Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

I really had no beef with that song being used in that scene; it probably was done as much to condense stuff from the source material into the movie as much as it was to evoke comparisons (from old ppl, lol) to Apocalypse Now.

I wasn't at your showing Chris, so dunno how old the audience was, but if it was mainly teenage / early 20-something boys, I think you'd be surprised how many of them would know Apocalypse Now.

As for AN references being a bit redundant in 2009; yes, but there's not a lot of point in referencing something no one would notice, is there?

I then explained that it was a faulty argument, and showed that dark superheroes predated Watchmen

If there's any beginning point, it's Frank Miller's run on Daredevil. Sure there were dark superhero stories before, but Miller's Daredevil (and Alan Moore's Miracleman) were the two books that got widespread attention in the comics world. The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen in 1986 raised that attention to the world at large (insert any news article from then that begins "comics are not just for kids anymore")

saw it yesterday and basically agree with everything chris described it as - it was an amazing cinematic spectacle and i'm glad we saw it in a theatre.

our crowd featured mostly late-20s and a large handful of senior citizens (at least two stumbling along with canes).

CD of Smile by Brian Wilson was a blatant Flaming Lips rip-off.

tachyons

Things I wish they had preserved from the book, a list:

- The attack on Nite Owl I
- Rorschach's explicit homophobia
- Nite Owl II/Silk Spectre II on the lam
- Veidt's explicit post-catastrophe power grab (mostly to explicitly justify the end fates of Veidt and Rorschach)

The attack on Nite Owl I

this, at least, in confirmed to be in the final cut.

I was wondering about that, because introducing Mason and then dropping him entirely was weird by any standard.

I was wondering about that, because introducing Mason and then dropping him entirely was weird by any standard.

Not necessarily. Mason's roles in the comic (linkage from Minutemen to "Watchmen", catalyst for Dreiberg to take Rorschach-level action) aren't that necessary in the movie which covered this in the opening credits and the extra-violent mugging and prison riot scenes. If anything, Mason's death is a reminder that the whole thing takes place during Halloween/All Saints (Halloween masks and costume hero masks coming together?)

I was thinking in more of a 'time-spent-on' sense of keeping the story going -- more to say in my next blog on this.

I don't think it came across that weirdly in the movie. He was referenced later on (Dan invites Laurie to come with him to visit Mason after she leaves Jon, just like in the book) so it wasn't like he was forgotten completely; it's just that he was much more of a broad-brush background character than a plot point that spurs Nite Owl II into action.

Patton Oswalt has opinions about things.

i wished there was a lil more of Jon's tour of mars, like him pointing out olympus mons and whatnot, and also his explanation of why he chose a hydrogen atom over the generic atomic symbol... more jon in general basically

oh i think four of him was plenty

oh yeah, the hydrogen atom; meant to list that

patton oswalt is right that the "nerd mafia" shouldn't have beef with snyder

So basically his point is at least this isn't Daredevil? Yay!

Interview with David Hayter, co-screenwriter.

Player hayter

Well, less of an interview, more scattered quotes and backstory. Even so.

I can't believe they cut Nite Owl serving coffee to the people rescued from the burning building. The Archie even had a coffee pot in it.

The ultimate point of "Watchmen," he says, is that people need to "look past their own egos, their own fears, and see what’s truly positive — what’s going to benefit the world and the people around them, and not exclusively themselves."

i thought it was about how fucked up the idea of superheroes is

WHAT?!?!?!

Oh so Veidt IS the hero.

"...that's why we added more punching."

In this guy's mind apparently. . . jeez talk about point-missing.

That said given the way the quote is constructed I can believe that sentence is taken out of context.

I can't believe they cut Nite Owl serving coffee to the people rescued from the burning building. The Archie even had a coffee pot in it.

Silk Spectre was serving coffee. Nite Owl was flying the owlship from the roof. Also, there was a brief shot of Greek coffee "we're happy to serve you" cups.

</ nerd>

would have liked to have seen the Snow Segways...how prophetic were they in the mid-80's?!

hahaha i remember the first time i read it not even thinking twice about it

(xxx-post first two from the comic. last from the movie)

Third ramble. Two more to come.

You know, I saw this again and enjoyed it a lot more.

I do have a feeling its strengths will stand out more for me after a rewatch just because the initial 'oh they changed this' feeling will be gone. Still there's a LOT about what Snyder specifically brought to this that I really, really don't like and I can't imagine liking it any more another time through -- I've already blocked out some scenes in my head that I won't look at again.

the film's main flaw for me is really just snyder's inability to not be on-the-nose about everything

God bless anyone capable of a five-part ramble about anything.

Too kind.

Fourth and next-to-last ramble.

well, glad i never read the comic book version because this was some adolescent bullshit

"They're being bought in many cases by hopeless nostalgics or, putting the worst construction on it, perhaps cases of arrested development who are not prepared to let their childhoods go, no matter how trite the adventures of their various heroes and idols."

'adolescent bullshit' makes it sound like Superba

d

I'm pretty sure that Snyder's leaving the bodies out of Manhattan was a concession to the studio in re: post 9-11 anxieties, etc. (Although in the wake of the likes of Cloverfield, aren't we a little past that?)

As I alluded above, to the extent that we're talking about things outside Snyder's typical aesthetic, I think the graphicness of the violence really is of the nature of, "If Batman really beat people up like he does in the movies, this is what it would look like."

superbad is about adolescents. An earnest movie about the dystopia that would spring forth if superheroes really existed is adolescent.

If Batman really beat people up like he does in the movies, this is what it would look like.

actually, if batman really beat people up like he does in the movies, it would not involve stop-start visual effects and people flying through the air.

yeah ok of course definitely a revelation

I don't remember Nite Owl and Silk Spectre II being such bad-asses in the book. In this movie, they seemed like they could kick Neo's ass!

adolescent just seems irrelevant in the criticism.

Which is why I specified "the graphicness of the violence," which has nothing to do with slo-mo effects. Which you knew, but go ahead and congratulate yourself on your cleverness there!

I'm pretty sure it would still involve people flying through the air, though.

I don't remember Nite Owl and Silk Spectre II being such bad-asses in the book. In this movie, they seemed like they could kick Neo's ass!

this was one of the hardest things to get with really. they didn't bother with any context for either character's bad-assery other than 'well they're costumed vigilantes so duh'.

but if the graphicness was for reality's sake, why the special effects (which include the way people flew)?