read everyone's spoilers - mosta this stuff's probably been chewed over already...)

[Sedai]

Underwhelmed, why? Care to elaborate on your way to 10 posts, after which you may/will violate forum policy with spam, which will result in a (ridiculously fast) ban? Might as well shoot the **** about the film before all that goes down...

[jrs]

Care to elaborate on your way to 10 posts, after which you may/will violate forum policy with spam, which will result in a (ridiculously fast) ban?

Why is everyone who is on their way to 10 posts, always criticized and claimed to "violate forum policy with spam" ? I don't get that.

[Yoda]

Why is everyone who is on their way to 10 posts, always criticized and claimed to "violate forum policy with spam" ? I don't get that.
It's not everyone, it's people who show the hallmarks of spamming. We're not going to actually ban someone based on this suspicion, but the fact is we've been doing this a really long time and we've seen all types, and we're pretty good at picking them out. There are lots of tell-tale signs, and choosing a username that sounds like a movie review website name is definitely one of them. So is posting a wide variety of opinions with very little elaboration immediately upon registering.

No one's jumping the gun here, but we're not naive, either. If we're wrong and the poster in question is just here to share his thoughts, great! Nothing will happen. But we're not wrong often.

[jrs]

There are lots of tell-tale signs, and choosing a username that sounds like a movie review website name is definitely one of them.

True.

[jrs]

Dude, what are you even arguing with? We know what we're doing. We didn't ban him or anything for mere suspicion.

Chill man. What is it with you and arguing. Everytime I ask a question or am curious about something, you PM me or leave a comment with the same thing. "Dude, why are you arguing"..... I don't recall me starting an argument. Do you? I just was curious about why that would be and you cleared it up for me.

[Yoda]

To clear something up: jrs is quoting a comment I left him. You know, to discuss things privately. :rolleyes: So much for that.

Anyway, perhaps you don't realize this, but your question did indeed sound like an argument. I think you've asked this same "question" before, phrased differently, too. You always seem extremely skeptical of these things. Which is your right, of course, but if I think you're giving us a hard time for no good reason, well, I'm apt to say so, and that's what happened here.

[jrs]

Anyway, perhaps you don't realize this, but your question did indeed sound like an argument. I think you've asked this same "question" before, phrased differently, too. You always seem extremely skeptical of these things. Which is your right, of course, but if I think you're giving us a hard time for no good reason, well, I'm apt to say so, and that's what happened here.

Well I don't know how on earth it does, but perhaps you don't realize this but you get extremely offended over a simple question. If I asked the question before, asking a question again isnt like a life or death situation. But it's not like I intend to give you people a hard time for being curious about something. To think that is kind of ridiculous. You're apt to think what you like I guess.

Now lets get back to the thread on hand shall we.

[Yoda]

Er, except I wasn't "offended" at all, nor did I imply that it was a "life and death situation." I think you were giving Seds a hard time, and I think you've done it a few times before, so I left you a private comment about it. I'm not sure how this constitues me being mad, or offended, or anything else you're suggesting.

I don't think the behavior I've mentioned is really consistent with mere curiosity, but even if that's all this is, I'm not sure why on earth you'd feel the need to take issue with my comment publicly. I didn't call you out in public or anything. If you want to respond publicly that's your prerogative, but I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

[seventhseal]

well anyway, I just found this thread, and i decided to talk about Watchmen considering I thoroughly enjoyed it, personally my favorite scene was the first scene, in the comedians apartment, and just so everyone knows, i did read the comic, i still have the comic actually, and I thought the comic or rather Graphic Novel was terrific, one of the best I've read, however that didn't change my impression of the movie, i know there are alot of people who can't say the same, I loved the whole cartoony look to the movie, and i especially loved some of the music choices, it was all around well done

[nebbit]

Saw it recently and some of it was great and other parts were boring :yup: sorry guys :rolleyes:

[the professional]

well anyway, I just found this thread, and i decided to talk about Watchmen considering I thoroughly enjoyed it, personally my favorite scene was the first scene, in the comedians apartment,

+ repped for that scene its awesome

[Lugburz]

Just saw this movie for the first time. Don't know why I was refusing to watch it earlier,but gotta say this movie has to be pretty underrated.
As I haven't got any clue about the whole ''Watchmen'' thing before, I am pretty surprised of what I have seen. I expected some new fancy thing,like fancy outfits and super powers by so called Watchmen. I enjoyed soundtrack,thrilled to hear in a movie like this was Bob Dylan and Simon and Garfunkel.
The ending is kinda spectacular, unlike other comic book adaptations.
The movie that doesn't become boring after 2 and half hours is sure worth watching.
I'd give 8.5/10...