|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 19, 2009 23:08:47 GMT -5
So, as with The Dark Knight, I've finally seen this movie virtually when everyone else stops giving a shit.
But, I thought I'd make a topic anyway.
My opinion of the movie can be summed up as thus: Fucking. Epic.
I really wouldn't reccommend anyone seeing it without first reading the book, though. That should be self explanatory, but somehow, I bet people still do it.
Hell, I'm pretty sure the people behind me in the theater didn't, or else the phrase, "This is a weird movie" would have never been uttered.
My oh my, the aura of awkwardness coming from them at the 2nd Nite Owl II/Silk Spectre sex scene....
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 19, 2009 23:19:01 GMT -5
When I went to see it, there was a family with young children sitting behind me. I'm sure the mom thought "It's a superhero movie. It'll be perfect to take the kids to," without doing the least bit of research. They were gone by the end of the movie. I kicked myself afterward for not sitting behind them so I could see their reactions.
I have a friend (nice guy but not always the brightest bulb) who, after seeing Watchmen, wanted to read the book. But what he said to me was "I've been looking for the book in bookstores but all I can find is a comic book." *facepalm*
But yeah, awesome movie and a very good adaptation of the book.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 19, 2009 23:37:47 GMT -5
...How did she not realize, when she was there, that it was an R-rated movie?
I kind of wish I was standing outside your theater so I could inform the kiddies about Nite Owl being a furry, and having a weakness to seeing boobs when not dressed up like a bird.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on May 20, 2009 11:34:13 GMT -5
My oh my, the aura of awkwardness coming from them at the 2nd Nite Owl II/Silk Spectre sex scene.... My sister's reaction: "That film was hot!"
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 20, 2009 12:16:19 GMT -5
I really wouldn't reccommend anyone seeing it without first reading the book, though. That should be self explanatory, but somehow, I bet people still do it. I strongly disagree, not with Watchmen specifically, but in general. I've had too many movies ruined for me because I read the book first. Better to watch the movie, enjoy it, then read to book to see why it sucked.
|
|
|
Post by ragabash on May 20, 2009 13:03:22 GMT -5
I'm going to be kind of lazy here and copy paste my comments about it from elsewhere...
I wanted to like Watchmen... I really did.
I suppose one of these days I'll remember that just because someone has shown to the world that something can be done right and be successful it won't always follow that people pay attention. So it was with Watchmen.
I had my first "oh, that's not good" moment during the opening credits, a sad state of affairs because the concept for the credits was a solid one.
What followed was a torrent of violence, and far too much of it. I do not object to violence in a drama, at least if the violence advances the plot somehow, or develops the character. What Watchmen did was precisely the opposite. Nearly every costumed hero is shown as willing and able to kill, a complete undermining of the way the characters are developed in the comic. The rogue costume is willing to kill because he will "never compromise", the simple showcase of his extremist black and white mentality. One of the sanctioned costumes enjoys killing, a trait used by the government of the alternate United States. The others may use violence, but do not intentionally kill.
The movie Watchmen made the most significant mistake that was possible in adapting a comic to the screen. They forgot that comics have their own internal laws and consistencies. Costumed crime-fighters like Batman and Superman don't kill because they don't have to. The internal laws of the comic dictate that villains can be taken alive, and in such a world a "hero" willing to kill is committing an act that is monstrously unnecessary. The Watchmen comic makes sense because it takes place in a world of that type.
The movie instead operates under that laws of an action film. Life is cheap and easily taken. Fights are graphic and bloody, more often than not resulting in the death of one side or the other. In a world like this, a "hero" unwilling to kill is soft, even weak.
This change in the internal logic alters the significance of the characters who did kill. Their actions in the plot didn't change, and thus the significance of their brutality became subdued. In a story intended to be character driven like Watchmen, no greater mistake could be made that changing a defining trait of a major character.
There are further problems with the movie, but none I could talk about without giving spoilers. There are changes that made sense in the plot due to the limitations of putting such a complex story on screen, but there were too many changes that seemed utterly random.
My best description of the movie is to sum it up thusly: The movie would be the end result of taking all subtlety out of the graphic novel and replacing it with violence.
I'm glad I bought my ticket on sale.
And end copy paste. So there's my take on the movie. If you loved it, that's great. I just felt ripped off.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on May 20, 2009 14:56:33 GMT -5
Um...when did Nite Owl II or Silk Spectre II do any killing?
|
|
|
Post by katz on May 20, 2009 15:46:18 GMT -5
Um...when did Nite Owl II or Silk Spectre II do any killing? They wrecked that gang that was trying to kill them in the alley. Or at least I'm going to assume some of them died, they put the fucking boots to them. I enjoyed the movie a lot, myself. It was like a political drama in a superhero costume.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on May 20, 2009 16:20:21 GMT -5
Bah. The gang was still able to wiggle and moan afterward, so they weren't dead. Just reduced to a vegitative quality of life.
Edit: Also, they were directly defending themselves in their civilian identities; personally, I don't think the rules apply then. For another example, see Clark Kent taking revenge on the diner bully in "Superman 2".
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on May 21, 2009 17:46:08 GMT -5
Going back and rereading Rag's review...
Rag, I can't help getting the impression that you're complaining because Watchmen (both comic and movie) take a more realistic approach to their depiction of costumed vigilantes and their societal effect than more mainstream superhero comics.
Face it...if vigilantism was ever written into law, a lot of the people who would take it up would be depraved psychopaths who had been supplied a ready excuse by the government. If anyone in government ever got their political claws into anyone with the training and will to act outside the law with no legal oversight, they would take full advantage of that resource. If any being even APPROACHING the power of Superman or Dr. Manhattan existed, they would deform the worldwide political landscape beyond current recognition. Villains wouldn't come back again and again after being repeatedly trounced...they would either give up crime or be executed if their crimes were heinous enough (the Joker is a great example of the latter). Anyone can be pushed to the point where they would kill...all it takes is the right kind of pressure applied for enough time.
Superhero comics as a whole have always taken too much of a rosy view of humanity, probably because their traditional audience has always been children. Marvel comics do a better job of presenting a "realistic" world, but they're still constrained by the fear of breaking off completely from the real world the way "Watchmen" does.
The thing to remember about "Watchmen" is that it's NOT a "superhero comic/movie". It's Alan Moore's way of saying, "Hey, if superheroes really existed, this is probably how they would affect the world." Most superhero comics and movies are ultimately about the heroes patting themselves on the collective back; "Watchmen" is a deconstruction of the genre, not a celebration of it.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 21, 2009 19:01:25 GMT -5
My response to Rag's review:
Rag, if I'm understanding you, you're pretty much saying that even though the characters' actions are the same, it has a different impact in a comic than it does in a movie because the audience's expectations are different for movies than they are for comic books. So, your complaint is basically that... the filmmakers didn't change the plot? Really?
How can one be character driven and the other not, or one overly violent and the other not, when the stories are virtually identical? (As close as I've ever seen an adaptation match)
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 21, 2009 23:14:01 GMT -5
Peanut: The gang scene was confusing. Despite the fact that one guy was stabbed in the neck, they were definately all alive afterwards, for exactly the reason you stated. Maybe the scene was meant to show how ridiculous the concept of "beating criminals into submission" was?
Ragabash: It's been suggested that the violence in Watchmen was for 2 purposes: 1, to facilitate the movie. There isn't THAT much action in the comic. 2, as part of the whole "deconstructing costumed heroes" thing.
In this case, it is violence for the purpose of furthering characterization.
And, as has sort of been hinted at, Rorschach & the Comedian act exactly the same as they did in the book. So...what's the big difference?
Vene: I suppose this is a good way to go about it, as well. Either way, do both. I'd also reccommend watching the movie again, afterwards, just because they made sure to cram a lot of shit in there for readers to fangasm over.
General comment: Ozymandias was a beast. I'm a little disappointed, though. It's no fault of the movie's, I was just led to believe that there was a whole lot more to the fight with him, and his freakish, Buddhistic superpowers.
|
|
|
Post by ragabash on May 22, 2009 5:39:05 GMT -5
My response to Rag's review: Rag, if I'm understanding you, you're pretty much saying that even though the characters' actions are the same, it has a different impact in a comic than it does in a movie because the audience's expectations are different for movies than they are for comic books. So, your complaint is basically that... the filmmakers didn't change the plot? Really? How can one be character driven and the other not, or one overly violent and the other not, when the stories are virtually identical? (As close as I've ever seen an adaptation match) My complaint is somewhat more complicated than that. I'll try to explain more clearly, as I was trying to avoid spoilers in the post I had copy-pasted. There are plot points that are, essentially almost the same, the fight with the gang, for instance. What is important is not that the fight took place, but the level of brutality. In the comic it was a comic book fight. It was fast, bloodless, and the antagonists could be defeated with little to no permanent damage. That was a classic Golden Age comic book fight. I cannot stress how important this is to my point. By altering the style of violence depicted, some actions, like Rorschach breaking fingers to interrogate someone, have their impact lessened. It is not about the plot, but about the depiction of the plot. Doc Manhattan blows people up in a gory mess instead of them just teleporting them elsewhere or reducing them to atoms. As I talked about above, Nite Owl and Silk Spetre II both break bones, use weapons, etc. in a fight. During the jailbreak, the one prisoner isn't killed before having his arms cut off with a torch, but dies of blood loss from a saw... it's minor points when talking about plot, but a major concern when dealing with the themes and atmosphere of the adaptation. As for the closest adaptation of a comic, I gather you've never seen Sin City? @advent Lithp Rorschach and the Comedian do act the same... my issues are with other characters. as detailed above. Also, you kind of make my point for me when you talk about adding action because the comic didn't have much. It was a dramatic story to deconstruct Golden Age comics, not a 90's action comic. Adding action to the story for the sake of action was not a good idea to me. And to be more clear on the point I made above, it was not violence for the sake of characterization for most characters, because in the source material they did not use that level of violence. A knock-out left hook is vastly different than snapping someone's leg. I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of being contrary. I'm just really particular about movie adaptations, and don't go to see them except in rare cases. I hesitated on Watchmen for that reason, but had enough good reviews that I thought my fears were unfounded. It turned out they weren't, at least to me. Was it a good movie? On its own merits... yes, it would have been. Judging it by the source material though... no, there was too much license taken, and enough that I couldn't look past that.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on May 22, 2009 12:32:29 GMT -5
Maybe I'm biased from seeing too many bloody horror movies or the final scene in the comic, but I always interpreted Dr. Manhattan's killing in the comic as "blowing people up in a gory mess". He was told to deal with the gangsters and Viet Cong by killing them, and he says himself (in the comic) that he no longer understands the moral implications of killing, since he sees everything as simply a collection of atoms. We never see him dealing with the protestors in the Keene Act riots, but I'm sure if they'd included that scene, they would have shown him teleporting the protestors home, with some of them having negative effects from the shock, just like in the comic.
As for the gang fight, again, I disagree that the comic showed it as "quick and bloodless". Remembering that it was intercut with another scene throughout, I saw it as Alan Moore and the artist saying "this fight is more violent than we're showing, but we'll let your imagination fill in the details."
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 22, 2009 14:03:50 GMT -5
|
|