WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)

[c0rnedfr0g]

ugh, sooooo long. it took forever to get going, and seemed to have a lot of unnecessary character back story. I heard it was action every 40 min or so, which was about right. The back story could've easily been fleshed out over two movies (instead of going the X-Men route of spending 3/4 movie explaining who everyone was). I've not read the graphic novel, but i feel the movie was too ambitious and tried to do too much. I will give it props tho cuz I thought some plot points were gonna be left dangling, unnecessarily (such as Manhattan's first girlfriend) but they weren't. this is a movie that only needs to be seen 1-2 times a decade, max, or at least not all in one sitting (what's with all the loooong movies these days: i avoided benjamin button for the same reason as i almost missed this one).

Can someone explain to me what all the Egyptian religion was at the end?

Also, why the @#%$ did we have to keep seeing that damn blue dong every 2 minutes

Side note: I just saw it tonight, but was surprised to see it wasn't in every theatre in town while Gran Torino (awesome movie) and Taken (over-advertised for my taste, but apparently working nonetheless) still were and with multiple showings.

 

[Caligula]

ugh, sooooo long. it took forever to get going, and seemed to have a lot of unnecessary character back story. I heard it was action every 40 min or so, which was about right. The back story could've easily been fleshed out over two movies (instead of going the X-Men route of spending 3/4 movie explaining who everyone was). I've not read the graphic novel, but i feel the movie was too ambitious and tried to do too much. I will give it props tho cuz I thought some plot points were gonna be left dangling, unnecessarily (such as Manhattan's first girlfriend) but they weren't. this is a movie that only needs to be seen 1-2 times a decade, max, or at least not all in one sitting (what's with all the loooong movies these days: i avoided benjamin button for the same reason as i almost missed this one).

As more time passes, it becomes much clearer that the reason that Watchmen is "failing" is, to once again draw the Serenity comparison, because it was made more for fans than for the general audience. This is not to say it can't be enjoyed by those coming in cold, but it's definitely a tougher sell. A lot of people obviously would have preferred a more action-oriented adventure, as that is what they have come to expect from the superhero genre. I get that. What Watchmen did, both as a graphic novel and as a movie, is turn the world of comic book adventures on its proverbial head. It was more successful at this as an actual comic book.... I doubt there are many who would dispute that.... but I felt (although I submit a certain amount of bias in my opinion) that the movie still gets the job done. It will undoubtably play much better on DVD, once the remaining scenes are restored. Especially since not everyone can be asked to sit for three hour periods to watch a movie they may or may not dig. Which is why the enormity of the success of the Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean trilogies came as a surprise to me.

The only thing I can really offer to counter against your argument (and this is based on personal opinion) is that the X-Men movies, which you cited (and which I also liked), were actually famous for NOT fleshing out their characters, save for Rogue, Wolverine, Professor Xavier, Magneto and, much later, Jean Grey. These are five clearly defined characters, yes, but most of the others are either faces in the crowd or shadows of their comic-book counterparts. One thing Watchmen's characters have going for them is that they are presented exactly as who they are in the original graphic novel.

Can someone explain to me what all the Egyptian religion was at the end?

Well, he took the name of Ozymandias, which is just another name for the Egyptian pharaoh Rameses II (most famously portrayed on-screen by Yul Brenner in The Ten Commandments). Adrian Veidt had a fascination for men like him and Alexander the Great. Not sure what else to say other than that.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I'd say the difference between Serenity & Watchmen is that Universal didn't promote Serenity nearly as much as they should have or could have, whereas Warner Bros. promoted the hell out of Watchmen during its opening weekend. It was the uneven split-down-the-middle critical reception and uneven fan reactions that did it in.

One thing Watchmen's characters have going for them is that they are presented exactly as who they are in the original graphic novel.

Except for Laurie, whose story arc was totally gutted. They couldn't even take 2 seconds to give us an idea of really how much she HATED the Comedian. That whole aspect was so wishy-washy that the revelation of the Comedian being her father just fell flat on its face.

 

[Trek4Ever]

Part of the problem with Watchmen is that aside from the comic book fans, it isn't a well known story. Ask the general public who Nite Owl is and you'd might get a puzzled look. I remember seeing the trailer last year on some preview show and while the male host of the show was very excited, his female co-host had a confused look on her face and said she couldn't tell what the movie was about. Even though I knew I had to see her point, while many might have been oohing and ahhing over seeing Dr. Manhattan blowing apart Viet Cong troops the average viewer wouldn't know what that sequence was about.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Except for Laurie, whose story arc was totally gutted. They couldn't even take 2 seconds to give us an idea of really how much she HATED the Comedian. That whole aspect was so wishy-washy that the revelation of the Comedian being her father just fell flat on its face.

I just don't get that. It should have been obvious to the filmmakers that they lacked a crucial scene establishing her hatred of the Comedian. It'll probably be in the extended version, but it's exclusion in the theatrical cut baffles me.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Part of the problem with Watchmen is that aside from the comic book fans, it isn't a well known story. Ask the general public who Nite Owl is and you'd might get a puzzled look. I remember seeing the trailer last year on some preview show and while the male host of the show was very excited, his female co-host had a confused look on her face and said she couldn't tell what the movie was about. Even though I knew I had to see her point, while many might have been oohing and ahhing over seeing Dr. Manhattan blowing apart Viet Cong troops the average viewer wouldn't know what that sequence was about.

My philosophy is that a good enough movie will get audiences in the theatres, no matter if they have no pre-existing knowledge of the characters. Indeed, doesn't it happen all the time in movies that come from original scripts?

 

[Caligula]

One thing Watchmen's characters have going for them is that they are presented exactly as who they are in the original graphic novel.

Except for Laurie, whose story arc was totally gutted. They couldn't even take 2 seconds to give us an idea of really how much she HATED the Comedian. That whole aspect was so wishy-washy that the revelation of the Comedian being her father just fell flat on its face.

I'll conceed that one, yeah. Still that's only one of them they didn't get quite right.

 

[Dream]

It will undoubtably play much better on DVD, once the remaining scenes are restored. Especially since not everyone can be asked to sit for three hour periods to watch a movie they may or may not dig. Which is why the enormity of the success of the Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean trilogies came as a surprise to me.

LOTR and POTC are long but those movies scream cool for the general public. LOTR has hobbits, wizards and the beautiful Middle Earth setting while POTC has pirates, the caribbean setting, and it's fun.

I don't think Watchmen would have done much better if it was much shorter. It's a very dark movie and complicated to keep track of the story if you don't read the comic. Watchmen is something that you watch once in a while.

 

[Yassim]

One thing Watchmen's characters have going for them is that they are presented exactly as who they are in the original graphic novel.

Except for Laurie, whose story arc was totally gutted. They couldn't even take 2 seconds to give us an idea of really how much she HATED the Comedian. That whole aspect was so wishy-washy that the revelation of the Comedian being her father just fell flat on its face.

I'll conceed that one, yeah. Still that's only one of them they didn't get quite right.

They did an interesting, if not definitive, job with Dr. Manhattan, but they totally lost the idea that his humanity drifted away with time, as he grew used to his powers.

They totally ruined Adrian Veidt. He bore almost no resemblance to the character from the story, and was virtually twirling his moustache all the way through.

So of Nite Owl, Dr. Manhattan, Silk Spectre, the Comedian (who didn't really have an arc), Rorschach and Ozymandias, they got three and a half out of six right. Not great.

 

[Sci]

Can someone explain to me what all the Egyptian religion was at the end?

Well, he took the name of Ozymandias, which is just another name for the Egyptian pharaoh Rameses II (most famously portrayed on-screen by Yul Brenner in The Ten Commandments). Adrian Veidt had a fascination for men like him and Alexander the Great. Not sure what else to say other than that.

Well, it's also a reference to the famous poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley, about a man who has built an empire which in spite of his pretensions at invincibility has long since turned to dust.

 

[JoeZhang]

One thing Watchmen's characters have going for them is that they are presented exactly as who they are in the original graphic novel.

Except for Laurie, whose story arc was totally gutted. They couldn't even take 2 seconds to give us an idea of really how much she HATED the Comedian. That whole aspect was so wishy-washy that the revelation of the Comedian being her father just fell flat on its face.

I'll conceed that one, yeah. Still that's only one of them they didn't get quite right.

Well that and the fact that they turned her and Dan in lethal killers who stab people through the neck without a second though...

What was the actual difference in the film between them and Rorschach? They all murdered people without blinking.

 

[Caligula]

Can someone explain to me what all the Egyptian religion was at the end?

Well, he took the name of Ozymandias, which is just another name for the Egyptian pharaoh Rameses II (most famously portrayed on-screen by Yul Brenner in The Ten Commandments). Adrian Veidt had a fascination for men like him and Alexander the Great. Not sure what else to say other than that.

Well, it's also a reference to the famous poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley, about a man who has built an empire which in spite of his pretensions at invincibility has long since turned to dust.

Yeah, I knew I was leaving out something. Strange that I would, since it's quoted in the graphic novel at the end of Chapter XI (and, I believe, is also visible as an inscription inside Karnak in the movie).

 

[RobertScorpio]

Except for Laurie, whose story arc was totally gutted. They couldn't even take 2 seconds to give us an idea of really how much she HATED the Comedian. That whole aspect was so wishy-washy that the revelation of the Comedian being her father just fell flat on its face.

I'll conceed that one, yeah. Still that's only one of them they didn't get quite right.

Well that and the fact that they turned her and Dan in lethal killers who stab people through the neck without a second though...

What was the actual difference in the film between them and Rorschach? They all murdered people without blinking.

Which is why I hate this kind of comic book material..and the movies they spawn. I only went to this movie because my friend got my ticket for me. The fact there were just five people on a friday night gives me hope. This kind of movie only attracts the very few...thank the Lords of Kobol!!!

Rob

 

[Garak]

Finally got around to seeing it, and I thought it was one of the better movies I'd seen in some time. Gave it an A.

Liked the characters, liked the plot and how it was woven in with flashbacks and I like the overall appearance of the movie, great effects.

 

[Dream]

Which is why I hate this kind of comic book material..and the movies they spawn. I only went to this movie because my friend got my ticket for me. The fact there were just five people on a friday night gives me hope. This kind of movie only attracts the very few...thank the Lords of Kobol!!!

Rob

Well the movie has been out for a few weeks now. There was bound to be less people watching in theaters. It doesn't mean that only a few people like it.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Which is why I hate this kind of comic book material..and the movies they spawn. I only went to this movie because my friend got my ticket for me. The fact there were just five people on a friday night gives me hope. This kind of movie only attracts the very few...thank the Lords of Kobol!!!

Rob

Well the movie has been out for a few weeks now. There was bound to be less people watching in theaters. It doesn't mean that only a few people like it.

I saw it the second friday it was out...no excuse. The only movie I saw on the second friday that had worse attendence? (I was there with two friends) Nemesis...

Rob

 

[Dream]

I saw it the second friday it was out...no excuse. The only movie I saw on the second friday that had worse attendence? (I was there with two friends) Nemesis...

Rob

Your city must really hate Watchmen. There were plenty of people the second time I went which was by the third weekend. Well at least Watchmen won't do as badly as Nemesis.

 

[Caligula]

I saw it the second friday it was out...no excuse. The only movie I saw on the second friday that had worse attendence? (I was there with two friends) Nemesis...

Rob

Your city must really hate Watchmen. There were plenty of people the second time I went which was by the third weekend. Well at least Watchmen won't do as badly as Nemesis.

Indeed not!

Star Trek: Nemesis pulled in a measly $43 million. That's crap even in Star Trek film numbers!! Watchmen, while it still hasn't turned a profit (and won't at this rate), has still earned $104 million and is currently 3rd in 2009 domestic box office, and 2nd in 2009 Worldwide box office. Granted, it'll fall down the chart once the summer movies hit theaters, but it's not the epic failure it's made out to be.

 

[Myasishchev]

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.)

I agree with this.

Firstly, vaporizing multiple cities in order to avert a nuclear war is like killing five hostages to save the sixth.

I don't see why several cities were necessary to drive the point home when one would have sufficed--it seemed totally gratuitous on Veidt's part. New York is dead: do we need to see Moscow and a half dozen other metropoles laid waste to know that John Osterman is Pissed?

Secondly, in the book, the squid was of course a powerful WMD but one immediately obviously different in kind from a nuke. In the film, the Manhattan Power or whatever Veidt was using was really not. Add the multiple cities attacked, and there would have been a very good chance that the United States, Soviet Union, or both, particularly at the level of alert they were operating, would have retaliated immediately.

I will admit that there's an argument against that. Countervalue attacks, namely the destruction of enemy cities, are entirely pointless as part of any rational first strike plan, as it is vitally important to use your own nuclear weapons to target enemy strategic nuclear forces to the exclusion of all else. If NYC blew up tomorrow, we would not look toward Russia or China; even in the 1980s, it would be so puzzling as to warrant investigation.

I'll point out however that Moscow, the Soviet capital, was destroyed by Veidt. The resulting chaos, opacity of information, and absolute need for speed in decisionmaking could easily have led to the Soviet authorities still alive ordering a retaliatory strike with whatever (they believed) they had left.

 

[Ethros]

I finished watching Watchmen: The Motion Comic DVD last night. Great stuff, although it does perhaps drag in places. You can see why the film wasn't 100% faithful, as like the MC it would have been nearly 6 hours long

The Tales of the Black Freighter DVD isn't out on Region 2 until Monday 6th April, so I'll be getting that then.

And I think my local cinema is winding down its showings of the movie now, so I'll be making a third and final trip to see it tomorrow night for the late showing