Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

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)?

I'm more confused how graphic violence is outside Snyder's typical aesthetic. His other two movies were pretty gory.

adolescent just seems irrelevant in the criticism.

i agree in a sense, but part of the fun of this movie has been watching people who don't give a fuck about superhero culture going "wtf how did this story get in time's top 100 books of all time, did he really just blow up and leave a blood stain in the shape of his logo?"

that is really not my idea of fun but OK

haha @ "superhero culture"

czech blastcore and superhero culture

part of the fun of this movie has been watching people who don't give a fuck about superhero culture going "wtf how did this story get in time's top 100 books of all time, did he really just blow up and leave a blood stain in the shape of his logo?"

yea i was trolling a little, but seriously wtf THIS IS IT? THIS is the comic people have been banging on about for twenty years as the 'even peoplem who hate comix recognize its genius' book to read? sheesh.

75% of what was great about Watchmen the comic has nothing to do with stuff that is actually filmable. So the movie is at best 25% of what made the comic great and that's presuming that the film represents the best realization of that 25% which despite gushing on this thread, I am pretty dubious about.

Well, you said that you'd never read the comic book version. Don't be too hasty to judge the book by the big budget blockbuster summer movie. Part of what made the book so great was the drawings and how it was written.

xpost - what Alex said

rly interested in positive reactions from people who didn't read the book but suppose these would be hard to come by. if mark s were here he'd be half (or not even) joking that it's better than the book.

75% and 25% are kind of arbitrary numbers, no?

I mean be realistic, it's more like 234.7 1/3% and π

just back in the door from first viewing, and i'm finding it hard to fault it relative to my expectations (based in large part on this thread tbh).

i'm pretty sure that nite owl and silver spectre kick ass in an alley early on in the book. trying to throw in another twenty minutes of backstory to explain that they could do this wouldn't really have added anything to the story imo

silk spectre

rly interested in positive reactions from people who didn't read the book but suppose these would be hard to come by.

Hardly, I've heard quite a number of them from various friends, directly or secondhand -- Elvis T. mentions upthread that his wife really liked it and hadn't read the book.

I've heard lots of positive reactions from people who haven't read the book... much more than negative ones

i meant on ilx! (i didn't really)

fwiw I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert never read the book and he loved it so much he basically reviewed it again after the second viewing.

oops

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

Because Snyder is a dipshit who has never heard the expression 'less is more.'

fwiw I also know people who have read it that really like it. The only one i know who has had a negative reaction is my friend who is obsessed with the graphic novel

I thought it was cool-looking in general.

Zach Snyder = Merchant Ivory of graphic novel adapters.