Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

I like the Ebert review. He gets the strangeness and the "fearsome beauty" and understands what the book and film are really about: "the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope."

Slate guy's right, too, but only because Watchmen couldn't really be followed. How many books about impotent, confused, in-the-way superheroes do you need? Re: focusing on ordinary people in a superhero world, there was a great, beautifully painted series in the 90s (I forget its name) which viewed all these major events in the Marvel Universe through the eyes of ordinary New Yorkers sick of their relatives getting crushed by debris knocked loose by the Fantastic Four fighting Galactus or whatever, and their insurance premiums going up, and a general sense that the fate of the world was being decided by well-meaning but arrogant and clumsy beings they had no control over. [Insert satirical zing here]

I can see Watchmen becoming a cult film in the same way as Fight Club - a big, weird, failed blockbuster which attracts some fanatical followers. (Not that it's like Fight Club in any other respect.)

Actually I've misread the argument of that Slate piece - he's calling for comics that only feature real people. But then you've got Ghost World, Fun Home, Persepolis, etc, which do exactly that, so I don't really get his point.

I think he's saying that the key storytelling innovation of Watchmen was it featured regular people alongside the capes (which is debatable but not unreasonable), and that the film has failed to pick up on that. He doesn't really apply his argument to the world of comics on the whole.

Have you guys all seen this film already?

there was a great, beautifully painted series in the 90s

Busiek. Marvels.

wasn't that ross?

Busiek wrote it. Ross did the artwork

oh right, duh

excited for the movie tomorrow night...but really this week, rereading the trade paperback has just been such a joy, if you would allow me a brief fanboy jackoff sesh of my own...just such great, imaginative storytelling and characters

I want this version to get a full run on kids' TV: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

^^^^^
Genius.

Silk Spectre keytar = A+

loooool

"fuck your recognition. he doesn't get it."

ebert's updated thoughts:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus.html

Although Glenn Kenny seems mezzo-mezzo on it, his thoughts are worth reading just for the slaps at Jeff Wells in the last couple of paragraphs.

Brutal from A.O. Scott: http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/movies/06Watc.html?8dpc

Dr. Manhattan’s existence is busy and fairly melancholy, but I do envy him his ability to perceive every moment of past and future time as a part of a continuous present.

If I had that power, the 2 hours 40 minutes of Zack Snyder’s grim and grisly excursion into comic-book mythology might not have felt quite so interminable. (“It will never end,” says Dr. Manhattan. “Nothing ever ends.” No indeed.) Also, an enhanced temporal perspective would make it possible to watch “Watchmen” not in 2009 but back in 1985, when the story takes place, and when the movie might have made at least a little more sense.

"The comic was written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, and became to comic books what The Sopranos is to TV: an intellectual fig leaf concealing the vast wasteland of Two and a Half Men reruns."

This seems pretty wrongheaded about the effect of the respective works on both mediums.

after reading ebert's second thoughts I have to say "thank god" that the themes of the book seem to have been emulated to the film - and the story probably won't be told differently (with extra emphasis on this or that). it's interesting that ebert's favorite character is most likely dr. manhattan, but I imagine every character will get it's chance to shine for what they are, do, and stand for. as someone who had never read the book, ebert probably has a fascination with dr. manhattan because his decisions/thoughts have a lots of impact towards the themes in the book... but after watching the movie a third time, ebert may find a different favorite character because he will notice the more subtle nuances that make up the other characters and realize that they are just important in portraying the theme, or vision, of watchmen (just as I had changed my attitude about favorite character after putting more thought towards the underlying themes in watchmen). (my favorite is definitely a bastard of a character :)

so anyways, maybe ebert didn't discuss the underlying themes specifically, but I believe that his understanding and interest in dr. manhattan shows that motifs have been replicated faithfully - without any extra theatrics. and that's what we all want, right? a movie that excels at staying true to the book.

in the end though, as others mentioned above, what lots of casual moviegoers want in this film is probably action, awesome artistic direction, and fascinating characters that will elicit empathy in the viewers - so much that movie viewers care about the ultimate fate of these characters and excite themselves with the suspense of what's going to happen with them. since the watchmen characters are obviously flawed (and wear tights or nipple suits), we can only hope that the director is able to elicit that empathy in the viewers, and in a way that gibbons and moore did, because connecting with the characters while meeting moore's standards is probably the hardest thing to capture on screen. for instance The Spirit failed at connecting characters with the viewer (while they may have been engrossing in the book (I never read it)).

am I hyped about seeing the movie tomorrow or what? :)
I'm going to a 8:30 showing and it wont be on an i-max screen - I'll try to get a centered low balcony seat though

"The comic was written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, and became to comic books what The Sopranos is to TV: an intellectual fig leaf concealing the vast wasteland of Two and a Half Men reruns."

Kinda feeling this.

Snagged free tickets to this tomorrow, so...

(“It will never end,” says Dr. Manhattan. “Nothing ever ends.” No indeed.)

LO freakin L

I'm catching this early before work tomorrow, since I have no other free time this weekend to see it.

Will report back with my geekpinion.

watchman's playing at the imax downtown... I should probably go see it before it disappears in a week

what's this watchman movie you speak of

u know - two and a half men can be hilarious sometimes, i think the fig leaf would better conceal vast waste of will and grace reruns.

i'm pretty sure i can see u in there

Tighten up that grip

Two and a Half Men is not ever at all hilarious ever, nor at all.

Dreadfully beside the point, tho.

that's two and a half suggest bans, then.

j/k

never seen an ep of that show

"The comic was written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, and became to comic books what The Sopranos is to TV: an intellectual fig leaf concealing the vast wasteland of Two and a Half Men reruns."

surprised this isn't getting more derision frankly

i mean i'm not really that comics dude but this smacks of "Atmosphere is the best rapper in the game because he talks about REAL LIFE"

^

I'm no giant comics consumer either... well, not GIANT... and I can't help but be pointedly unamazed by the things Ebert is amazed at. I've read Watchmen about ten times, maybe that's the trouble.

But really, if ever there were a superhero movie that didn't require fanboys. I feel like I read it in high school. It was one of the fun assignments.

Speaking of which... Richard E Grant doing Hamlet = fantastic use of YouTube.

Oh but this is way fun, too, if you like beating your head against the wall. If you visit the last youtube clip from the ebert page on youtube itself, you will be treated to pages upon pages of youtube commenters arguing about whether an electron is a particle or a wave. It's like quantum ILM.

Seeing this in an hour and a half or so.

Seeing it at the Cinerama Dome on Sunday night. Am withdrawing from this thread until then.

(Cross-posted to ILC:)

Wow, that was... not that good. Hardly surprising. Those were some bad actors, and weirdly the Wilson brother who plays Nite-Owl looks as though his face was drawn by Steve Dillon.

Love the way a film which panders so much to the torture porn crowd (lovingly extended sequences of arms being angle-ground off, heads being hatcheted, child's leg being eaten by dogs, rape attempt in slow-motion, etc) attempts to have cake/eat it with bullshit about importance of humanity, etc, etc.

Dialogue/narration which worked on the page REALLY REALLY doesn't work coming out of actors' mouths. Especially not these actors.

"The comic was written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, and became to comic books what The Sopranos is to TV: an intellectual fig leaf concealing the vast wasteland of Two and a Half Men reruns."

it's a great line though

esp w/r/t all the sin city type stuff we've seen lately

"The comic was written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, and became to comic books what The Sopranos is to TV: an intellectual fig leaf concealing the vast wasteland of Two and a Half Men reruns."

you can say that about any medium though

I was supposed to be seeing this with a group of friend right now... but 13$ for something that's going to disappoint me? I decided on fuck you Veidt

3:30 AM. just got back from the theater, and i have to say...it was pretty damn great. they did screw up a few things (especially the mars scene), but it was 10x better than what i was expecting.

well played, snyder...well played.

oh, and there were enough fat dudes in ill-fitting t-shirts, in the theater, to....well there were lots of 'em, is my point...

Is the ending changed like there used to be rumors about?

http://gardnerlinn.com/watchmensquidhope2.jpg

so does the blue guy have his willy out for the whole movie?