Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

I don't know, I still think the worst thing about it is the sheer amount of material it needs to get through in its attempt to have the same impact as the graphic novel. I was expecting weird, flat pacing because the source material has weird, flat pacing, so that aspect of it doesn't bother me. I also really, really, really liked the slo-mo fight scenes because it really highlighted to me the fact that the one thing all of these people had in common was that they felt completely out of place unless they were hurting people.

(I also like slo-mo in general)

I thought the opening fight sequence in The Comedian's penthouse was easily the best action sequence in the film. I saw this at a matinee this past Saturday on the IMAX and it was sold out. Grated it was Saturday, but it still seems to be pulling in decent attendance here in Chicago.

it seems kinda weird to say that the director is the worst thing about a movie. i mean, he should at least get credit for some of the things that were done well (i thought the pacing was surprisingly good, loved the credits sequence, the '80s touches, i even liked some of the oddball music choices with the exception of the hendrix tune).

most films, that I see, are actually quite bad, or disappointing - or 'flawed'?

Wendy & Lucy for instance, and every other quiet indie film in which no one ever says anything of any interest at all

and all the other terrible films

compared to all those, Watchmen seemed like one of the greatest films I've ever seen. the only 'flaw' for me (I said this way upthread) was how, cos they changed the ending, they suddenly lost Moore's dialogue for a stretch in the last 20 minutes, and the replacement dialogue somehow seemed inferior.

apart from that it was relatively 'flawless'
which is very unusual

the fact that millions of other people don't like it or watch it doesn't sound like a criticism to me

they watch loads of films I would hate

it seems kinda weird to say that the director is the worst thing about a movie.

It's in one of my blog ramblings but Snyder brought two things in specific to the movie version that I don't like in general -- the slo-mo fetish (unlike Dan, I'm not a fan of that) and a gore level that, while arguably an extension of what was in the comic, is in a realm that I have never enjoyed in film in the first place. Whatever strengths he displays are ultimately twinned up with those elements which I feel are weaknesses or simply not for me -- I can't handwave those.

The slo-mo thing for the action sequences is the first time I can recall that technique being used for that kind of shot in a comic book film; is it not perhaps a direct visual analogue / reference to that fact that ALL violence in actual comic book panels is in "slo-mo"; i.e. static illustrations, and you can spend as long looking at it as you like?

It is indeed meant to be an analogue, Snyder's actually been very clear on that, to his credit. Doesn't mean I have to like it/can't easily get tired of it!

Furry muff.

the gore was pretty o_O, if i was going to rationalize it i would say that he was trying to make it less "comic booky" ie trying to convey that yes, these vigilantes are actually hurting people.

i think the violence and the slow-mo collide in a way that really is quite unpleasant. On the one-hand you have extremely gorey and harsh violent actions being committed and on the other the bullet-time and swirlging camera angles. This stylisation makes it lose any sort of impact or realism it might have and just turns it in to gore/violence purely as entertainment, divorcing it from being truly visceral and making it purely spectacle. In the theatre I saw it in there were lots of sharp intakes of breath/laughter after many of the broken bones.

The gore reminded me of the first few issues of the Harley Quinn book, where there were sequences drawn from her demented perspective that were super cartoony in which she was hitting people with mallets and shooting them, and the aftermath was very lovingly drawn out in excruciating detail in the same demented cartoony style (kind of like what was going in in "The Mask" book).

(I also think that what it was trying to do was go for the "this isn't real but it's still awful" angle; that's definitely they way I felt during the alley fight and when Rorschach doused that dude with boiling oil.)

I don't really remember any gore, unless you mean Rorschach killing evil people (which I like)

the most horrific scene IMO was dude who got his arms sawed off, which happened in the book, too

breaking arms for kicks in the alley was pretty much the pinnacle of the slo mo fun violence for me

xpost. Pinefox you don't remember the scene with the assassination attempt on Veidt when it closes up on the calf of an innocent bystander being tore through by a bullet?

the gore was pretty o_O, if i was going to rationalize it i would say that he was trying to make it less "comic booky" ie trying to convey that yes, these vigilantes are actually hurting people.

That's what I said way upthread!

Dude doesn't get his arms sawn off in the book, not in the same way at all.

oh that's right, they just drilled through him, didn't they

much less gruesome

Actually they just cut his throat, and 'off-camera,' though Rorschach does get blood on his shirt.

Yeah, you don't see it at all.

watchmen gore is pretty mild compared to any horror flick made within the last ten years (inc. synder's DAWN OF THE DEAD remake)

not quite sure why violent action in movies has to be 'realistic' - and "gore/violence purely as entertainment" (as opposed to "impurely as moral lecture on the evils of ass-kicking"??) is common to 95% of all Hollywood movies.

watchmen gore is pretty mild compared to any horror flick made within the last ten years

Oh joy.

They did something to the body to get to the lock, that was the whole point of killing him in the first place. grr where's my copy of the book

don't have a copy to hand, but yeah they had to saw his hands off- no point in cutting his throat, was there?

I sense a Comic-Con panel in the making.

not quite sure why violent action in movies has to be 'realistic' - and "gore/violence purely as entertainment" (as opposed to "impurely as moral lecture on the evils of ass-kicking"??) is common to 95% of all Hollywood movies.

well yes, of course. But there is no need for bullet-time close-ups. That's certainly not the norm in action movies.

well it wasn't when i used to watch them, Steven Seagall would break a nose or break a shin but it did it in full speed and didn't linger over the details for titillation.

what is there a 'need' for in action movies?

now you can't slo mo kick a head in the street

I'm thinking of the slo-mo inside-the-body shots in Three Kings.

or CSI every week

for them to be exciting? which this wasn't.

Don't get me started on CSI. Fucking murder-porn.

murder is certainly a major part of the series, yes.

Can we please, please, please stop adding the "-porn" suffix to fucking everything?

agatha christie = murder-erotica

CSI: Bunco Squad would be a pretty dull show tbh

CSI: Mail Fraud

Canporn weporn pleaseporn, pleaseporn, pleaseporn stopporn addingporn theporn "-pornporn" suffixporn toporn fuckingporn everythingporn?

... yes, that is unwieldy

Although I might watch CSI: Vaguely Threatening Phone Calls

Where is Vaguely Threatening Phone Calls? Montana?

"fucking everything" makes for variable porn.

CSI: Motor Tax Offences

tho i'd probably borrow an episode of CSI: Thread Police just to check it out.

Where is Vaguely Threatening Phone Calls? Montana?

No, they're INSIDE THE HOUSE.

My anti "-porn" tirade wasn't really aimed at ILX in particular, just the proliferation of lazy bloggers/journalists lately that want to tap into the "edginess" of porn without actually dealing with any of the baggage. I.e. "The camera lingered twenty seconds on the shiny chrome grill of the truck, must mean this movie is truck-porn".

in fairness, that movie was total truck-porn

I don't understand the point of this discussion about the violence in this movie. Would it have been better if Snyder had gone the Dark Knight route and packed a bunch of dark adult themes with off-camera bloodless brutality to get a PG-13? He could have taken out some ass 'n titties, removed a few of the gore scenes, and then the kiddies could have gone to the theater without their parents to see a movie where in one scene it is discovered that some guy has fed a little kid to a pack of dogs.

It's an adult movie based off of an adult book, which probably would have been a lot more violent had it not been written in the 80s. Saying the violence was done in a tacky way is fine, but some of the posters on this thread kind of sound like old ladies.