WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)

Well his mask was originally designed to be a dress so he shouldn't of been able to see though it. It's one of those little things I can forgive though.

The reason the ink blots change shape is because Doctor Manhattan created the material. They don't explain that at all in the movie.

 

I never said he couldn't, but the moment you have something that is thin, you also have something that is not thick enough to slow a bullet down slowly and trap it in the material. The moment you have something that is thin and can yet stop a bullet, the bullet simply bounces off.

 

I watched it twice on Imax, it's too big to miss on an imax screen, it's stuck in his hand (but only slightly), he pulls it out, so it's broke the material, whatever it is.

 

But you have no problem with suspending disbelief for the Owlship or the giant Blue Man who travels through time and space?

 

This is a valid point.

 

I finally saw this film last night. I didn't like 300 and was fearing for the action sequences. I hated that quick-stop-quick action style more than anything, but at least it seems to kinda work at some spots.
I have not read the book.
Overall, its clear that theyw ere slavishly trying to adapt something page for page that they forgot to do what Jackson and his team did for adapting Lord of the Rings, which is to actually reduce the story to its bare essence... and write screenplay for that, while gradually adding the exquisite detail of the book whenever possible. As a result, LOTR played like a film that anyone could understand, despite the level of complexities.

This film seemed to be so close ot the book that they lost their own objectivity. There were extended flashback stoey-tellling sequences for the Comedian and Manhattan that were just placed randomly in the film, and between those two flashbacks (which were very long) was a few lines of dialogue in present day like "we have to find the comedian".

The idea that somehow everythingis like a practical joke was said more than once in the film, each time it came awkwarddly out of the mouths of whoever said it. It's interesting that this philosophy is the Comedian's raison d'tre, but since we only this character from flashbacks and what other characters say about him, the way this underlying reason for his why he is sosinister is delievered through awkward exposition.

I was lost in the early parts of thefilm, as characters were there that I didn't know. Sometimes that technique works in a film, but here it only partially did. It was wired.

I liked Nite Oil. To me he was both Superman and Batman combined into one character. I mean he didn't have Superman powrs, but he's regular persona was more like the mild-mannered Clark Kent than the playboy Bruce Wayne. I liked the fact that he couldn't get it up without the costumes causing thearousal.

The bad guy plot and his base were all failry terrible. The base itself seemed like a bad set, and was more excuseable (and almost exactly like) Dr. Noah's base in "Our Man Bashir." (DS9)

Movies with true ensembles rather than one or two main characters are difficult to pull off. iad more this one for trying, but I didn't know which charcter to really get behind. I guess rorshack. hewas kinda coo even if his lines were overwriteten (I know I know it was all from the book).

I liked all the references to time, the eleventh houtr, five minutes to the end. The spot of bood on the smiley pin wantdered near that area (if the pin is clockface) Even the bathroom door swinging back and forth in the prison bathroom was lick a ticking clock (that was Snyder's best directors' moment for me)

So there you go. B-.

 

That's kinda what I've been saying all along. But whereas The Lord of the Rings can be reduced to one bare central story (Frodo must take the One Ring to Mt. Doom), Watchmen never had that strong spine. That's what makes Watchmen so difficult (impossible, IMO) to adapt well.

That's another fundamental fact about the book that makes it work better as a book than a movie. The book is a true ensemble piece and doesn't particularly side with any of the characters. Books are better at getting away with telling sprawling stories that don't have a real "rooting interest." All of the characters have their various moments in the spotlight but none for more than an issue or 2. Nite Owl is probably the most conventional hero but he ultimately comes across as a bit of a lightweight. Dr. Manhattan is so far removed from humanity that it's difficult to relate to him at all. Rorschach is a dangerous, unstable psychopath (who got a bit over-glorified in the movie). Laurie is the most dynamic character of the bunch but her catharsis when she discovers that the Comedian is her father is kinda removed from the larger issues regarding Ozymandias' plot and so forth.

In a way, I suppose the book kinda takes things from Dr. Manhattan's perspective in that events are somewhat non-linear and are presented entirely without judgment.

 

yeah I agree it takes his perspective. Of course, it's very late in the story that we actually learn who he is.

 

^And I mean that in more of a metaphorical way than a literal one.

 

ah I see.

The question is whether Snyder and the screenwriters (not: not the original comic writers) are talented enough to tell a story from a non-linear perspective and have it be coherent. This kind of story telling challenges even the greatest directors.

In allWatchman seems like a sequel to a film I've not seen, and not even much of a sequel, but the film deliberately there to just tie up loose threads from a film i've never seen rahter than a coherent story that is either new or builds from a previous story. Yet if it truely was a sequel, than you wouldn't have needed the awkward 20 minutes each to explain in flashbacks the stories of Manhatten and Comedian, becuase that would have been covere din the "first" film.

 

They do not defy the laws of logic, even if they may defy the laws of physics. A thin material that can slow a bullet down and trap it though, DOES defy the laws of logic. It's the "Eating your cake and having it too" problem. The moment you've eaten your cake, it's gone, you can no longer have it. There are ways you can stop a bullet; but you can't have a material be AND thin, AND thick enough to slow a bullet down and trap it. See? The two contradict. Thin AND thick doesn't work. It's either thin or thick, but you can't have it both. Hence, it defies the laws of logic; and defying that is bad.

 

It was made from superhyperion thread as explained by one of the notes on Adrian's desk which you can only see if you strain.

 

The folks at Aberdeen Proving Ground would like to introduce you to a material called shear thickening fluid.

Of course, that doesn't mean anything, considering that Adrian wasn't wearing a glove, and his hand was visibly pierced by the bullet, at least in the comics.

Somehow, Adrian caught the bullet, injuring his hand in the process. It's interesting to note that, in the comics, he placed his hand against his body, which may have armor underneath or special fabric (superhyperion thread, which may be their version of STF.)

The only problem I see is the fact that his hand should be destroyed, even if braced against bulletproof armor. Did he surgically implant or fortify his hands with something?

 

Has anyone picked up Watchmen: Tales of the Black Freighter? I got it today and I watched the second feature, Under the Hood. I thought they did a great job and I really enjoyed it. I only wish it were longer.

 

^I got it from Netflix yesterday, but I haven't had the chance to watch it.

 

Just saw it this weekend; couldn't believe how the parts that were so faithful to the book captured the soul as well as the content, I was actually tearing up a bunch of times, in joy. I've read the book countless times, and put me in the minority that thinks the film does a better job with the resolution. the graphic novel is genuine literature, but this film is a seriously worthy adaptation. The embellishments (like the lesbian version of the ww 2 victory kiss of the nurse) were really inspired.

Between this and the BSG finale, I am telling everybody I've finally had a week that made up for December 1979 when TMP and BLACK HOLE came out (technically that year made up for itself, because APOCALYPSE NOW and ALL THAT JAZZ came out within about four months of each other, but even so ... )

 

^I'd agree that many of the things new to the movie were the highlights (though, on reflection, the Last Supper and the VJ Kiss were cool, but senseless. Why pose the Silk Spectre as Jesus? Why, when she's kicked out of the Minutemen and then killed for being gay, would Silhouette kiss a stranger on the street?)

I've just reread the original, and I'm surprised at how much emotion there is in it, that was drained from the movie. So many beats in the comic that were weird or missing from the movie.

And the climax... in the original, the tension builds from the riot, to the discovery of Adrian, to the squid, to Manhattan's death... with the climax arguably being Rorschach's death. But the movie, in my memory, climaxes with either the sex scene (I love that pun) or with the prison riot. Everything after that is kind of bloodless and told, rather than shown. Even the bombing and the aftermath... meh. It's tragic because we're told it's tragic - no one really reacts, or is sad.

I might see it again the same reason I saw Nemesis twice - just to pinpoint where exactly it falls apart.

(Glad we're not talking about the bullet catch anymore!)

 

I guess I'm late to the party; you guys seem to be the only ones still discussing this movie, which is a shame, because it's worth talking about. I didn't read the comic Back When, but picked it up because of all the movie hullabaloo; it drove me to see the movie. I'm glad I saw it, and (especially) glad I read it. I think by now I can spoil the crap out of this, so I'm gonna. For the record:

WARNING! HERE THERE BE SPOILERS!

The movie was very true to the core of the book, I felt. Some of the book's depth was necessarily lost, in part due to the changed ending. The whole pirate bit was no longer necessary, for example. That part was frankly tedious in the book but helped the suspension of disbelief by fleshing out part of the story that was "off-camera".

The major actors were terrific. The Comedian evoked real emotions in me. Doc "SuperEmo" Manhattan came across just right. Veigt, I felt, was perhaps a little too airy, but he spoke with conviction at times that really came across and drove his character home. Nite Owl and SS2 were played fantastically, but the characters took some collateral damage in the Hollywoodization. Rorschach, the same - but more so and less so, respective-like.

Nite Owl got my sympathy early on as a somewhat geeky, shy, pretty nice guy, limited somewhat by his insecurity and lack of goals. In the riot flashbacks, he tries, to be the voice of calm but hates confrontation and so addresses the crowds instead of the Comedian. Then, stab Snyder's eyes, he lost a lot of that sympathy. First, he was too violent and too capable in the street fight. Then, to find that Archie was equipped with lots of killin' and no squirt gun or noisemaker... well, it just seems out of character. Not that I insist on those specific tools, but Nite Owl should pack nonlethal force when it's an option.

I don't have the same objection with Specter Junior. You get the feeling, more in the movie than the book, that she's always ready to let out a little frustration the hard way. Her fighting capability meshes okay with her background, if you allow somewhat for Snyder's general excess. She does, however, lose a few points for rushing straight into Dan's arms. The sequence felt a bit forced; the book does it almost as quickly but much more naturally.

Rorschach... was indeed badass. But I felt that the movie softened him a bit (no, really!). They took out the random-bar-patron torture scenes, replacing them with an offhand comment. The child molester made a big deal about confessing, and Rorschach was kind enough to kill him quickly. And he broke down quickly with the shrink. His fighting skills, like everyone's, got cranked through the roof, which detracted only slightly from him. I felt he was much more powerful when depicted as an obsessed, somewhat paranoid, very resourceful man, who relied on fear as much as fighting prowess. His adaptive, improvisational fighting was depicted well, but lost something when he could have chosen just to kick everyone's ass with fists and feets of fury.

Cap'n Metropolis was neat, but I don't miss him much in the movie. The only advantage to having him would be to avoid having the Comedian embarrass Veigt, and that's not critical to the characters or story.

The makeup crew needs to be sent back to work in children's theaters.

The soundtrack was jarring. It was a clear attempt to force emotional resonance with Snyder's vision, and it failed. I found myself not feeling the moment, instead going "what the hell?"

The ending... the ending... I'm'a go out on a limb and say that the movie ending was very, very close to perfect without quite hitting the mark. The book's ending was very, very close to perfect but with a major flaw. Each was good for its medium, but each could have been better.

Snyder's error, I felt, was the same as his other mistakes: he overdid it. He had Veigt attack multiple cities; the disaster lost some impact by being worldwide. Moore had the right instincts to pick a single city and blow it all to hell; it's easier for the audience to feel the impact of the loss.

(The book's mistake was egregious and bothered me immediately; the octopus was partially engineered from the brain of a "psychic sensitive", and was in part a big psychic bomb. But the book never laid any groundwork for psychically sensitive people. Moore just assumed we'd accept that the world would have psychic folks, that they were recognized generally, and that somehow they had no impact on history.)

But only one thing really, really bothered me in the movie. It's a small thing, but it drove me absolutely nuts. It still does, and always will. It takes away so much from the point of the movie that it nearly ruins it:

The Watchmen.

The team, I mean. Naming the second-generation almost-team "the Watchmen" is stupid, and Snyder and the writers are stupid for doing it. It completely changes the meaning of the movie. If the team was called the Watchmen, then the movie is just a chronicle of events. If they aren't, it becomes a discussion on the nature of individuals with power and how they use it. Honestly, that change makes me wonder whether the writers or Snyder understood the book.

I liked the movie, I'm cool with the changes; I think some of it was overeager, but it was good. I'd go eight-out-of-ten if he hadn't renamed the not-a-team, but it loses two points for that. Six.

 

Tell me where you get your meds. I need that kind of smack right now.

Seriously, I'd be the first to agree that the film made inspired choices in a lot of ways (especially the ending), but now that I think about it, it's almost like TMP in terms of what went wrong.

For both films, the underlying story, most of the production design, most of the casting, and some scenes were amazing, but both needed major script overhauls, and I'd argue that someone else should have taken care of the action scenes for Watchmen, which range from irritatingly slow to fucking ridiculous.

I honestly think they could've used a professional writer here, because they tried to be faithful to the comic AND rewrite half of it, and ended up with hodgepodge of different concepts, themes, and stylistic choices. The jump cuts and slo-mo didn't help that impression, but cutting up and rewriting sections of the comic and then plastering THAT onto celluloid felt like a half-assed move, even for Snyder. I enjoyed watching it, but I wasn't really drawn into the film for the whole time. It felt like I was watching two different films cut together; one creative and entertaining (if excessively gory at times) and one a bit more subdued in presentation. Despite all the efforts to adapt the story to film format, it felt like they focused too much of the surface and not the structure.

Of course, I enjoyed Casino Royale, so I'd expect us to disagree on a few things.

 

The writers probably wanted to give the team a more catchy name for the movie. I've never been a fan of the name Crimebusters so I don't have a big problem with it.