Who watches the Watchmen?

[MinimateEspo25]

by this time tomorrow i'll already be in the theater watching...the watchmen

[Trekker 42]

I'm actually taking my almost-girlfriend on Saturday.

[MinimateEspo25]

tell her u want to do a reading for your acting class, and u want to use a scene from the movie

then pick the dan and laurie sex scene

sorry, couldn't resist a cheesy and dirty use of the movie

[entertheninja!]

Four more hours till my midnight showing! Yay!

i hate you...lol

[NorthRaider]

Oh, and it's studio 54, hon.

Ah, I knew I got that name wrong somewhere... eh, close enough, right? Point is I thought that scene was AWESOME. Thanks Bob

Also, was I the only one SERIOUSLY bothered about how the movie sorta changed up the Silhouette's schtick, especially how it seemed to imply she

deserved to die?

I was just blasted and all smiles by that awesome intro so I don't really remember. Can you give me a clue on what was shown?

Oh, don't get me wrong,

I LOVED the WW2 pic homage of her kissing that nurse

But IIRC in the book the Silhouette was murdered by a revenge-seeking small-time enemy of hers who tried to catch her off guard killing her AND her girlfriend. Meanwhile the movie TOTALLY makes it come across that she was just the victim of a homophobic hate crime. And then later Rorschach says that her death was the result of her "indecent lifestyle." Yeah, admittedly the hate-crime angle seems both historically-accurate AND in Rorschach's case character-accurate, but I'm just mildly insulted that the movie just sorta shrugged her off the way Cyclops was in X3. (Remember, she was one of the VERY FIRST active Minutemen alongside Hooded Justice, Nite Owl I and The Comedian)

... and it's the next day, and I'm STILL gushing over the movie's use of "All Along The Watchtower." That scene was just EPIC beyond words. God, I love Hendrix

[Bob Harris]

Oh, don't get me wrong,

I LOVED the WW2 pic homage of her kissing that nurse

But IIRC in the book the Silhouette was murdered by a revenge-seeking small-time enemy of hers who tried to catch her off guard killing her AND her girlfriend. Meanwhile the movie TOTALLY makes it come across that she was just the victim of a homophobic hate crime. And then later Rorschach says that her death was the result of her "indecent lifestyle." Yeah, admittedly the hate-crime angle seems both historically-accurate AND in Rorschach's case character-accurate, but I'm just mildly insulted that the movie just sorta shrugged her off the way Cyclops was in X3. (Remember, she was one of the VERY FIRST active Minutemen alongside Hooded Justice, Nite Owl I and The Comedian)

OK, now I got what you mean.

This is quite similar to the JFK killing scene. I think it is pretty obvious that Blake shot him right away. If I'd never read the comic, there won't be any doubt. But reading the comic, I know that the Comedian was there, maybe sent there by Nixon, maybe shooting JFK. Knowing that, the scene in the incredible opening credits isn't that proofed as it seemed. I didn't see him shoot, just saw him putting down his gun and smiling bright. Maybe some other guy did it and he's just smiling as he always is in such situations. That Silhouette scene might be interpreted likewise. We saw her kissing that nurse, we get the info that she's at least lesbian and later on we found her and her grilfriend killed and the words "lesbian whores" written on the wall. That tells its own tale. But, again, knowing the comic, the situation might be different and we don't have any proof that it's "just" a homophobic killing. It can still be that villain who killed her leaving these words on the wall. Maybe that's a point of few that isn't that bothering?

Now, what do you think about the whole

Crimebusters Watchmen meeting/fiasco? Why did they take out Captain Metroplolis? I mean there was a Cap, why not use him? This bothered me a little, since that is one of the key scenes in the story. In the movie version it's like Veidt is just offended by the Comedian and he's killing him later on for vengeance. But, knowing what we do know, that was the moment Veidt was totally disenchanted. It was the second time the Comedian put Veidt in an inferior position. The first time was pysical, this time it was mental. It's not about a simple revange, it's the only way Veidt would gain his reputation back. You don't get that conflict in the movie, do you?

[buttheadsmate]

I'll try to put this gently & in a way that I hopefully do not appear to patronise.

I specifically avoid threads that involve current Movies & TV shows that I haven't seen.....doesn't everybody here? With the climax of BSG, for example, it is essential to use spoiler bars in an effort to prevent unseen episodes being spoilt for prospective future-viewers because nobody knows what's coming!

I occasionally 'drop-in' here,to this thread, to see what's going on ........but all there is... is a mass of black blocks. Now ...I've read the comics & recently re-acquainted myself with the story & unless there is some dramatic change to the original story in the movie ......I don't get the reason for the vast swathes of black. Anybody who hasn't read the book but wants to see the film, 'without knowledge', won't come here anyway....would they? If they were to, then surely some moderate spoiling is surely far more acceptable to one & all than the whole lot being obliterated. I mean no ill to the main protagonists Bob & NorthRaider whose posts often keep this place alive but surely it must be a pain for you 2 as well ?

I might be wrong (unlikely ) so please if it suits you carry on ...I shan't lose sleep.....but I just don't think it's necessary.

We had a thread once about 'Cloverfield' which I avoided in the hope of having a potentially great movie ruined by viewing the posts.............I watched it this week .....whyTF didn't anybody warn me ?

[Trekker 42]

We had a thread once about 'Cloverfield' which I avoided in the hope of having a potentially great movie ruined by viewing the posts.............I watched it this week .....whyTF didn't anybody warn me ?

Why didn't you ask?

If anyone ever wants to know anything about most any movie, my PM box is open. I will review anything I've seen gladly. And if I haven't seen it, I'll just tell you that.

And BHM: the IMDB is your friend if you want a good review of movies. The stars shown on IMDB are the honest-to-God opinions of viewers, and it's not averaged with Critics like Rotten Tomatoes. With the IMDB What you see is what you get.

[Bob Harris]

I mean no ill to the main protagonists Bob & NorthRaider whose posts often keep this place alive but surely it must be a pain for you 2 as well ?

I might be wrong (unlikely ) so please if it suits you carry on ...I shan't lose sleep.....but I just don't think it's necessary.

I was unsure since there already were black bars when I entered the thread. And I already said several times, that these bars are pretty much annoying, at least in that total solar eclipse way we produce them here. And instead of opening another thread I, if nobody is offended at all, am glad to avoid those black bars and just spoil in the future.

Thanks for your thoughts BHM. I don't see it as patronising, at least not in a negative way.

[karamazov80]

And BHM: the IMDB is your friend if you want a good review of movies. The stars shown on IMDB are the honest-to-God opinions of viewers, and it's not averaged with Critics like Rotten Tomatoes. With the IMDB What you see is what you get.

Personally, I'll take critics over viewers anyday. Examples from Yahoo Movies:

For Paul Blart, Mall Cop:

"omg the funniest movie iv ever seen its a must see kevin james is amazingly funny so stop haten on kevin james hes amazing ."

Review title, "Crapy crap"

"this is then dumiest movie of the year. it was not funny it was not cute just stupid. the acting was bad the story was bad and the movie was terible!!!!!"

From the Madea movie:

"TYLER PERRY HAS A GIFT, MADEA, SHE MAKES YOU FORGIVE, LAUGH,CRY,. THERE IS ALWAYS A MESSAGE.GO SEE, HOW MADEA FINALLY ENDS UP IN JAIL. KEEP UP YOUR BLESSING, THAT GOD HAS GIVEN YOU."

From Watchmen:

"This is a good movie to go watch if your where a sixty hippe. We see your percussion your hate for Nixon. Not a good movie to watch if you are a Viet Nam Vet.We see you killing the Viet Nam People and the massacre of protesters. I walked out after 1/2 of the movie just could not stomack the Political Implcations."

Edited March 6, 2009 by karamazov80

[NorthRaider]

WALL OF TEXT ALERT! God help us all

We saw her kissing that nurse, we get the info that she's at least lesbian and later on we found her and her grilfriend killed and the words "lesbian whores" written on the wall. That tells its own tale. But, again, knowing the comic, the situation might be different and we don't have any proof that it's "just" a homophobic killing. It can still be that villain who killed her leaving these words on the wall. Maybe that's a point of few that isn't that bothering?

Hmm, come to think of it,

the comic never DID get into full lengths about the exact circumstances of the Silhouette's murder so your theory might be sound. Granted, Rorschach DID still make that throwaway remark about her lifestyle, but then again maybe he knew the truth about the murder or maybe his definition of "indecent" might be a little different from what we'd imagine...

In any case, the way the movie paints it the unfortunate implication is STILL that the Silhouette's death involved her being a lesbian, the only question being exactly who did it (in the comic the enemy that killed her was looking for revenge, here it looks like the enemy might've been homophobic as well... again, all open to interpretation). I guess this just really hit too close to home for me as some of my closest family and friends are homosexual, and I would've figured movies today would know better than to avoid going that route as far as depicting LGBT characters are concerned

. But hey, this just goes to prove what a disturbing story Watchmen really is.

Now, what do you think about the whole

Crimebusters Watchmen meeting/fiasco? Why did they take out Captain Metroplolis? I mean there was a Cap, why not use him? This bothered me a little, since that is one of the key scenes in the story. In the movie version it's like Veidt is just offended by the Comedian and he's killing him later on for vengeance. But, knowing what we do know, that was the moment Veidt was totally disenchanted. It was the second time the Comedian put Veidt in an inferior position. The first time was pysical, this time it was mental. It's not about a simple revange, it's the only way Veidt would gain his reputation back. You don't get that conflict in the movie, do you?

As great as the scene might have worked the "original" way,

I actually didn't mind at first the omission of Captain Metropolis from the film, I peg it as another one of those artistic compromises Snyder had to make so that the movie plot would be more feasible (less resources/screentime spent on the backstory/development of yet another "peripheral" character) Although I am STILL vehemently against their literally naming their team "Watchmen": it worked so well in the comic because it was never said outright (and also, never with an effing "the" at the beginning

), and thus registers as being a terrifically foreboding thematic symbol. If I had to hate one single change the movie made from the comic, it had to be the usage of "Watchmen."

Back on track, the omission of Captain Metropolis leads to the obvious dilemma of who's the guy who starts things off with the chart at the Crimebusters meeting: Nite Owl I? No, Dr. Manhattan made him retire. Mothman might've been an interesting choice to me, except he's just as obscure as Cap and the whole "superhero loses his sanity" thing has practically become his God-given gift. Obviously Nite Owl II is still too new to the superhero thing, plus his schtick is that at the time he and Rorschach were partners. Sadly this just seems to be a dilemma with no real viable solution save what the movie eventually ended up doing, which as you just put it just turns into a big ol' red flag for the non-comic readers: "Ooh, ooh, Ozymandias had motive! HE killed the Comedian!"

As you said Snyder never put in their initial "physical" encounter between them in the movie (except maybe in deleted scenes or if we nitpick the theater version long enough) so the non-fans might not have immediately picked up on the symbolic urgency of Ozymandias' need to "regain his reputation"; all they'd see is a single encounter and the World's Smartest Man feeling emasculated/humiliated enough to want revenge on the Comedian in a big way. But put in the FULL details of the Comedian-Ozymandias conflict, and obviously Snyder will get caught in the alienating-the-mainstream-audience-with-an-even-more-overlong-movie trap.

That's why I'm am SO invested in how people who haven't read the comic could've digested the movie. Come on, obviously they can't know everything we do and Snyder CAN'T make a movie just for the sake of the purists, that's why Snyder's dilemma on staying 100% accurate for the hardcore fans and keeping things manageably coherent for everyone else is such a huge issue with Watchmen.

the JFK killing scene. I think it is pretty obvious that Blake shot him right away. If I'd never read the comic, there won't be any doubt. But reading the comic, I know that the Comedian was there, maybe sent there by Nixon, maybe shooting JFK. Knowing that, the scene in the incredible opening credits isn't that proofed as it seemed. I didn't see him shoot, just saw him putting down his gun and smiling bright. Maybe some other guy did it and he's just smiling as he always is in such situations.

Honestly,

what would the Comedian be doing leaving a presidential rally with a

rifle anyway? He can't be there just for the sake of messing with our heads (not unless his character breaks the 4th wall now). Then again he could've been assigned there by the government and was actually the one who shot JFK's real killer... But then WTH is up with that knowing grin?!

Okay, forget what I just said, maybe he IS breaking the 4th wall and screwing with our heads.

I could kill Snyder just for having the lot of us nitpicking into oblivion over this one new scene he decided to put in... solid proof that he really DOES get it!

As to BHM's concern about the excessive use of the spoiler bars, I remember in the Dark Knight thread Trekker put in a sort-of deadline rule: after a presumed period of time wherein much of MMMV had seen the movie, the spoiler bars have got to go. This might be an issue with Watchmen because of the comic book/movie differences, but perhaps we can try the free-for-all-no-spoiler-bars thing after a few weeks?

[Jad]

Has anyone watched the Watchmen Motion Comic?

http://watchmenmotioncomic.com/

It's 5 hours long, and isn't on Netflix yet, though I think you can get it on iTunes. I was wondering if it's worthwhile, especially if you've already read the book.

[Bob Harris]

Yes, I did. At least the first two chapters of the book which were free previews or something like that when they first aired.

It is a very nice produced thing to watch. They kind of animated the original panel designs by Gibbons, read the speech balloons and have a nice and atmospheric soundtrack composed for it. The bad thing is, there is only one male narrator who reads every single word, which is quickly starting to be some kind of anoying. He tries to use different voices - which works fine to a certain extent, but they could have afforded a female narrator for Laurie and the other women. The other thing is, you only get the panel based parts of the story, no reading of "Under the Hood" and the other excerpts and no lines from the implemented "soundtrack" or quotes.

I say it's pretty nice but unessential. (Unless you get it somewhere pretty cheap...)

Edited March 7, 2009 by Bob Harris

[karamazov80]

New York Times has a pretty negative review up:

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/movies/06Watc.html

[Alpheon]

Although I am STILL vehemently against their literally naming their team "Watchmen": it worked so well in the comic because it was never said outright (and also, never with an effing "the" at the beginning ), and thus registers as being a terrifically foreboding thematic symbol. If I had to hate one single change the movie made from the comic, it had to be the usage of "Watchmen."

I completely 1,000% agree. I'm amazed at just how well you articulated and echoed my thoughts of the past couple weeks. That is the only thing I'd change. Why, Snyder? Why??

...and while this post may seem rather trite, I was going to offer my own commentary--until I read the above megaposts. What more could be said?

Edited March 7, 2009 by Alpheon

[Dio]

Even though there were some good scenes, I just hated it. I'm surprised it wasn't rated NC-17.

[SErge]

i've watched the watchmen,it was great!!

[entertheninja!]

I just saw watchmen...

it was awesome but not awesome at the same time.

pros:

doc manhattan's scenes were awesome

rorschach was well played

no squid

adrian's ass handed 2 him by nite owl

too many flashbacks

comedian+wall=pwnage

slow mo

i got freecrap from my comic book store!!

cons:

ozymandias' acting

no squid

not enuff blue penis

bubastis cheap cg

not enuff news stand

cowbell needed more

no proper ending

RAPE!!!!

it was good but the book was better!

Edited March 7, 2009 by entertheninja!

[IndieMate]

Even though there were some good scenes, I just hated it.

Why did you hate it?

[Trekker 42]

Well I got bored today...

And I came up with something Watchmen related. And I wanted to share it with you guys. So I can get stoned to death.

May I present the total bastardization of Alan Moore's work...

THE WATCHMEN SEQUEL

Hurm.

Soon after the unfortunate explosion in Manhatten, FBI agents Mulder and Scully come to New York to investigate this alien encounter. Mulder finds his sister in the alien's stomach. Plot line wrapup #1

It's revealed that Dr. Manhattan did not, in fact, create human life on another planet. He created an Alien army and is going to invade Earth. Plot Line #2 Wrapup

The New Frontiersman does, in fact, print the article detailing Veidt's involvement. And while DR. Manhattan is on his way to kill us all, the US nukes Russia preemptively. Just because they knew Russia was gonna do it.

Plot line #3 halfway done.

a mob of people capture Veidt and begin to beat the living shit out of him. But then...

Here it comes...

Rorschach shows up with ALL OF THE POWERS OF DR. MANAHTTAN!

He teleports Ozymandius to fucking JUPITER and LEAVES HIM THERE!

Rorschach tracks down Dan and Laurie and convinces them to return to Superhero work one last time. Because he knows that Dr. Manhattan and his Alien Squid army are coming to kick our asses. And Rorschach one-ups Dr. Manhattan by turning the entire populatin of Earth into Dr. Manhattans. Because he can fucking do anything.

Except Dan and Laurie.

He does not change them.

Well Manhattan arrives with his Alien Squids and proceeds to invade the Earth.

Rorschach's army of Dr. Manhattans manages to utterly own Dr. Manhattan. But by doing so all of them had to combine into a super-Manhattan and they transported Dr. Manhattan to an alternate Deminsion (spelling sucks). Then super-Manhattan realized that it was the Ultimate power ever. But they had to take the Throne. So super-Manhattan decides to take down Zeus.

He teleports onto Mount Olympus and utterly destroys everything ever. But then Hades teams up with Nite Owl I and Alan Moore who know that this has gotten out of hand.

Nite Owl I steals some of super-Manhattan's power and sends Alan Moore back in time while Hades sends an army of the dead up to Olympus to hold off super-Manhattan.

Alan Moore takes Dan and Laurie with him and they manage to convince the editors of DC not to print this bullshit.

So the editors agree and the immedi...

the end

[puts up police-approved riot shield]

[Dio]

Even though there were some good scenes, I just hated it.

Why did you hate it?

Wall Street Journal sums it up pretty well: "Watching 'Watchmen' is the spiritual equivalent of being whacked on the skull for 163 minutes. The reverence is inert, the violence noxious, the mythology murky, the tone grandiose, the texture glutinous."

Oh, and the gore, sex, nudity etc. In particular the scene where Rorschach cleaves the killer's head with a butcher knife several times, that would have been better off as a silhouette or a shadow. And the director can't make up his mind when to show Dr. Manhattan fully nude and when to have him wear underwear. His penis even swung for a few moments.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Dio

[cdubya]

I just got back from seeing Watchmen, and I've got to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Not the best comic-movie, but certainly as good as one could expect (actually, a bit more than I expected) from the source-material. There seems to be some disapproval of certain violent moments (admittedly quite extreme), which in my opinion weren't gratuitous but rather essential to honestly depicting the brutality of the situations. A "shadow" (a sugar-coated technique easier on some viewers' gag-reflexes) would have been insulting and de-emphasized the fact that you should be horrified and disgusted...not cartoonishly-glorifying the act. Now *ahem*, as for the "swinging-penis", I applaud their bravery for the inclusion of this detail and believe that American-society needs to get over their immature shame of anatomy. He had become a cosmic-entity far removed from Human concerns and I think that this brilliantly conveyed that.

[karamazov80]

Wall Street Journal sums it up pretty well: "Watching 'Watchmen' is the spiritual equivalent of being whacked on the skull for 163 minutes. The reverence is inert, the violence noxious, the mythology murky, the tone grandiose, the texture glutinous."

I wish I could take anything Murdoch-produced seriously. But, I can't

[Nekoi]

I just got back from seeing Watchmen, and I've got to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Not the best comic-movie, but certainly as good as one could expect (actually, a bit more than I expected) from the source-material. There seems to be some disapproval of certain violent moments (admittedly quite extreme), which in my opinion weren't gratuitous but rather essential to honestly depicting the brutality of the situations. A "shadow" (a sugar-coated technique easier on some viewers' gag-reflexes) would have been insulting and de-emphasized the fact that you should be horrified and disgusted...not cartoonishly-glorifying the act. Now *ahem*, as for the "swinging-penis", I applaud their bravery for the inclusion of this detail and believe that American-society needs to get over their immature shame of anatomy. He had become a cosmic-entity far removed from Human concerns and I think that this brilliantly conveyed that.

Agreed. I went in rather expecting some major censoring, but I was very much satisfied with the bravery of the film's content in relation to what it was in the comic. I can understand how it would bother people who may have not read the comic, but seriously. Why does it all have to be kittens and rainbows?

I know full well many people who hadn't read the comic were expecting something a lot more conventional of comic book super heroes. WELL, SURPRISE! Joke's on you.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Nekoi

[bilbofett]

Saw it, really liked it, but it was a little to graphic. Don't get me wrong I like violence and nudity(what geek doesn't?), but when it's not neccessary to tell the story. I hated Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween for the same reason. I'll probably see it again and buy it on DVD also. One last thing...... Malin Ackerman IS HOT!!!!!!!