Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

"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?

is there a watch man in this movie

thank you kenan
I'm hoping this will go to our 3 dollar theater in a couple of months

you can say that about any medium though

i wouldn't say that about painting. i mean, sure, rembrandt lords over 99% of painting, but it's not like museums contain a thin layer of good painting over a vast sea of crap. there's a 1000 year tradition of amazing painting and there are always 100s if not 1000s of world class painters to learn about. is the same true of comic book movies - or even comics?

i mean at any given time there are hundreds of amazing painters at work.

are there that many good TV shows?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3332056779_e190676592.jpg

It was hella flawed, but I enjoyed it.

yeah, manhattan's penis makes 2 appearances.
yes, the ending is changed quite a bit.

excellent review here:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/03/the_watchmen_li.html

awww
I thought kenan's answer meant the ending wasn't changed.
way to make me sad.

Maybe if I make a movie about how Eisenhower was President in 1972, we "lost" World War II, and Bin Laden was gonna bomb the World Trade Center then, I'll be cool, too. . . so long as it's "dark" and I include a bunch of rape, torture, explicit sex scenes, and extremely graphic killings, and oh, write a "graphic novel" a/k/a comic book about it, first.

I don't just worry that this is the new superhero movie being marketed to your kids today. I worry about the ones that will be even more depraved a decade from now.

G-d help this country (minus Hollywood).

The problem with the suggestion that he's making is that he seems to be looking for comics with SOMETHING TO SAY and there's plenty of that, it's just that it doesn't always parade itself in the manner that Watchmen does. He wants to know where all the Great Comic Books are, but he ignores all the stuff like (better-read comics folks forgive me) Bone or Strangers in Paradise or Preacher because they're obviously just funny papers unworthy of serious consideration.

whoa this was a big xp to moonship re: the Sopranos figleaf thing

well i didn't really like bone or strangers in paradise or preacher ... so ... maybe a better analogy for my position is grant morrison or something. "zenith" was awesome. "doom patrol" mostly great. "invisibles" sometimes great sometimes awful in equal measure (often in the same issue). and the rest ... 99% shit, if you know what i mean. well, except "the filth", which was like same deal as "the invisibles".

i'm a comics fan but i find the signal-to-noise ratio awfully low as compared to books, music, "fine arts", etc. and television and hollywood abysmally low re: signal-to-noise. maybe this is just my old-fogeyish-ness talking?

i take your point on "something to say" though. obviously most of the best comics are the ones that have nothing or very little to say. see: early heavy metal 1977-1981, moebius' "airtight garage", most of "doom patrol", tintin, etc