Does Iacocco appear in the novel? I've forgotten - didn't notice him in reviewing it earlier today, but I may have missed him.
WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Does Iacocco appear in the novel? I've forgotten - didn't notice him in reviewing it earlier today, but I may have missed him.
How about Rorshach making some imposible jumps and Molochs freaky ears...
I don't know much about him, but I can't imagine why they would add someone who wasn't from the novel.
Well, I knew from the previews it would be dark and violent, so I was expecting that. New York in the mid-80's was pretty shitty, and especially so in this alternate timeline. But despite all that, it showed that while humans could be awful, we could also be great. I think that's a very positive message.
Still better than all-out war. Was it based on a lie? Yes. But sometimes that's worth it. When it comes to the survival of the species, you can't dick around with morality. A handful of cities and a few million lives is a small price tag to avert a nuclear holocaust.
Two thoughts, both related to Rorschach's journal.
1) The really should have shortened the voiceover readings from it. I know that would upset the faithful, but they were really written to be read on a page, not spoken aloud. When spoken, they were just too long and dense. I didn't make it through a single one without my attention drifting.
2) What is the ending supposed to mean? Does that journalist print everything and thus start World War III, negating everything accomplished in the film? Wow, what a horrible ending.
Ok, so let's assume that's NOT what happens. So what, then? We end the film by zooming in on something that doesn't matter, makes no difference, and amounts to nothing? Uhm...that's ALSO a lame ending!
So I don't know what the last shot meant, but either way it was fairly stupid.
(I enjoyed just about everything else, though!)
1) The really should have shortened the voiceover readings from it. I know that would upset the faithful, but they were really written to be read on a page, not spoken aloud. When spoken, they were just too long and dense. I didn't make it through a single one without my attention drifting.
2) What is the ending supposed to mean? Does that journalist print everything and thus start World War III, negating everything accomplished in the film? Wow, what a horrible ending.
Ok, so let's assume that's NOT what happens. So what, then? We end the film by zooming in on something that doesn't matter, makes no difference, and amounts to nothing? Uhm...that's ALSO a lame ending!
So I don't know what the last shot meant, but either way it was fairly stupid.
(I enjoyed just about everything else, though!)
That's also the way the graphic novel ends. You get to make up your own mind about what happens next.
Great scene not in the book: The Comedian on the grassy knoll, firing the shots that kill President Kennedy.
Last edited:
I figured, but that's my point: both ways I imagine are pretty lame endings.
Usually the "you decide" endings should, you know, give some interesting options. Not just dumb ones.
Oh, one more question. Does the comic explain the deal with Rorschach's mask? I felt it was the one "sci-fi" thing that wasn't explained in the film.
Yes. The mask is made of two layers of latex and in between the layers is a liquid that morphs into various shapes that look like a Rorschach inkblot. The technology is one of many that was made possible by Dr. Manhattan's contributions to science. I assume that it's the same deal with Nite Owl's ship.
Walter Kovacs originally got the material for the mask from a dress he kept while working for a garment company. The woman who ordered it never claimed it. He eventually learned to cut the material without damaging it and made two masks from it.
Last edited:
Yeah they can all handle themselves pretty well in the book, but there's nothing superhuman going on. They don't break people's arms in half, or jump 12 feet in the air, or withstand repeated impacts with brick walls, or fight at an impossible, Neo-style speed. All of which they do with ease in the movie.
Don't get me wrong, I thought most of those fights in the movie were truly BADASS. I just wish Snyder had saved them for a true superhero movie, and not put them in Watchmen.
The fights were just really stylized and over-the-top, but no more so than, say, the fight scenes from "Kill Bill." She didn't have super powers, but you accepted the crazy fights because it was just done to look cool.
Yeah but Kill Bill was an entirely different kind of style and storytelling. The action was clearly intended to be cartoony.
Watchmen was really more of a murder mystery that just so happened to involve people who used to run around in superhero costumes. The action in the book (what little there is) is very brief and shown in a very mundane, matter of fact way. Because it just wasn't what the story was about.
Watchmen was really more of a murder mystery that just so happened to involve people who used to run around in superhero costumes. The action in the book (what little there is) is very brief and shown in a very mundane, matter of fact way. Because it just wasn't what the story was about.
Very true. In the movie they don't really show/tell anything about the New Frontiersman, so people who haven't read the graphic novel don't know that it isn't exactly a highly respected paper. Even if an article is printed about what really happened people may not believe it.
I've never read the graphic novel myself... that's just the overall impression I got from the scene.
Haven't seen the movie but I did see a clip of the prison fight scene which really seemed silly and overblown from what I would have expected. Might catch it at some point but that kind of lowered my interest.
I don't know, the heroes almost seemed to have Buffy style super strenght and endurance. It didn't really bother me, but I can see how someone might get the wrong impression about if they have powers or not.
Good job picking that up. It's basically a tabloid/fringe right wing type paper. The reason Rorschach sent them his diary was because he was a regular reader of the paper (and most of his views on things were similar to the paper's position on the issues).I've never read the graphic novel myself... that's just the overall impression I got from the scene.
loved it!!! A
Only a few quibbles I have. I would have loved to see more of Lauries back story. I felt they kind of rushed that part. Also I would have loved to see more of the impact of the fear of Nuclear war on the street people. But I understand this is going to be in the Directors cut. I also wish they would have cut Bubastis and given Adrian more background. More Hollis would be nice, but again his scenes will be in the Directors cut which is going to be 3hrs 10 minutes I believe.
All in all it was more then what I could have hoped for. I sat grinning for 2 and half hours seeing my favorite comic on the screen. Dan was perfect,Rorschach was great. Laurie was ok but still fun to watch. Jon had some of the best parts in the film. I was mouthing the dialogue to myself the whole entire time. Even my wife loved it and wants to read the book now.
I waited 20 years too see this and it did not disappoint.
Only a few quibbles I have. I would have loved to see more of Lauries back story. I felt they kind of rushed that part. Also I would have loved to see more of the impact of the fear of Nuclear war on the street people. But I understand this is going to be in the Directors cut. I also wish they would have cut Bubastis and given Adrian more background. More Hollis would be nice, but again his scenes will be in the Directors cut which is going to be 3hrs 10 minutes I believe.
All in all it was more then what I could have hoped for. I sat grinning for 2 and half hours seeing my favorite comic on the screen. Dan was perfect,Rorschach was great. Laurie was ok but still fun to watch. Jon had some of the best parts in the film. I was mouthing the dialogue to myself the whole entire time. Even my wife loved it and wants to read the book now.
I waited 20 years too see this and it did not disappoint.
Last edited:
If you accept that insuring the survival of the species is more important than any individual's life, then why not just go whole-hog? Let the species experience the holocaust, and try to survive. Those who do survive, and their descendants, will have a real foundation for making sure that such a thing can never happen again, as opposed to sitting on their house of cards and forgetting just why those pretty bombs shouldn't be used.
(Not that I agree in the slightest. But it seems to me like a more secure way of achieving your goals, if you're already willing to spill blood in the name of a better humanity.)
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
