Hate for the Watchmen movie

[Warped9]

I quite liked the film and I intend to see it again...because, who knows, time may have tempered my opinion.

I do think a lot of folks went into it with erroneous expectations. That's not the film's fault, but how it was marketed. I can't see how it could have been much shorter without losing story. I could have done without some of the slow-motion sequences.

The other thing is we've been seeing the deconstruction of superheroes on film and television for several years now. It's not a new idea anymore as the story was when originally published.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah but if you are going to start the story at the proper narrative moment and yet tell us gobs and gobs of information afterwarsd, first about a previous team (minutemen) to backstories about every sing,e character in flashback despite the fact that people in this world would know them anyway and sine the entire story - the one that's happening NOW- is tied so intricately to all this stuff that happened before the comedian died, why why why is the comedian your starting point?

That's a fairly common narrative structure used to engage the audience from the outset of the story. The murder is the key event that grabs the audience, and then they're slowly given the relevant background information as the plot advances. Many, many novels/films etc have used it over the years.

Stories don't always have to be told chronologically. I thought the structure worked quite well for the Watchmen story, both in the novel and the film.

Yup. The Comedian's murder is the hook. That's why it's right at the beginning. It's the event that sets the rest of the tale in motion. Made perfect sense to me, narratively.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

but this type of narrative here made me feel, again, lie there wa a previous film and that i had missed it

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't get it, were the opening credits not enough backstory for you? I thought they covered the broad strokes of the relevant history pretty well, and the rest got filled in through flashbacks later.

 

[crookeddy]

What did you guys feel about the Black Freighter film that got integrated back into the story in the Ultimate Edition? I think for those that didn't get the point of the movie, the cartoon nailed it with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

 

[Silvercrest]

Visually the movie makers did a fine job. But they missed the boat when trying to convey the themes. These characters are not supposed to be "SUPER-HEROES", shining icons of goodness and morality. They're supposed to be kooks running around in costumes beating people up... and perceived as such by the public. Just as they would be in real life. Virtually every one of Moore's costumed characters either had some pretty strange quirks/hangups, or lived an alternative lifestyle, or was a certified wacko. Or more than one of the above.

How'd the movie "miss the boat" on that? I'm confused by who the shining icons of goodness and morality were in the film, because even the two most virtuous characters got sexually excited by beating the living shit out of people they could have easily subdued with less damage. Then you have the fascist assassin rapist, the psychopath, the genocidal megalomaniac, and the blue god who could easily put an end to the impending war but just doesn't give a shit any more because mortal affairs are trivial to him.

I always felt that Watchmen wouldn't translate effectively to the screen because you'd get one of two results: Either 1) they'd try to make it into a standard superhero movie and totally miss the point, or 2) they'd manage to convey the point and totally turn off the audience who were expecting standard superheroes.

Strangely, both things happened! Although it was more 1).

I honestly don't know how you came away with the impression that it was a standard superhero movie with mostly likable and heroic characters. I can understand not liking it, but you seem to have fundamentally misread what happened in the movie.

I didn't mean to say that the characters were mostly likable and heroic. Only that the makers kept resorting to superheroic tropes when they didn't belong in the movie. The impossible Matrix-fu in the scene you described above, for example. Or when Nite Owl makes an impossible drop to a city street and then stands up imposingly. Wrong kind of movie. These are supposed to be schmucks in costumes, no more than that. They shouldn't be presented to the viewer as any more competent or imposing than the characters in "Mystery Men."

It didn't help that the advertising made it sound like a standard superhero movie, although I guess that's not the makers' fault. I suppose the real question is whether the characters are perceived as schmucks or heroes by everyone else in-universe. I can't remember. I suppose I should watch it again before passing judgement.

 

[Kirkman1987]

What did you guys feel about the Black Freighter film that got integrated back into the story in the Ultimate Edition? I think for those that didn't get the point of the movie, the cartoon nailed it with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

TBF worked a lot better in the book. They couldn't intercut images and dialogue in the same way, and having it animated in the film was awkward. I still like that version just for completeness, and the added Bernie scenes.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

They shouldn't be presented to the viewer as any more competent or imposing than the characters in "Mystery Men."

That's an overstatement. The movie goes further than the comic book in presenting the characters as being effective in action, but the comic book doesn't show them as completely ineffective by any means. Rorschach is depicted as extremely dangerous in hand to hand combat in the comic book. Ozymandias and the Comedian are likewise effective in action, and of course Dr. Manhattan actually has godlike powers. Plus Nite Owl has a flying craft that's actually very impressive. These aren't complete wannabes like Bob Burden's Mystery Men. The important point is that they have neuroses underlying their superhero personae, indeed that their neuroses drive them to go into action in masks and costumes in the first place. The film makes that plain, just as the comic book does.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

They shouldn't be presented to the viewer as any more competent or imposing than the characters in "Mystery Men."

That's an overstatement. The movie goes further than the comic book in presenting the characters as being effective in action, but the comic book doesn't show them as completely ineffective by any means. Rorschach is depicted as extremely dangerous in hand to hand combat in the comic book. Ozymandias and the Comedian are likewise effective in action, and of course Dr. Manhattan actually has godlike powers. Plus Nite Owl has a flying craft that's actually very impressive. These aren't complete wannabes like Bob Burden's Mystery Men. The important point is that they have neuroses underlying their superhero personae, indeed that their neuroses drive them to go into action in masks and costumes in the first place. The film makes that plain, just as the comic book does.

Yeah, I don't think the theme of the graphic novel was that they were bad at what they did, just that they really had no right to do what they did. They weren't elected by anyone, weren't accountable to anyone, and they could just as easily work for nefarious purposes as good ones.

In the case of Ozymandias, it really went to his head and he thought he had not only the right but the obligation to save the world from itself--by any means necessary.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Yeah, I don't think the theme of the graphic novel was that they were bad at what they did, just that they really had no right to do what they did. They weren't elected by anyone, weren't accountable to anyone, and they could just as easily work for nefarious purposes as good ones.

In the case of Ozymandias, it really went to his head and he thought he had not only the right but the obligation to save the world from itself--by any means necessary.

Exactly. If they were ineffective wannabes they wouldn't have had any real impact on society.

 

[ITL]

Yeah, I don't think the theme of the graphic novel was that they were bad at what they did, just that they really had no right to do what they did. They weren't elected by anyone, weren't accountable to anyone, and they could just as easily work for nefarious purposes as good ones.

In the case of Ozymandias, it really went to his head and he thought he had not only the right but the obligation to save the world from itself--by any means necessary.

My favourite panel from the graphic novel is the one which shows Rorschach walking away from a graffiti artist after pounding the snot out of him. The graffiti? an unfinished "Who watches the watchers?". And on the floor, a newspaper showing information relating to the Keane act which would outlaw vigilantes.

A vigilante dealing out unlawful, disproportionate punishment for expressing concern via graffiti that vigilantes weren't accountable...

 

[Silvercrest]

Yeah, I don't think the theme of the graphic novel was that they were bad at what they did, just that they really had no right to do what they did. They weren't elected by anyone, weren't accountable to anyone, and they could just as easily work for nefarious purposes as good ones.

In the case of Ozymandias, it really went to his head and he thought he had not only the right but the obligation to save the world from itself--by any means necessary.

Exactly. If they were ineffective wannabes they wouldn't have had any real impact on society.

Okay, I overstated. Again, I'm only talking about how the characters are perceived by others, particularly in-universe. Not how good they are at what they do, but whether they'd have any kind of reputation outside of the tabloids. I cited the action sequences because those are standard movie tropes to build up the heroes.

It's true that they weren't ineffective wannabes-- otherwise the Keene act wouldn't have been passed. But they didn't have the effect on society that they intended, or thought they did. The Comedian figured that out early on. People like Rorschach never did. He wanted to be Batman, a marauding force of justice whom people feared because criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot. Instead, people feared him the same way you'd fear a mad dog coming down the street.

Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan did have that kind of effect on society-- but not by being superheroes (or villains). They both recognized that the hero game was pointless, and went on to make their mark in other ways.

Most of the other people in the Watchmen universe saw the whole thing as a passing fad from the beginning. They never perceived them as anything other than guys in long underwear running around beating people up-- even if they're very good at it. "Battles, conflicts, whatever it is you super-people do." That's why I started referring to them as schmucks in costumes.

Good or evil, they shouldn't have the reputation of being "legendary" or "larger than life". The graphic novel went to great pains to cut them down to size. I believe the movie was wrong to try to portray them otherwise. That's all I've been trying to say.

 

[LitmusDragon]

Definitely a thumbs up from me. I admire it's ambition.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

It's true that they weren't ineffective wannabes-- otherwise the Keene act wouldn't have been passed. But they didn't have the effect on society that they intended, or thought they did. The Comedian figured that out early on. People like Rorschach never did. He wanted to be Batman, a marauding force of justice whom people feared because criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot. Instead, people feared him the same way you'd fear a mad dog coming down the street.

Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan did have that kind of effect on society-- but not by being superheroes (or villains). They both recognized that the hero game was pointless, and went on to make their mark in other ways.

Most of the other people in the Watchmen universe saw the whole thing as a passing fad from the beginning. They never perceived them as anything other than guys in long underwear running around beating people up-- even if they're very good at it. "Battles, conflicts, whatever it is you super-people do." That's why I started referring to them as schmucks in costumes.

Good or evil, they shouldn't have the reputation of being "legendary" or "larger than life". The graphic novel went to great pains to cut them down to size. I believe the movie was wrong to try to portray them otherwise. That's all I've been trying to say.

The movie got across most of what you just said, particularly the points in your first two paragraphs there. The movie (and its supplemental material) portrays the in-universe public reaction to superheroes as being varied and shifting rather than monolithic and static, which is a realistic approach and in keeping with the comic book.

As for the way the action scenes are shot, I think there's a good reason for it. Those scenes are shot from the POV of the costumed characters and the style they're shot in enhances the feeling of empowerment and - in the case of Dan and Laurie - sexual excitement they get from being costumed superheroes. That's then juxtaposed with their neuroses and questionable actions. If you translated the comic book into the language of film with Dan and Laurie as middle-aged losers in cosplay outfits it would transform the piece from a deconstruction into a spoof.

 

[Silvercrest]

You may have a point there. I'll have to think about that.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Actually I think Snyder shot the action scenes that way because, as with 300, it's his preferred way of showing "hey this live action movement is equated to a still comic book panel," by slowing it down to almost a still panel.

 

[davejames]

Regardless of the intent, the whole movie struck me as being WAY too self-consciously stylish. Other directors (Nolan, Spielberg, Fincher) manage to have very distinctive styles that don't get in the way of the story they're telling, but Snyder doesn't seem capable of that for some reason.

The emphasis here should have been on the story, not on the visuals or costumes or flashy camera moves-- and unfortunately those are the things that stick out to me the most with this movie.

 

[DWF]

I thought the movie was very effective is showing the deconstruction of super heroes and in having such a diverse group of heroes. But at times it was graphicaly violent and shocking which was the point I think. Something to think about though, Zack Snyder is directing the upcoming Superman movie.

 

[Set Harth]

(That, and the sequence where Nite Owl and Silk Specter beat the crap out of people for fun is *totally* against the grain of everything the two characters are about in the rest of the film...)

For fun? The gang members followed them into the alley, and it wasn't to ask for autographs.

 

[zakkrusz]

I'm also a big fan of the movie. The story concept had balls, and it had a great cast of characters.