Watchmen film discussion (Spoilers!)

How would you rate Watchmen?

  • Total voters
    43
The simplest way I'd put it is that this movie is to the book what the Harry Potter movies are to their books. They can't touch the book in terms of sheer quality, and they wade back and forth from passable to good to groundbreaking all through, but for the most part they're so cool and satisfying to watch that they're practically a necessity.

They're not going to replace the books but they make an excellent companion and I'd go kind of nuts if they didn't happen.
 
Planet-man said:
The simplest way I'd put it is that this movie is to the book what the Harry Potter movies are to their books. They can't touch the book in terms of sheer quality, and they wade back and forth from passable to good to groundbreaking all through, but for the most part they're so cool and satisfying to watch that they're practically a necessity.

They're not going to replace the books but they make an excellent companion and I'd go kind of nuts if they didn't happen.
Click to expand...

I think this paragraph best explains what was "wrong" with the movie:
The negative reviews generally cite the film's much-advertised "reverence" to the source material, as statically replicating – rather than creatively interpreting – Alan Moore's graphic novel. "Watchmen is a bore...It sinks under the weight of its reverence for the original," writes Philip Kennicott of the Washington Post.
Click to expand...

I think for an adaptation you need to sort of diverge from the source material a little bit in order for it to work on film. I'm not talking about changing the squid ending. That was really one of the only creative liberties they took. But maybe a screen adaptation of Watchmen shouldn't carry every detail from the comic. They probably could have done without a lot of stuff.
 
Langsta quoting said:
The negative reviews generally cite the film's much-advertised "reverence" to the source material, as statically replicating – rather than creatively interpreting – Alan Moore's graphic novel.
Click to expand...

I agree that that can really kill some adaptations, but I don't really think this film fell victim to it overall. There were parts like that, but there was a good deal of excellent creative interpretation too.

Overall I'd really say that this aside from some parts being over-stylized, a few unignorably bad bits of acting and casting - mainly Veidt, and just the general problems of having to strip away depth, this was close to the best Hollywood movie adaptation of Watchmen that could be expected.

Edit: Almost forgot, Chris' Invincible Super-Blog presents how the studio's could've ended Watchmen.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Langsta said:
I think for an adaptation you need to sort of diverge from the source material a little bit in order for it to work on film. I'm not talking about changing the squid ending. That was really one of the only creative liberties they took. But maybe a screen adaptation of Watchmen shouldn't carry every detail from the comic. They probably could have done without a lot of stuff.
Click to expand...

No, I disagree. I think they did a fine job cutting what they didn't have to have for the movie, yet keeping what needed to be kept. I didn't feel that the movie was over bloated or anything like that. I'd be interested to hear what it is that you think they should have cut...
 
So going with some other people to see a movie, only to find everything already started except Watchmen. Seen it again as they haven't.

I wasn't bored and was looking forward to seeing certain scenes again. That might be saying something.
 
Saw film. Was good. Not as good as book. Not worse either. Good in different ways. Some ways better. Some parts worse.

Too tired to elaborate. Sick. Terrible head cold. Will post tomorrow. 4.25/5.
 
DARKKNIGHT said:
No, I disagree. I think they did a fine job cutting what they didn't have to have for the movie, yet keeping what needed to be kept. I didn't feel that the movie was over bloated or anything like that. I'd be interested to hear what it is that you think they should have cut...
Click to expand...

They were too focused on replicating specific scenes from the book.
 
Gemini said:
Saw film. Was good. Not as good as book. Not worse either. Good in different ways. Some ways better. Some parts worse.

Too tired to elaborate. Sick. Terrible head cold. Will post tomorrow. 4.25/5.
Click to expand...

Nice. Liked how you did that. Very interesting.
 
Watchmen didn't single-handedly do anything. The whole zeitgeist was leaning in that direction as it was. It didn't change how super-heroes were written from then on. It was different, but it didn't change everything.

Dak Knight Returns, Squadron Supreme, I'd even put the original Crisis in there - all these books came out at once. If there was this cosmic shift in storytelling, it was on its way well before Watchmen.

And I seriously don't think comic storytelling changed at all after that. Any comic from the mid-70, mid-80s, mid-90s, they're virtually indistinguishable from each other.

Watchmen is a good comic, and a watershed moment, but it gets too much credit.
 
The thing is, as someone who has read WATCHMEN many times, I understand that I don't see the movie in the same way as someone who walks in "cold". That goes, I suspect, for most on this message board - a few exceptions here and there. We KNOW these characters, we know the backstory, we walk in knowing a LOT.

AND...being of a (COUGH COUGH) certain age, some scenes probably play differently for me than for some of the younger crowd. I don't know how much it matters, but it might ... and no, not trying to be condescending here. Just saying... does the film have more impact if you recognize Kissinger, Andy Warhol, Annie Liebowitz (sp?), Kent State, etc? If you recall the "Nuclear Countdown" clock as a reality, not a plot device?

All I can say is... I saw it on Friday, during the day...and it is STILL on my mind. I find myself thinking about it..turning it over in my head... thinking back on it, evaluating it, mulling it over. I can't say that for MOST movies, comic book/science fiction/or "non-genre". I can't put my finger on it, exactly, but it has a very unusual quality to it. A depth, a sense of foreboding ... this wasn't just another punch 'em up, build to the big special effects filled showdown superhero movie (and don't get me wrong, those can be plenty fun too). I think this one is something special.

In a way, a shame that box office is the ultimate barometer. This is an R rated movie richly deserving of the rating, and it is a LONG movie, both of which will impact its box office take. I hope it earns enough to be called a success... if for no other reason than it is GUTSY. It has a sense of style, it runs counter to the typical Hollywood homogenization and such. We need more of that.

Shadow
 
ShadowPrime said:
The thing is, as someone who has read WATCHMEN many times, I understand that I don't see the movie in the same way as someone who walks in "cold". That goes, I suspect, for most on this message board - a few exceptions here and there. We KNOW these characters, we know the backstory, we walk in knowing a LOT.

AND...being of a (COUGH COUGH) certain age, some scenes probably play differently for me than for some of the younger crowd. I don't know how much it matters, but it might ... and no, not trying to be condescending here. Just saying... does the film have more impact if you recognize Kissinger, Andy Warhol, Annie Liebowitz (sp?), Kent State, etc? If you recall the "Nuclear Countdown" clock as a reality, not a plot device?

All I can say is... I saw it on Friday, during the day...and it is STILL on my mind. I find myself thinking about it..turning it over in my head... thinking back on it, evaluating it, mulling it over. I can't say that for MOST movies, comic book/science fiction/or "non-genre". I can't put my finger on it, exactly, but it has a very unusual quality to it. A depth, a sense of foreboding ... this wasn't just another punch 'em up, build to the big special effects filled showdown superhero movie (and don't get me wrong, those can be plenty fun too). I think this one is something special.

In a way, a shame that box office is the ultimate barometer. This is an R rated movie richly deserving of the rating, and it is a LONG movie, both of which will impact its box office take. I hope it earns enough to be called a success... if for no other reason than it is GUTSY. It has a sense of style, it runs counter to the typical Hollywood homogenization and such. We need more of that.

Shadow
Click to expand...

Your feelings are at lot like my own. I saw it friday twice and i still can't get it out of my head.
 
Joe Kalicki said:
Watchmen didn't single-handedly do anything. The whole zeitgeist was leaning in that direction as it was. It didn't change how super-heroes were written from then on. It was different, but it didn't change everything.

Dak Knight Returns, Squadron Supreme, I'd even put the original Crisis in there - all these books came out at once. If there was this cosmic shift in storytelling, it was on its way well before Watchmen.

And I seriously don't think comic storytelling changed at all after that. Any comic from the mid-70, mid-80s, mid-90s, they're virtually indistinguishable from each other.

Watchmen is a good comic, and a watershed moment, but it gets too much credit.
Click to expand...

It was self-aware.
 
Did anyone think Rorschach was a little too kewl in the movie? Was the satire missing with him?
 
The Overlord said:
Did anyone think Rorschach was a little too kewl in the movie? Was the satire missing with him?
Click to expand...

if by kewl you mean cool, than no i didn't think he was too cool. i think that there had to be a character that the audience could really root for. i think that Rorschach was that character in this film. additionally, i think that this adds some additional "emotionality" to the ending. but what do i know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top