Watchmen film discussion (Spoilers!)

[Random]

I don't think so.

I know a couple people think the films should have been split into 2 films such as Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions and Kill Bill Vol.1 and 2. But the difference between those long films and this long film is the fact that, although they seem to be 1 large story encompassing 2 films....they're 2 different films with 2 different tones (respectively).

If you look at their stories, there's a distinct break in the tone and style of the film. So it would make sense to break them up as such. But Watchmen is one solid story. Where would you break it up? Why?

You could do one film containing all the characters' origins and another film with just the current plot. But then it wouldn't be Watchmen and it wouldn't have the same impact.

Exactly, if you did part one it would be an incomplete story and a lot of people going "that's it" It just would not work.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

I think it would still work, end the first film at the scene where Roschach and Nite-Owl are rumaging through Veidt's office, where it becomes apparent their is much more to this than a simple murder mystery. and have the rest o the movie be the second film but expanded upon, those two sections of the book and movie do have a large shift in tone, crime noir story, to grand conspiracy, one part is more action oriented one is more cerebral. it would definitley work.

So you're saying have one film cover up to Chapter 10 and then the second film just cover the last 2 chapters?

Sorry, but I'm just not feeling it. It seems so incomplete and one sided. True, that a large portion of the story is a crime noir....that evolves to a grand conspiracy. I really think you're gonna lose the audience.

They see the first film and see that it ends with Nite Owl and Rorschach discovering Veidt's plan. Dun dun dun! Now come back in 4-6 months to see how ends. I think you're gonna lose your audience because they'll all just be thinking, "Why not just tell me how it all ends now?"

Exactly, if you did part one it would be an incomplete story and a lot of people going "that's it" It just would not work.

What I said.

 

[E]

If they would have split it up into 2 films it would have been disasterous earnings-wise.

 

[ProjectX2]

It was fine as it is.

 

[Lithium]

Saw this for the second time today. I felt a little disappointed after my first viewing. I thought it was a good movie, but it could have been so much more. Perhaps my expectations were too high. Anyway, I went with some college friends who hadn't read the book, and although one was a bit squeamish, the other two loved it. I went in this time without really comparing it to the GN, and I actually enjoyed it much more. The only scene I felt really should have been in that was left out was the scene where Rorschach makes his mask and goes out for the first time. I really felt that Jackie Earl Haley nailed it. Rorschach was excellent, and Nite Owl and Dr. Manhattan were handled very well. I thought that Silk Spectre was bearable, as was Ozymandias, although Ozy didn't get enough screen-time to really flesh out the character, and they made him out to be the villain from the start. I really like what Snyder has done here, but I think my high expectations kept me from loving it like I had with 300 and V for Vendetta (neither of which /i had read before going to see the film.) I look forward to seeing what gets added in the director's cut.

 

[Vegetable-man]

I've watched it twice and loved it both times. It is what it is, and I'm fine with that. Though the GN is a million times better, the movie still rocks

 

[ShadowPrime]

I saw it again this weekend, and it held up very well... I am really pleased with the movie. I think an HBO miniseries, as some have suggested, is a great idea...but for a stand alone movie I honestly can't see how the material could have been handled much better. The movie is smart, bold and challenging...and I thought the performances were great.

A lot of talk about the box office, and I always have mixed feelings about that. Box office is relevant, of course, but I don't think that box office performance should enter into the evaluation of a movie. If you think a movie is good, it is good whatever it does at the box office - and vice versa.

Lets face it, WATCHMEN is a very dark story that defies a lot of superhero/storytelling conventions. The villain's plot succeeds. There is no cathartic smackdown at the end. One of the most compelling (and arguably popular!) characters is killed at the end. There is a lot of moral compromise and ambiguity. There is quite a bit of discussion, of argument, versus outright action. And the movie version contains VERY explicit violence (and yes, some sexuality).

I was hopeful WATCHMEN could transcend a lot of this to earn big time box office success, but I am not surprised that (apparently) it didn't. The rating limits its audience, and its length limits number of showings. The non-comic book fan is going to find his/her expectations challenged - and the ads (understandably) played up the most "conventional" aspects of the movie, in superheroic sense, setting up a set of expectations the movie had no intention of delivering upon.

I think it stinks that WATCHMEN is going to be regarded as something of a failure, short term. I suspect the film will be better thought of over time... I really believe the movie will be appreciated MORE as time passes, somewhat akin to, say, BLADERUNNER. But we will see...

Shadow

 

[Gothamite]

I saw it again this weekend, and it held up very well... I am really pleased with the movie. I think an HBO miniseries, as some have suggested, is a great idea...but for a stand alone movie I honestly can't see how the material could have been handled much better. The movie is smart, bold and challenging...and I thought the performances were great.

Yep.

Thoughts, coming very soon.

 

[Planet-man]

[youtube]W8h7N2mVWjk[/youtube]

[youtube]cOhk8BWeD2Q[/youtube]

 

[Planet-man]

Amusing Watchmen-centric link.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

I want a Rorschach Muggz.

 

[Dr.Strangefate]

The film ended up on the better side of Mediocre. It got more things right than it didn't, but failed outright because it just simply couldn't compare to the original

The Comedian worked completely. Rorschach worked better with the mask off. Laurie had her moments but was ultimately unconvincing. Nite-Owl was the same. Dr. Manhattan sucked at the beginning, became more convincing as the movie went forward. Ozymandias was satisfactory, but Matthew Goode should have just spoken in his British accent instead of accidentally slipping into it sometimes.

Was fine with the ending, but the epilogue was terrible.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

Ozymandias was satisfactory, but Matthew Goode should have just spoken in his British accent instead of accidentally slipping into it sometimes.

From what I've read, Goode's backstory for Ozy was that his parents were ex-Nazi's and that their fortune came from their hand in WWII/the Holocaust. His rationale was that this helps explain why he gives away his parents fortune. Goode's Veidt has a quasi-German accent in the scenes where he is in a private situation, such as when he speaks with Nite Owl at the beginning. In public he hides his German accent to appear more "all-american." I'm not saying I agree with this take on the character, but this helps to explain why his accent seems to change in different scenes. I was wondering about it myself.

 

[Gothamite]

Is it just me or does it look like Rorschach's going to become the next big Internet spoof in the tradition of the ******* Batman and Chuck Norris? Every humour site seems to be absolutely littered with stuff about 'Schach and I really can't see it stopping anytime soon.

Also: In 2004, I went to Australia. On the plane, there was an excellent selection of movies and games on the back of every seat that gave you total control over what you got to watch. However, being an idiot, I found myself watching a truly piss-poor Mandy Moore film called Chasing Liberty with a clichéd, oft-portrayed story about a President's daughter being pissed off that she can't have a normal life, or whatever.

I have only now realised that Matthew Goode was the awful love-interest.

Snyder's Watchmen is forever tarnished by this.

 

[mike3717]

Saw this last night. I thought it was good. It worked. Of course the fact that I waited so long and read so many opinions and reviews etc before going that my expectations were limited.

I thought Laurie worked well. More visually than how she actually played the part. She seemed a little too happy. I liked Night Owl and Rors and was also annoyed by Ozy.

But visually, I was surprised, and pleased, by how many of the characters were pretty much right on.

I didn't like that they changed the kidnapping scene for pure shock value.

As for the end, well, I would have preferred the book ending but this worked well for the movie and was fit into the story pretty well so it is pretty low on my list of complaints.

The thing that seemed the most off to me was the movie seemed to lack the grime and filth and overbearing feeling of dread and despair that the comic had. I think the removing of many of the street scenes and so on really detracted from that feeling that the world was a sh*tty place and was on the brink of destruction. The only way you even knew that from the movie was that they kept saying it.

But not convincingly. "Oh Dan, are we really going to have a war? I think so Laurie."

I agree with everyone who said the soundtrack was a real distraction.

The biggest distraction for me was that Patrick Wilson, Night Owl, looks like Phil Helmuth.

 

[Planet-man]

Jesus Christ, I don't even know where to begin.

NSFW. Probably NSF anywhere other than Japan.

 

[Bass]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[ultimatedjf]

ALSO, something you will not ****ing believe what I saw. So the movie ends I walk out and I see a little kid no older than 7 walking down the stairs. WHAT THE ****!!!! Who in their right ****ing mind would bring a ****ing little kid to a movie like this. I said **** 50 times in the span of a minute talking about how ****ed up that is. The kids is going to be ****ed up for years

That is pretty ****ed up; but then again, my dad did give me his copy of the graphic novel when I was about 9 or 10.

 

[Grocer Man]

That is pretty ****ed up; but then again, my dad did give me his copy of the graphic novel when I was about 9 or 10.

I remember when I was younger, I got a comic with a panel of a bullet messily going through Batman's head. When my mom found out, she taped a piece of paper over it that said "censored for graphic content."

Did your dad do something similar? Because that'd be funny.

"Now son, this here's what we call a ding-dong, and we'll talk more about that when you're older..."

 

[Victor Von Doom]

I thought Laurie worked well. More visually than how she actually played the part. She seemed a little too happy.

THAT'S IT!

That is what I kept finding "off" about her. She wasn't horrible, but I knew there was something about her that just said "wrong"...but I couldn't put my finger on it.

That is it. She was always smiling and seemed just too happy.

The thing that seemed the most off to me was the movie seemed to lack the grime and filth and overbearing feeling of dread and despair that the comic had. I think the removing of many of the street scenes and so on really detracted from that feeling that the world was a sh*tty place and was on the brink of destruction. The only way you even knew that from the movie was that they kept saying it.

But not convincingly. "Oh Dan, are we really going to have a war? I think so Laurie."

Bingo. One of my other gripes about the film. When you read the book, you can't help but feel like "the world is really going down and probably coming to an end". Here...not so much.