hence the superfast scrolling ive been doing
Nope. There is no after credits scene in this movie.
By the way you really shouldn't be reading this topic until after you have seen the movie if you want to avoid spoilers.
WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
I didn't like that either. I would have prefered the Antartica scenes to have ended the way they did in the movie, with Manhatten talking to Ozymandias where Ozy is clearly starting to become bothered by his actions. It was a good scene they turned into a crappy one in the movie.
But of course, Hollywood convention dictates that Manhatten has to talk to his bitch before departing the Earth...
Agreed. But am I the only one glad that they removed the bit where Dan and Laurie have sex again after exposing the big plot and seeing all those people die? That always struck me as odd.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
It was post-traumatic sex. Seriously. Just two people not knowing how to deal with it and wanting to draw strength from each other. That's how I perceived it, anyway.
That helps quite a lot actually. I just wish the movie had been as clear as you've just been.
I feel like a lot of dramatic connective tissue was missing that would have filled in these blanks for people like me who never read the GN.
I saw this at the IMAX yesterday. I'm going with C+ for the moment. Btw. I'd read the graphic novel a few weeks beforehand.
I think my main issue with this film is that it felt really uneven to me, on several levels.
For one, the whole thing never seemed to develop a natural flow. Sometimes it's incredibly fast paced, sometimes it just seems plodding. And, to me, it mostly didn't feel like that was coming from the story.
Then I wasn't too happy with the music. I loved some of the music they used ("All Along the Watchtower" or music from Koyaanisqatsi, for example) but generally felt they had too many individual pieces that ended up feeling disjointed. I can certainly understand using different songs to evoke the feeling of the 80's, but they went overboard for my tastes. Oh, and "99 Luftballons" just totally took me out of the scene and the movie.
Generally speaking, I felt the film would have benefitted from a more powerful, all-encompassing score that would have joined all the very different individual set pieces.
Also, I felt the level of acting was all over the place. For example, Haley as Rorschach was tremendous and a joy to watch whereas I found Goode as Veidt to be extremely underwhelming.
Another thing that bothered me was the uneven level of quality in the special effects. Some scenes looked fantastic, others just looked really cheap to me. This was something I also noticed about "300" and I wonder where this might be coming from.
Something that really bugged me was the Nixon character. I felt the makeup looked awful, and the actor just made me want to cringe all the time. In fact, I felt that somehow all of the scenes with the politicians and/or military people fell pretty flat.
I also really felt that Snyder was lacking a real visual concept. He seemed, in my mind, far too interested in crafting individual, cool-looking scenes instead of contemplating what that meant for the film as a whole.
Something I felt was really uncalled for was some of the gore and violence. Yes, the graphic novel has plenty of it. But isn't that all the more reason not to want to try and top that? Examples include Rorschach basically splitting that guys skull as well as the guy in prison who got his arms flexed off. No reason to go into that kind of 'detail' in my mind other than going for shock effect.
Having said all that, I definitely think the graphic novel is very hard to put on screen. As such, they certainly made a good effort. I was entertained most of the time and didn't really notice the length. I also really enjoyed characters such as Rorschach or Jon, some of the humor that came from the comic as well as some of the very beautiful scenes such as Jon's remembering on Mars.
I think maybe one of the biggest failings here is that the film doesn't take enough liberties. It's another medium and has the right to separate itself where it makes sense. Look at 2001 or Blade Runner / Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for examples of where this worked wonders. For example, the biggest liberty they took, changing the ending, worked really well in my mind. It seemed better suited to a movie and, I'm guessing, was more likely to be understood by the audience if you'd never read the graphic novel.
I think another problem is with Snyder. He's just that THAT good as a director in my mind. I get the impression that he's too focussed on individual scenes rather than the movie as a whole (hence all my complaints about things feeling uneven or lacking concept) and can get carried away by his sense of style at times, sacrificing characters and depth in the process.
Despite all my criticisms and a C+, I'd probably still recommend the movie, at least to some people. It has a lot that is worthwhile, I think.
I think my main issue with this film is that it felt really uneven to me, on several levels.
For one, the whole thing never seemed to develop a natural flow. Sometimes it's incredibly fast paced, sometimes it just seems plodding. And, to me, it mostly didn't feel like that was coming from the story.
Then I wasn't too happy with the music. I loved some of the music they used ("All Along the Watchtower" or music from Koyaanisqatsi, for example) but generally felt they had too many individual pieces that ended up feeling disjointed. I can certainly understand using different songs to evoke the feeling of the 80's, but they went overboard for my tastes. Oh, and "99 Luftballons" just totally took me out of the scene and the movie.
Generally speaking, I felt the film would have benefitted from a more powerful, all-encompassing score that would have joined all the very different individual set pieces.
Also, I felt the level of acting was all over the place. For example, Haley as Rorschach was tremendous and a joy to watch whereas I found Goode as Veidt to be extremely underwhelming.
Another thing that bothered me was the uneven level of quality in the special effects. Some scenes looked fantastic, others just looked really cheap to me. This was something I also noticed about "300" and I wonder where this might be coming from.
Something that really bugged me was the Nixon character. I felt the makeup looked awful, and the actor just made me want to cringe all the time. In fact, I felt that somehow all of the scenes with the politicians and/or military people fell pretty flat.
I also really felt that Snyder was lacking a real visual concept. He seemed, in my mind, far too interested in crafting individual, cool-looking scenes instead of contemplating what that meant for the film as a whole.
Something I felt was really uncalled for was some of the gore and violence. Yes, the graphic novel has plenty of it. But isn't that all the more reason not to want to try and top that? Examples include Rorschach basically splitting that guys skull as well as the guy in prison who got his arms flexed off. No reason to go into that kind of 'detail' in my mind other than going for shock effect.
Having said all that, I definitely think the graphic novel is very hard to put on screen. As such, they certainly made a good effort. I was entertained most of the time and didn't really notice the length. I also really enjoyed characters such as Rorschach or Jon, some of the humor that came from the comic as well as some of the very beautiful scenes such as Jon's remembering on Mars.
I think maybe one of the biggest failings here is that the film doesn't take enough liberties. It's another medium and has the right to separate itself where it makes sense. Look at 2001 or Blade Runner / Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep for examples of where this worked wonders. For example, the biggest liberty they took, changing the ending, worked really well in my mind. It seemed better suited to a movie and, I'm guessing, was more likely to be understood by the audience if you'd never read the graphic novel.
I think another problem is with Snyder. He's just that THAT good as a director in my mind. I get the impression that he's too focussed on individual scenes rather than the movie as a whole (hence all my complaints about things feeling uneven or lacking concept) and can get carried away by his sense of style at times, sacrificing characters and depth in the process.
Despite all my criticisms and a C+, I'd probably still recommend the movie, at least to some people. It has a lot that is worthwhile, I think.
I never liked that scene in the comic. Dan just goes off to screw Laurie by a swimming pool while Rorschach gets blown anyway outside? The movie did a better job showing that Dan gave a damn about his friendship with Rorschach by having Dan follow Rorschach outside to witness his death.
I suspect that the frightening answers to this question are why the U.S. government never tried duplicating the accident that created him in the first place.
Agreed. And I think his loving slow-motion close-ups of every cut, every compound fracture slow the film's pacing to a grinding halt and distract from the overall narrative. He brought along too much of his Frank Miller/300 sensibilities.
Glad I could help. Looking at it from the perspective of someone who HASN'T read the graphic novel, I can see there being some missing pieces to the overall puzzle of the film.... pieces that are essential if the plot is to be understood by the average moviegoer. I saw this same flaw in the theatrical versions of the Lord of the Rings films, as well (The Two Towers in particular). The extended editions of those films fleshed out their stories a bit, and I expect the Director's Cut and Ultimate Edition DVDs for Watchmen will do the same.
Uneven seems to be the right word.
The score was really uninspired, particularly in the Dr. Manhattan history scenes. Those were some of my favorite in the book and they were dull in the movie.
The actress playing Silk Spectre II was not very good.
Doc Manhattan was unimpressive and not very interesting. They could have at least done something with his voice.
The guy playing Rorschach was not as good as he needed to be.
The exposition scene where the plot is suddenly dumped on us is kept pretty much intact from the book.
On the other hand,
Night Owl was fantastic. Comedian was great. The first hour was very well done. Archimedes looked awesome. Movie was quite faithful to the book (and preserved some of its flaws).
So I'm left with a hollow feeling. Oh well.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
I think there were a few big flaws with this movie:
1. The scene where the Comedian is revealed to be Silk's father just doesn't have the same resonance in the movie as it does in the book. In the book, this plotline is more developed; we get this flashback which shows us just how much she hates him, where she gets drunk and throws wine in his face. In the movie, she seems ambivalent towards him, so when she finally finds out the truth there's no reason to see why she should go all "Luke Skywalker" on us.
Plus, she's just more screwed up in the book; she's a real basket case..so we feel more sorry for her. For instance, in the movie, she leaves her home voluntarily because she's upset with Jon. But in the book, she's literally got nowhere to go because the government's basically tossed her out on her ass after he's left Earth. In the book, she really doesn't have a life without Jon.
2. I felt they screwed up the end, and I'm not even talking about the lack of squid (which I missed). It was more the whole sense of pacing when they get to Veidt's lair. I mean, it's so damn perfect in the book, especially the scene where he reveals "I did it 35 minutes ago". I mean, that's practically the scene of Watchmen, but it doesn't play nearly as well in the movie. Then they cut the "nothing ever ends" scene which is where Veidt gets his comeuppance; there's no reason why that should have been cut...that line practically ties into the whole theme of the character.
3. I think the Minutemen characters, though essential to the book, could have been eliminated entirely from the movie because they don't get enough development to make them worthwhile anyway. The movie could have benefited from a more in-depth look at the lives of the main six characters instead.
1. The scene where the Comedian is revealed to be Silk's father just doesn't have the same resonance in the movie as it does in the book. In the book, this plotline is more developed; we get this flashback which shows us just how much she hates him, where she gets drunk and throws wine in his face. In the movie, she seems ambivalent towards him, so when she finally finds out the truth there's no reason to see why she should go all "Luke Skywalker" on us.
Plus, she's just more screwed up in the book; she's a real basket case..so we feel more sorry for her. For instance, in the movie, she leaves her home voluntarily because she's upset with Jon. But in the book, she's literally got nowhere to go because the government's basically tossed her out on her ass after he's left Earth. In the book, she really doesn't have a life without Jon.
2. I felt they screwed up the end, and I'm not even talking about the lack of squid (which I missed). It was more the whole sense of pacing when they get to Veidt's lair. I mean, it's so damn perfect in the book, especially the scene where he reveals "I did it 35 minutes ago". I mean, that's practically the scene of Watchmen, but it doesn't play nearly as well in the movie. Then they cut the "nothing ever ends" scene which is where Veidt gets his comeuppance; there's no reason why that should have been cut...that line practically ties into the whole theme of the character.
3. I think the Minutemen characters, though essential to the book, could have been eliminated entirely from the movie because they don't get enough development to make them worthwhile anyway. The movie could have benefited from a more in-depth look at the lives of the main six characters instead.
Last edited:
You know Norrin, both of those are good points that I hadn't really let sink in fully.
I left the theater feeling that Laurie not being clearly defined as Jon's government comfort woman took some elements of sympathy from her, as well as being annoyed by the Doc 'memory plot device' and the removal of his line. I hadn't thought quite as deeply as you have but I agree with your points.
Also, I think you have a very valid point regarding the end scene. It did seem rather anti-climactic.
I left the theater feeling that Laurie not being clearly defined as Jon's government comfort woman took some elements of sympathy from her, as well as being annoyed by the Doc 'memory plot device' and the removal of his line. I hadn't thought quite as deeply as you have but I agree with your points.
Also, I think you have a very valid point regarding the end scene. It did seem rather anti-climactic.
Last edited:
It wasn't a speech impediment. It was a slight German accent. The idea is that he adopts an American Midwestern accent when speaking in public, and reverts to a natural German accent when speaking with friends in private.
Silk Spectre/Laurie suffered not only from a poor actress in the role but by the fact they gutted her backstory. Her mommy issues (being forced to become a superhero) are really downplayed and her hatred of Blake is nonexistent. When she didn't start ripping on Blake after Rorshach revealed he was killed, I knew something was up. Without that crucial backstory (not to mention the great scene of her confronting Blake in Washington), the payoff has no punch to it whatsoever.
Agreed on Veidt as well. The sequence play out perfectly in the comic but not in the movie.
Random Question Time:
Where did Silk Spectre (Laurie) get the pistol she used near the end of the film?
Where did Silk Spectre (Laurie) get the pistol she used near the end of the film?
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
Likely in a cut scene that didn't make it to the movie.
Laurie grabbed the pistol from the cop she knocked out during the prison escape scene. You can see it on her when she is talking to Dr. Manhattan on Mars.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
In my opinion, this movie shows the folly of being almost faithful to the source material. If you're going be faithful and use that to as a selling-point for your movie, then you should be completely faithful (within reason of course). You don't do it for 90% of the movie and then make up so much of the last 10%. Because it's that last 10% which is often the most important and memorable part to the fans. It is, after all, the climax of the whole work. I'm just saying, it undermines the rest of that 90% if all of a sudden you're trying to do your own thing for arguably the most essential part of the story.
You have a pretty good eye. I've seen the film twice now and didn't notice that Laurie was packin' heat. A gun, I mean.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
I honestly didn't think that either Silk Spectre was badly acted at all. Indeed, it was the lack of development that was the kicker.
Also, I have to give kudos to the actors. I especially thought Nite Owl was great, and I'm saying that because he's the "everyman" of the whole thing. He didn't have the juiciest part and was not as "colorful" as the other male leads, and yet he really helped carry the movie well.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
