Who watches the Watchmen?

[Bob Harris]

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 .

OK, I got your point. Having a few homosexual friends myself this might get personal somehow, but regarding the time that fictionally happened, I think it's not that obscure. I don't see it as a problem of nowadays filmmaking. The line in Under the Hood just says "... six weeks later she was murdered, along with her lover, by one of her former enemies." We don't get the motive. An at least the others were forced to expel her from the group because of her private lifestyle, so homophobia is a topic. Not to forget the other homosexual couple and the problems they had. (And it still feels wrong for Dan to have these fetish desires.)

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 guess that is some stupid mainstream cliché. "Why is the movie called Watchmen, when there are no Watchmen. Why didn't you just call the movie Crimebusters?" The thought that you actually have to say it outright, for the crowd otherwise would be totally confused is just ridiculous. People aren't that stupid. Did the phrase "Dark Knight" was ever used in that movie? But maybe this is just one of those things that - to quote the NY Times review - rankles us die-hard cultists. But we maybe should consult someone who didn't previously read the comic.

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.

That Rorschach scene was very explicit and it didn't had to be like this, since it never happened in the Comic. There Rorschach chains the guy to the stove, souses the whole place with fuel leaving him a saw, commenting: "Shouldn't bother trying to saw through handcuffs. Never make it in time." Then he leaves and lights up the place. You don't see anything, but Kovacs brutally, changing him to become Rorschach is all there. I think some of the gore scenes were justified when you take the comic as the source material and illustrate that these fights aren't just a harmless brawl, but an acting that leaves you appalled and to call the whole adventurer/vigilante thing into question. Most of it was just exploitation and therefore unnecessary, like it's already discussed here.

The sex scene, nudity and penis are an interesting point. I don't see any reason why this should have been changed regarding the comic as source again. Maybe cdubya is right and it is a cultural thing someway, because here - Europe - no one I talked to was offended by seeing a naked man at all. I was glad Snyder did it that way, not because I wanted to see a penis, but I wanted the movie to stick to the comic. I'm not a friend of censorship at all and I think if there is a reason to show explicit scenes to make the story or it's characters more authentic, then you should show it. In many other cases its intention actually is to offend recipients to make them think about it. (Several plays come to mind right now.) In the end it's up to the audience to decide whether to see the story as is, or leave it be. But that's just my point of view.

Oh, and to mention, in Germany it's rated something like US "R", but for people under 16. (In case you're interested, we have ratings for G, PG, PG-12, R-16 and NC-17 here.)

[NorthRaider]

Here Watchmen was originally rated R-18, but we also have one of the worst censor boards ever (peg it to our extremely conservative/Catholic culture) so the film was cut "strategically" to get the more "acceptable" rating of R-13 (meaning kids younger than 13 can't watch the film at all) so that Watchmen still gets a wider audience locally. And personally I support the naked Dr. Manhattan depiction NOT JUST for comic-accuracy but because it's an important reflection of Dr. Manhattan's god-like "condescending" view towards humanity. Remember that this was the guy who called Ozymandias a threat no bigger than "the world's smartest termite." He can create water out of thin air and make random people implode, what would HE care if the rest of common society found his blue junk vulgar-looking?

The sex/violence thing though might indeed be pushing it, but then I guess this level of creative license is what always defined Zach Snyder as a moviemaker. I still can't help thinking about how he did 300 and Dawn of the Dead when compared to the originals.

And Bob, I 100% agree with you on your point about the newbie audience being too confused by the title. I believe TV Tropes explains this blasted phenomenon quite aptly.

[Bob Harris]

And personally I support the naked Dr. Manhattan depiction NOT JUST for comic-accuracy but because it's an important reflection of Dr. Manhattan's god-like "condescending" view towards humanity. Remember that this was the guy who called Ozymandias a threat no bigger than "the world's smartest termite." He can create water out of thin air and make random people implode, what would HE care if the rest of common society found his blue junk vulgar-looking?

That in fact is what I do summarize as "comic accurate". Alors, you're absolutely right, mademoiselle. (But nice thing is - movie and comic - that he has to dress up when in public. Little sctrach in 4th wall? Tiny one?)

And Bob, I 100% agree with you on your point about the newbie audience being too confused by the title. I believe TV Tropes explains this blasted phenomenon quite aptly.

That site is brilliant!

[entertheninja!]

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 .

OK, I got your point. Having a few homosexual friends myself this might get personal somehow, but regarding the time that fictionally happened, I think it's not that obscure. I don't see it as a problem of nowadays filmmaking. The line in Under the Hood just says "... six weeks later she was murdered, along with her lover, by one of her former enemies." We don't get the motive. An at least the others were forced to expel her from the group because of her private lifestyle, so homophobia is a topic. Not to forget the other homosexual couple and the problems they had. (And it still feels wrong for Dan to have these fetish desires.)

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 guess that is some stupid mainstream cliché. "Why is the movie called Watchmen, when there are no Watchmen. Why didn't you just call the movie Crimebusters?" The thought that you actually have to say it outright, for the crowd otherwise would be totally confused is just ridiculous. People aren't that stupid. Did the phrase "Dark Knight" was ever used in that movie? But maybe this is just one of those things that - to quote the NY Times review - rankles us die-hard cultists. But we maybe should consult someone who didn't previously read the comic.

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.

That Rorschach scene was very explicit and it didn't had to be like this, since it never happened in the Comic. There Rorschach chains the guy to the stove, souses the whole place with fuel leaving him a saw, commenting: "Shouldn't bother trying to saw through handcuffs. Never make it in time." Then he leaves and lights up the place. You don't see anything, but Kovacs brutally, changing him to become Rorschach is all there. I think some of the gore scenes were justified when you take the comic as the source material and illustrate that these fights aren't just a harmless brawl, but an acting that leaves you appalled and to call the whole adventurer/vigilante thing into question. Most of it was just exploitation and therefore unnecessary, like it's already discussed here.

The sex scene, nudity and penis are an interesting point. I don't see any reason why this should have been changed regarding the comic as source again. Maybe cdubya is right and it is a cultural thing someway, because here - Europe - no one I talked to was offended by seeing a naked man at all. I was glad Snyder did it that way, not because I wanted to see a penis, but I wanted the movie to stick to the comic. I'm not a friend of censorship at all and I think if there is a reason to show explicit scenes to make the story or it's characters more authentic, then you should show it. In many other cases its intention actually is to offend recipients to make them think about it. (Several plays come to mind right now.) In the end it's up to the audience to decide whether to see the story as is, or leave it be. But that's just my point of view.

Oh, and to mention, in Germany it's rated something like US "R", but for people under 16. (In case you're interested, we have ratings for G, PG, PG-12, R-16 and NC-17 here.)

the cleavering scene was unneccassary(excuse my spelling) and had to be put in by zac snyder because well it is a zac snyder movie...violence is fine but to a crtain extent it just gets borin overdone and downright disgusting...like with the knot tops, the leg crashing inside out was fine but then with the bone popping out completley it just gave me chills...the sex was fine and neccessary and i think that showing his penis was okay because the US is to scared to look at human anatomy and say "oh its normal"...the US really are a bunch of

pussies

with that stuff...all in all okay film...

[Dio]

Here Watchmen was originally rated R-18, but we also have one of the worst censor boards ever (peg it to our extremely conservative/Catholic culture) so the film was cut "strategically" to get the more "acceptable" rating of R-13 (meaning kids younger than 13 can't watch the film at all) so that Watchmen still gets a wider audience locally. And personally I support the naked Dr. Manhattan depiction NOT JUST for comic-accuracy but because it's an important reflection of Dr. Manhattan's god-like "condescending" view towards humanity. Remember that this was the guy who called Ozymandias a threat no bigger than "the world's smartest termite." He can create water out of thin air and make random people implode, what would HE care if the rest of common society found his blue junk vulgar-looking?

The sex/violence thing though might indeed be pushing it, but then I guess this level of creative license is what always defined Zach Snyder as a moviemaker. I still can't help thinking about how he did 300 and Dawn of the Dead when compared to the originals.

And Bob, I 100% agree with you on your point about the newbie audience being too confused by the title. I believe TV Tropes explains this blasted phenomenon quite aptly.

If that's the case then why does he wear underwear in some other scenes? Or even a suit?

[cdubya]

That Rorschach scene was very explicit and it didn't had to be like this, since it never happened in the Comic. There Rorschach chains the guy to the stove, souses the whole place with fuel leaving him a saw, commenting: "Shouldn't bother trying to saw through handcuffs. Never make it in time." Then he leaves and lights up the place. You don't see anything, but Kovacs brutally, changing him to become Rorschach is all there. I think some of the gore scenes were justified when you take the comic as the source material and illustrate that these fights aren't just a harmless brawl, but an acting that leaves you appalled and to call the whole adventurer/vigilante thing into question. Most of it was just exploitation and therefore unnecessary, like it's already discussed here.

The sex scene, nudity and penis are an interesting point. I don't see any reason why this should have been changed regarding the comic as source again. Maybe cdubya is right and it is a cultural thing someway, because here - Europe - no one I talked to was offended by seeing a naked man at all. I was glad Snyder did it that way, not because I wanted to see a penis, but I wanted the movie to stick to the comic. I'm not a friend of censorship at all and I think if there is a reason to show explicit scenes to make the story or it's characters more authentic, then you should show it. In many other cases its intention actually is to offend recipients to make them think about it. (Several plays come to mind right now.) In the end it's up to the audience to decide whether to see the story as is, or leave it be. But that's just my point of view.

Oh, and to mention, in Germany it's rated something like US "R", but for people under 16. (In case you're interested, we have ratings for G, PG, PG-12, R-16 and NC-17 here.)

Not to entirely defend Snyder's motives, but I think the Rorshach/pedophile scene did need to be changed from the source material, as it was almost (though an obvious homage) a direct copy of the final scene of "Mad Max" and probably would have been criticized as such. While I believe Snyder sometimes goes too far, I personally was disturbed at how much I was enjoying Rorshach's sociopathic-rampage until that particular moment, in which I was shocked and appalled which I vehemently maintain was essential in illustrating that he was not so different from those he was judging. The point is not to have people cheering his actions (though most were pretty cool), and therefore something so heinous had to be included to make the viewer stop in their tracks and go "whoa, that was uncool". He himself was fully aware of this, and I think that it helped to tie-in to the final scene

where he all but begs Dr. Manhattan to put him down (like a mad dog?), as he realizes that his role is no longer necessary in the new utopia created by Veidt. I think that this awareness is noble and allows the viewer to feel pity for Kovacs, but the bottom-line is this...he is a murdering sociopath who is haunted with self-loathing!!

[NorthRaider]

And personally I support the naked Dr. Manhattan depiction NOT JUST for comic-accuracy but because it's an important reflection of Dr. Manhattan's god-like "condescending" view towards humanity. Remember that this was the guy who called Ozymandias a threat no bigger than "the world's smartest termite." He can create water out of thin air and make random people implode, what would HE care if the rest of common society found his blue junk vulgar-looking?

If that's the case then why does he wear underwear in some other scenes? Or even a suit?

My exact memory might be a bit faulty, but those particular scenes were exceptions as those were Dr, Manhattan's few token "public relations" moments, when the Human Weapon has to put on his "good face" for America (and all its enemies) while he would much rather be spending his time either pondering tachyons or waxing existential on his superhuman condition. Off the top of my head I can recall his black Speedo in the first meeting of the Watchmen () and during his stint in Vietnam with the Comedian. And I think he only ever wore the suit during that

disastrous

talk show interview of his; the scene beforehand which shows him getting dressed telekinetically is juxtaposed with Laurie's conversation with Dan, and is (I believe) intended to metaphorically highlight the nature of Doc's disconnect from human affairs.

Correction: He also wore a suit during Blake's funeral, and the Speedo in

the moon-landing shot in the opening credits

. The PR reasoning still applies to both though.

Edited March 7, 2009 by NorthRaider

[entertheninja!]

Here Watchmen was originally rated R-18, but we also have one of the worst censor boards ever (peg it to our extremely conservative/Catholic culture) so the film was cut "strategically" to get the more "acceptable" rating of R-13 (meaning kids younger than 13 can't watch the film at all) so that Watchmen still gets a wider audience locally. And personally I support the naked Dr. Manhattan depiction NOT JUST for comic-accuracy but because it's an important reflection of Dr. Manhattan's god-like "condescending" view towards humanity. Remember that this was the guy who called Ozymandias a threat no bigger than "the world's smartest termite." He can create water out of thin air and make random people implode, what would HE care if the rest of common society found his blue junk vulgar-looking?

The sex/violence thing though might indeed be pushing it, but then I guess this level of creative license is what always defined Zach Snyder as a moviemaker. I still can't help thinking about how he did 300 and Dawn of the Dead when compared to the originals.

And Bob, I 100% agree with you on your point about the newbie audience being too confused by the title. I believe TV Tropes explains this blasted phenomenon quite aptly.

If that's the case then why does he wear underwear in some other scenes? Or even a suit?

because he is a victim to good prices at Men's Warehouse...

[Max13]

The movie really dissapointed. I'm excited about the merchandise though. The prop Comedian guns and 13 inch Comedian are stunning.

[MINI_MYTE]

Just saw Watchmen last night and must say, I enjoyed it. Yes, there were some changes made that were unnecessary,

Rorshach's butchering of the pedofile, Dan and Laurie's overexcessive beatdown of the Knotheads, Lawrence's "dissarming" in the riot scene, etc.

But overall, I think it was translated well as a movie. I'd deffinitely go see it again and can't wait to buy it on Blu-Ray.

P.S: Did anybody else think that Jackie Eale Haley (as Walter Kovacs) looked eerily like Danny Bonaduce? It was just scary . They could have been brothers.

[Jad]

I saw it last night, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've owned a copy of the book for years, and I knew about the major changes. After thinking about it, I honestly think the big change to the end (you know what I mean) was entirely justified. The movie ending works for the movie, and the book ending works for the book. I can accept and enjoy both.

Apart from that, I was amazed how faithful the movie was to the book, in everything from the art design to the details of Dan Dreiberg's dream. I'm eagerly awaiting the longer version on the DVD.

I thought the movie did a deft job of balancing the overall story thread with a heap of new characters. I still think you're better off having read the book first, just to be able to keep the minor characters straight. Seeing the newsstand guy and the kid at the end made the finale especially bittersweet, and again I'm looking forward to seeing more of them on the DVD.

[dj87]

i too saw it last night, wonderful film. i'd not read the book until a few months ago, but the inpact it seems to have had was incredible. everytime someone or something appeared i'd give a sly knowing smile, and quite a few times i'd have to make a conscious effort to not well-up... c'mon, the 'times are a-changin' minutemen montage! that was one of the most moving things i've ever seen in a film. it was like i knew everyone up there, and i'd been personally involved with the events i was witnessing on screen.

it's pretty normal to discuss the film you've just seen on the way out, however i'd gone with my housemate (who thoroughly enjoyed it), his girlfriend (who simply complained it was too long) and his friend who was staying with us (who said it was one of the worst films he'd seen). i nearly put an axe through his skull there and then.

[Twisted Two-Face]

I literally finished the book in my Dad's car seconds before we entered the theater, to make sure that it was fresh in my mind. And I absolutely loved the movie; it was exactly, though a tad more graphic, as how i pictured it to be, albeit the ending which i do agree was a much better way to go for the film. I'm literally speechless; it left such a great taste in my mouth after i left that i just couldn't stop talking about it...and annoying my Dad who thought it was "alright." But i loved some of the little add-in lines they did, too, and one is gonna stick with me for a long time:

"Wait...Were you working while we were in bed?!?!"

Classic.

And this has me a little pissed off, even though i know it's never going to happen. Did i laugh?? Yes. Would i ever want something like this crap to come about, especially for the sake of sparing Alan Moore a heart attack?? I'll let you decide:

The Watchmen Saturday Morning Cartoon:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/03/06/satur...res-nightmares/

Edit: Damn, Dio beat me to it. This new "first and last" posting feature knida sucks...

Edited March 8, 2009 by Twisted Two-Face

[entertheninja!]

Well it hit number one with 56 million looks like most watched the watchmen.

[IndieMate]

Ok, so I just saw the movie today, and it was, well, really good! My only complaint was that the movie was a little long. Yeah, it was pretty graphic, but this is Watchmen, not Finding Nemo!

[BrobotC]

in tthe opening scene with ozymandias @ studio 54,did anyone see david bowie,mick jagger,and the village people?

[NorthRaider]

Yes.

(Or at least I recognized David Bowie. In any case I was all smiles after that scene... up until what came a little while afterward...)

EDIT: Tried searcing for the movie's opening credits on YouTube (and I suggest you do it ASAP as well given that YouTube might take these down). I'm just a little bummed that almost all the ones I found flash "This video is not available in your country" to me

And 5 whole minutes for the opening credits! After watching them the first time I was kinda stuck between "Man, this feels like it's going on forever" and "Aww, it's over already?"

Edited March 8, 2009 by NorthRaider

[SErge]

if you wanna watch the opening credits, go to watchmencomicmovie.com

enjoy

[Trekker 42]

if you wanna watch the opening credits, go to watchmencomicmovie.com

enjoy

Gone now.

And I saw it. And I liked it a lot. I didn't love it, but I liked it. It was a little too explicit for my taste. But he captured it really well. The Rorschach cleaver scene and the bandsaw was way uncalled for and that I did not like. But otherwise, it was very perfect. Rorschach was THE best performance and Dr Manhattan and Comedian tied for second. Silk Spectre pissed off me and my kinda-girlfriend (who, alongside Mom, hated the movie.) as neither of us liked the performance. My favorite scene was Riot-Busting. It captured both of the characters so well.

[Dio]

Has anyone played the Watchmen game, The End is Nigh? Rorschach's commentary while beating up bad guys is the best XD

[NorthRaider]

How The Studios Would Have Ended Watchmen

This is really hilarious, and I like pointing this out to people since it says in a nutshell everything Watchmen ISN'T supposed to be

[entertheninja!]

Has anyone played the Watchmen game, The End is Nigh? Rorschach's commentary while beating up bad guys is the best XD

i played a couple levels at the palms...it was fun its really a beat em' up game tho...

[Turtle]

I finally saw this today. Overall i thought it was ok, but no masterpiece. Rorschach, Dreiberg, and Blake were all good performances. Dr. Manhattan was appropriately distanced. I didn't mind the sex or nudity- in fact, it would have been weird without it. In fact, There were a few problems. I thought there was too much graphic violence. Unnecessary and out of place- cleaver, alley fight, saw. I also didn't like Veidt. I didn't like the actor's portrayal and I didn't really care for his costume.

He immediately screamed villain, not Apollo.

And I didn't like the changed ending. It was a change that I thought was unnecessary at best.

The monster works because it is ultimately humanity's fear of the unknown that unites us. Dr. Manhattan was known, even if not fully understood. The movie and book end with Dr. Manhattan reclaiming his humanity, so I don't like thematically what that does. Sure, he goes into exile, but that is because he has confronted his own monster, that ever unknown free choice. And then there is the fact that I don't believe the world would suddenly unite because one of America's toys went rogue. The alien monster thing might be a bigger pill to swallow, but that is the point.

Yeah, so, overall it was ok. It was for the most part a very spot on adaptation, but I think the changes as they were made really show that Zach Snyder didn't quite get what made the book so incredible. Watchmen is great because it is a great story, not because it's a wild action-adventure superhero adventure. No need to amp up the action when the words speak for themselves.

[Bob Harris]

EDIT: Tried searcing for the movie's opening credits on YouTube (and I suggest you do it ASAP as well given that YouTube might take these down). I'm just a little bummed that almost all the ones I found flash "This video is not available in your country" to me

Yeah, I'm living in the wrong country as well, wonder where the right country might be...

Anyway, for you Raider and everybody else in wrong countries, here are the opening credits in their full beauty officially provided by the company that actually produced them. (As far as I see it.)

in tthe opening scene with ozymandias @ studio 54,did anyone see david bowie,mick jagger,and the village people?

Now that we have the possibility to watch the credits over and over again, I spotted author Truman Capote next to Andy Warhol.

He immediately screamed villain, not Apollo.

That is exactly what I meant when I was criticizing "him" a few post and several black bars above. You totally got to the point with that comment. Thanks for that, Turtle.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Bob Harris

[Turtle]

I live to serve.

I enjoyed the opening credits- kind of a neat way to get a lot of history in without bogging down the story. As for Silhouette, I didn't take that as condoning anything at all. A brutal murder of a lesbian character is hardly an overwhelming endorsement of a homophobic attitude. If anything it underscored the escalating (re)actions of a conservative mindset that is struggling to survive in an ever changing world, the same mindset that is reflected by Comedian and Rorschach- the two characters that ultimately are unable to survive, unable to cope, unable to compromise.

I also think the movie missed the mark by not including a literal translation of the first page. The whole story opens with a psychotic rant from Rorschach's journal. As the view moves up, we see the policemen at Blake's. The first spoken line is by one them: "Hmm. That's quite a drop." Sure, he is referring to the Comedian's fall, but we as readers can get that it is also a refernce to Rorschach, who just walked through the very place that Comedian landed. And it is such a great hint at Rorschach's fate and its complex relation to Blake's own death. And I love how it starts with a zoom in on the details and slowly reveals the big picture. Brilliant. With the whole story in place, the first page of Watchmen stands, in my opinion, as one of the single greatest pages of comics ever. It is sublime. And also completely ignored in the movie.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Turtle