Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

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.

i'm pretty sure that nite owl and silver spectre kick ass in an alley early on in the book

They do, and it's in exactly the same place in the book as it is in the movie, right down to the inter-cutting with Jon's interview scene.

The main difference is that a fairly-brutal-but-brief scene consisting of a few panels in the comic gets drawn out and embellished by Snyder into a bone-crunch orgy.

That said, while I find the excessive slow-mo annoying at least Snyder's action scenes and camera movements are relatively coherent. (More than can be said for large parts of the Dark Knight!)

Might not have hated this if it were less than seven hours long.

this movie shits all over the dark knight on initial viewing. it's got more wonder about it, and doesn't take itself half as seriously. i'll echo what i read above about gutlaughing several times.

the flashbacks were mostly better than the 1985 stuff, but snyder is very weak on narrative. i never quite grasped how the watchmen met, or why they were disbanded, and in some cases what they brought to the table.

last hour or so was just really dire, and lots of the movie -- the mars stuff in partic -- just looked awful.

this movie shits all over the dark knight on initial viewing.

gotta be kidding. im not a massive TDK guy but this is absurd.

watchmen had its forehead slapping 'good grief penfold' moments, but they were neither as numerous nor as maddening as TDK

This film needed Pale Horse.

best part was the alternative-history opening credits. I saw the volley of fire coming after the girl with the flower and it was still fun.

> This film needed Pale Horse.

useless unless Krystallnacht is also included.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3186/3308390327_52e52d2819.jpg

for shits n' gigs:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j91/terminallunch/moorejpg-1.jpg

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.

i think the shocker here is that mr. "dark city 4eva" somehow avoided reading watchmen anytime over the last twenty years.

dude gave Spawn 3 1/2 stars not really a shocker he loved this

gotta be kidding. im not a massive TDK guy but this is absurd.

It's not. I liked this much more than TDK (which I found to be clumsy, hamfisted, and WAY too long)

I'll give you way too long and maaaaaaybe hamfisted, but clumsy how?

They do, and it's in exactly the same place in the book as it is in the movie, right down to the inter-cutting with Jon's interview scene.

The book has a nice "...whatever it is you super-people do" caption over Laurie punching a knot-top in the crotch.

I'll give you way too long and maaaaaaybe hamfisted, but clumsy how?

In general most everything after the hospital scene but specifically the the subplot with the reporter (Reece?) who wants to reveal Batman's identity.

god i just remember that snyder added janey yanking her hair off, guess the scene wasn't dramatic enough for zack

I don't really think that was all "clumsy", just part of that last third that would have been better left for another film. I think maybe we're getting towards the same thing, I'm just a much bigger fan of the first 2/3rds of the film.

"this movie shits all over the dark knight on initial viewing. it's got more wonder about it, and doesn't take itself half as seriously. i'll echo what i read above about gutlaughing several times."

See, I don't get this about Watchmen "not taking itself too seriously" or whatever. The movie is funny, but that's often during "heavy" scenes that just fail miserably.

opinions4u on this thread are really hard to read

im shocked

yeah this movie takes itself pretty seriously

i thought it was an alright movie that missed a lot of what was cool about the book but i dont get why folks were fronting like they're doing so much important shit that they couldnt see a water cooler chat film like this one bcuz anthony lane wrote a crappy review of it

"omg 2 hours & 50 minutes!! -- but i could just be flippantly dismissing it on principle for that long on ilx isntead!"

> dont get why folks were fronting like they're doing so much important shit that they couldnt see a water cooler chat film

Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. Yep, that's five.

god i just remember that snyder added janey yanking her hair off, guess the scene wasn't dramatic enough for zack

That didn't bother me too much... It was a shorthand way of introducing her before getting to Osterman's history and his history with her. Additionally, it had to be dramatic enough to get Dr. Manhattan upset enough to go directly to Mars (in the book he goes back to his apt just as a "Radioactive: Quarantine Area" is being put on his door, then he walks around the remains of Gila Flats, then he goes to Mars)

useless unless Krystallnacht is also included.

No one going to rep for Enola Gay & The Little Boys?

a lot of problems stem from snyder's lack of narrative gifts. wasn't clear why the watchmen had been disbanded. had nixon gone soft or what? were not able to give a give a fuck about the night owl/latex girl 'getting back in the game' subplot, with the beating up the hoodlums and the saving people from the fire. there must have been more important stuff to keep than that.

but the main howlers, the total indescribable idiocy of ozymandias's plot, and whatever the fuck dr manhattan was building on mars -- and his whole 'does humanity even deserve to live?' thing was the lamest shit of all -- im guessing were in the original.

Trust me, dude; Ozymandias' plot is SO MUCH MORE INDESCRIBABLY IDIOTIC in the book.

Also the thing Jon builds on Mars is never really explained in the book either. it's just.... a.... thing. That looks a bit like massive clockwork.