Watchmen

Post by **axordil** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:11 pm

Saw it. Some people shouldn't. When you move comic book gore to the screen accurately, it's not pretty.

There were some changes at the end--not so much the plot Macguffin, but tonal--that I wasn't happy with. But other than that, it really was much like Ang described it: as some movies are essentially films of plays, this was a film of a comic book. I think that's why some reviewers didn't like it: the feel and flow are different than a movie conceived of as a movie, even an adaptation. That is, there are far fewer concessions to movie-style storytelling than is normal. You get character backstory in the middle, expository speech throughout, and other Cardinal Sins of screenwriting which are perfectly normal in a comic (or book, for that matter).

I think this was a deliberate choice by Snyder, as opposed to a side effect of just trying to be faithful to the source--seeing the long cut might confirm that.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:54 pm

I might wait for Netflix on this one, then, so I can easily stop watching if it's too bloody for me.

Post by **axordil** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 6:41 pm

The other noteworthy thing confirmed for me at the theater is that the story within a story, Tales of the Black Freighter, was also produced, as a short animated feature. It will be an interesting exercize in geekdom to get it and the director's cut and intercut between them.

Post by **solicitr** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:39 pm

There are trousers and trousers. And <gag, shudder> trousers.

That which does not kill us makes us stronger. . . .

I'm thinking Elton John's lavender satin bellbottoms circa Yellow Brick Road.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:08 pm

Post by **Hachimitsu** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:53 pm

Rebecca wrote:I haven't seen it, but my roommate was just telling me about watching it last night.

She complained for about 5 minutes about it and how much she hated it. Some of her thoughts,

"There's a lot of d**k in that movie, too. Some of the scenes were almost like a porno."

So I think she didn't like it.

Why is it that some people think when there is male frontal nudity on film, that is automatically mean that it's pornography? I have never understood that. I have seen other films with a full frontal and usually it's totally appropriate for the scene. Not pornographic in any way. The only reason Dr.Manhattans lack of "puritan modesty" bothered me is because I didn't feel it was appropriate for all the scenes it was in. Some of the time it was appropriate some of the time it was just freaking distracting. Also on top of that the guy is CG, so it's not like someone was really naked.

Post by **Rebecca** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:30 pm

Well, I didn't see the movie, so I can't really, really comment, but I'll try to explain what I think she was complaining about. She commented on the frontal nudity, but that wasn't what she meant by the "porno" comment. I guess there was a sex scene that she said was awfully explicit. "Gratuitous sex," was how she put it.

Post by **Angbasdil** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:47 am

axordil wrote:The other noteworthy thing confirmed for me at the theater is that the story within a story, Tales of the Black Freighter, was also produced, as a short animated feature. It will be an interesting exercize in geekdom to get it and the director's cut and intercut between them.

Actually, Snyder plans to do that for us.

:D
There will be three DVD's: the theatrical release, the director's cut (with I think thirty-some-odd minutes added back in but no Black Freighter) and then the Ultimate Watchmen DVD, which will be the director's cut with the Black Freighter. About three and a half hour of geeky goodness!!

And the sex scene was absolutely not gratuitous!

It was absolutely integral to the plot, serving as a contrast to the "no-sex" scene earlier.
Although it was a bit over the top.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:00 am

I hope my friends will forgive me if I say that I have less than zero interest in seeing this movie.

Post by **Rebecca** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:01 am

Just trying to give a non-comic book geek's point of view.

She's been pretty vocal all day about her hatred for this movie.

And yeah, I kind of think I have to agree with Voronwë on this one. Sorry!

Post by **axordil** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:12 am

De gustibus non est disputandum. And the sex scene is crucial from both a character arc POV and in the larger context of explaining what superheroes are all about as a concept.

Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:22 am

axordil wrote:De gustibus non est disputandum.

Exactly, Ax. I'm not saying it isn't well done, or that isn't a good movie. I have no way of knowing, and I certainly bow to the opinion of you and others. I'm just saying it doesn't appeal to me at all.

Post by **axordil** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:31 am

Hey, I understand there are people who actually sat through all of My Dinner with Andre.

It would be a dull world if we all geeked out for the same thing...oh wait...

Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:34 am

Post by **Lurker** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:39 am

I must confess I haven't seen the LOTR trilogy eventhough I have copies of the DVD still in their original packaging. Yup, I'm one of those purists! Maybe someday.

I'm a huge comic fan (boxes of comic books, mint condition since I read wearing latex gloves

) but I don't see each and every comic book movie out there. In fact, I'm a huge Batman fan eversince I learned how to read but have no desire of watching The Dark Knight.

Post by **Angbasdil** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:22 pm

Lurker wrote:In fact, I'm a huge Batman fan eversince I learned how to read but have no desire of watching The Dark Knight.

Okay, you have to explain this to me. As a Batgeek myself, this idea just boggles my mind.

Post by **Pearly Di** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:00 pm

Angbasdil wrote: Okay, you have to explain this to me. As a Batgeek myself, this idea just boggles my mind.

I'm not a Batgeek, and to me The Dark Knight is no Shawshank Redemption, but I have to say that I think all Batgeeks should see TDK.

It's a cut above the usual sort of film of that genre, definitely.

Lurker, you are like Wildwood!

She never saw the LotR films either.

Oh, um, Watchmen. I doubt it's for me. It sounds good but very violent.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:26 am

****POSSIBLE SPOILERS****

Saw it. Thought it was tolerable but weak. Watchmen is an Ideas book and a Big Questions and a Philosophical Ponderings book. The movie just gives nods to those things here and there while the director fights to cram every major plot scene into the time frame. Worse, there was a lot of weak acting. Lori and Dr. Manhattan were performed poorly. But Adrian, ugh, they butchered him. On top of giving an awful performance he is insanely wrong for the part. An incredible miscasting IMO. For one he looks 20 years old, two he looks thin and not particularly strong or athletic, and three he was weirdly and vaguely effeminate. Plus they try to paint him as a bad guy which defeats so much of the purpose of his character in the first place. Asides from some nice visual flair (though a lot of it was obnoxiously flashy) the only good parts were Rorschach and Dan. It didn't hurt that I found Dan pretty darn sexy in those love scenes.

Overall: 2.5/5