Special Edition Podcast

03.06.2009 – ‘Watchmen’

Show Notes

03.06.2009 – Watchmen is finally upon us and iFanboy is here with the least controversial special edition podcast (since The Dark Knight podcast) to talk about it.

Total Running Time – 00:36:00




Well, it’s finally here.  The movie they said would never get made.  The movie they said should never get made.

Watchmen.

It’s safe to say that Watchmen is the most anticipated comic book adaptation release of 2009.  It’s also the most dreaded.  See, even the anticipation for the film is layered and nuanced.  That is how good Alan Moore is.  I’m telling you, he planned all of this back in 1985!

Let’s hope that this film does tremendous box-office so that we can get the sequel that I – and I know you too – have always wanted, Watchmen II: Revenge of the Squid.

Are you going to see it?  Of course you are!  So let’s talk about it!

If you haven’t seen the movie yet be forewarned – there be SPOILERS ahoy! So don’t scroll down any further if you are sensitive to that kind of thing.

***


And after you’re done with seeing the movie and listening to the special edition podcast, why not head over and pick up the (totally unrelated to the film) limited edition HURM t-shirt?  It’s Rorschach approved!

Music:
Hallelujah
Leonard Cohen


Download

http://media.libsyn.com/media/ifanboy/iF...
(Right-click and choose "Save As..." and save locally)

Subscribe

Get Involved

Doing the podcast is fun and all, but let's be honest, listening to the 3 of us talk to each other can get repetitive, so we look to you, the iFanboy listeners to participate in the podcast! "How can I get in on the fun?" you may ask yourself, well here's how:

  • E-Mail us at contact@ifanboy.com with any questions, comments or anything that may be on your mind.
  • Call us at 1-888-FANBOYS (326-2697) and leave a voicemail

Please don't forget to leave your name and where you're writing/calling from and each week, we'll pick the best e-mails and voicemails to include on the podcast!

Comments

  1. I’m not seeing this til tomorrow at 10:30pm but there is no way I cant listen to this beforehand.

    Shockingly I am very nervous about your opinions on the film (just about to play the podcast for this)…..amazing how much of an impact you guys have made in the industry. Going from small market comic discussion website to almost one of the top opinions for the industry.

    Anywho….time for the podcast! *hits play*

  2. Tork Tork says:

    I think it’s interesting how Josh feels about how the ending was changed because that’s how I felt about the book’s ending.

  3. This was a great podcast, definitely now more pumped for the film. (Although no offense you guys said Hellboy 2 was a good film, while I thought it was a peice of crap. But we gotta agree to disagree)

    It was funny how indifferent you guys were in the beginning; whether to praise it as a good film, a good adaptation, or both. While I agree that I will have nitpicks, maybe not offical, for the film….that’s all it really is. Nitpicking doesnt make me hate the film any more then bad acting or bad cinematography will. I dont think I will be that confused on liking the film either. I mean I read the book a bunch of times too, but not to the point where I’ll be worried if they didnt translate EVERYTHING on screen.

    I’m also not going to worry about what the people around me will react or say about the film. This is about the opinion of the indivial who saw the film and witness it with his/her’s eyes.

    Cant wait for 10:30pm tomorrow.

  4. OttoBott OttoBott says:

    Gosh, the comic was utter crap. I hope Snyder can wring a decent movie out of it’s tangled mess.

  5. Jake Jake says:

    @Tork – Yeah, agree on that.

    The film seems to set up the idea that the people believe Jon is watching, and if they are naughty they will be spanked again. Other than that pretty much mirror the iFanboy’s sentiments with regard to the film.

  6. J4K3 J4K3 says:

    Cohen FTW. I’m seeing the movie Saturday. Woohoo.

  7. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @TNC: We actually had three seperate, distinct and nuanced opinions of HELLBOY 2.  Broken down simply – I liked it, Ron kinda liked it, Josh kinda didn’t like it.

  8. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    But back to WATCHMEN!

  9. edward says:

    @OttoBott: ( … )

    so moving on. as a fan of the book i tought the movie was fantastic (some of the effects were a bit cheesy but i was more concerned with the story) Honestly,my only concern about the movie was what the non-comic fan would think of it considering the amount of unexplainable things in the film (Ozymandias’ lion for example) However, most of the media in australia has been very positive, it was given 4.5 stars by our version of At The Movies.

  10. edward says:

    @Conor: bloody hell, you’re up at 2.47?

  11. edward says:

    and it occured to me today when i was talking to my comc store owner that Snyder should make Kingdom Come next. considering how closely he adapts comics and his relationship with warner bros.

  12. Luthor Luthor says:

    I liked it a great deal.  There are one or two things that really bugged me but those were mostly nitpicky.  It was a weird feeling walking out of that theater.

  13. robbydzwonar robbydzwonar says:

    I just got back from the IMAX in Atlantic City.  WATCHMEN was crazy!!  I loved it!  It had some really funny jokes, lots of good fights, some ultra violence, really good effects, some nice T&A, etc.  I was getting a little fed up with seeing that big blue shlong every few minutes though, they should’ve edited that out.  I was nodding out towards the end, it was like 2:40am by then, so I didn’t quite get what happened at the end very much.  I’ll go see it again in the regular theater this weekend.

    Oh, and every seat in the house was full and I was right in the middle.  It was all hot and sweaty like being at a damn indoor concert at a small venue in the summer time!! WOW!!  Oh yeah, some hooker offered me her service as I was leaving Tropicana too!  LOL, my mom was already on her way to meet me at the Dunkin Donuts by Chelsea Pub so I had to refuse.  I was really tempted though, believe it or not.

     

  14. LukeB LukeB says:

    Okay, so I just finished listening to the cast, I went and saw the film a few days ago, I agree with pretty well everything you said about the movie, and I can’t wait for the special ed. dvd and everthing that will come from that, but, like you started to say, the peace didn’t seem lasting and if I had to find something I was a little annoying was the lack of lesson’s learnt by Dan and Jupiter that they had to go through by the end of the book, everything just seemed to go back to normal for them, their trial by fire most definately didn’t end in as changed a life as I would have hoped for…. trying hard not to spoil stuff so hopfully people who have seen and read it will understand, but other than that, I thought pretty much all the other changes were fine.

     

    I find myself liking it to what I thought of the first Harry Potter film, the Book had SO! much more too it, but damn if it wasn’t a Great set of highlights shown in moving pictures that allowed me to watch and not read ;)

     

    Loved all the easter eggs, I’m looking forward to multiple viewings to see if I can find more, but I think I’m going to have to wait a week or so, let it digest and try going in with a less attached mind…… like that’ll work. 

  15. Ebert’s review -> http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997

    will listen to the podcast and comment later.

  16. Bendrix Bendrix says:

    It was…okay. It was far from terrible, but just really mediocre (which can be viewed as terrible, beeing a Watchmen-movie). Patrick Wilson was great as Nite Owl II, Ozymandias was terrible miscast. A very faithfull adaption (except the ending), but only on the surface. It failed to bring in some really emotional depth most of the time. I loved the opening credits and Snyder managed to get the whole flashbacks accross without becoming it a confusing mess. But, of course, he did a ridicoulus amount of slo-mo shots plus I am not a fan off the over-stylisation in some scenes. It did work on 300, but thats a completely different animal. 

    All in all I didn’t regret watching it, but I am not eager to see it again. 

  17. I thought the squid ending was more efficient because it’s such an unexpected and jarring concept and visual with lots of setup whereas the movie ending required less setup but more suspension of disbelief. It’s not an entirely unexpected thing and doesn’t shock you. It just sort of happens. I think also that Veidt was never established as a hero making the "pop" of the reveal is weakened. Ozymandias being revealed as the "villain" in the book is an important story mechanic.

    I thought the fight scenes were great! They were a great subversion of the action genre. Especially with the slow-mo and the music.

  18. TopGun TopGun says:

    liked it overall. thought it was really good and had fun with it. the general crowd response was good too. too tired to say much more beyond that

  19. BenBugenig BenBugenig says:

    I’ll listen to the podcast when I’m not extremely tired. But for now…

    -A little too much action and fighting.

    -Music was a bit too over amplified at times.

    -Very faithful to the story, which made it good.

    -Acting was spot on.

    -Certain moments from the book were captured perfectly.

    I enjoyed it and will see it again.

  20. Ipitythefool Ipitythefool says:

    OK, I have something to admit… I have yet to read Watchmen. I know I know, here’s my iFanboy card back.

    For someone who has yet to read it though, I really liked it. I liked that it seemed more like a movie with superheros in it than a superhero movie. I didn’t find anything confusing, the flashbacks were great, and it didn’t seem 2 hrs and 45mins long to me. I was engaged the whole time and that’s what I was worried about the most. There were no "holy crap" moments like Dark Knight (which had many) or anything but that didn’t take away from my enjoyment. I would def recommend it to anyone on the fence about it. Oh I loved the guy who played Nite Owl.

  21. Em Em says:

    I’m at about 13:10 into the podcast and I simply do not see where you guys are coming from about the casting/acting. I couldn’t even count the number of times I unconsciously let out an audible sigh (at which my friend sitting next to me would tel me to shut up) and thought to myself "UGH I cannot BELIEVE they just sounded so stupid saying a line that sounded so epic in the comic." Now, the acting was certianly better than say, the Spirit, but as far as I’m concerned this movie could have been acted out by my old high school drama group and it would have turned out at least as good. A lot of the dialogue sounds rushed (except for Dr. Manhattan’s, whose pauses and hesitations midsentence drove me up the wall), and not once throughout the whole movie did I feel as moved by the script as I do every time I read the graphic novel. I don’t know, maybe the voice I have in mind when I read is just too high an expectation, but this movie was just a huge letdown for me

  22. gamboa1047 gamboa1047 says:

    I just got home from the midnight showing and I am very happy to see that a podcast was already posted! So I listened to and now its 4 in morning : ). Awesome show you guys. I have to agree with you guys. Movie was pretty damn good. Hope the "civilains" like it to.  Favorite part of the movie for me was the whole jail scene. That was awesome.

  23. sgrsickness sgrsickness says:

    I think the alternate for the squid was very well done, giving it an awkward sort of personal touch that the squid lacked – though not that it needed it as the squid itself also worked well just for different reasons.

     

    and everytime i saw Rorschach without his mask I almost shit myself. 

  24. patio patio says:

    I was just watching the motion comic yesterday and when I saw the Owlman exoskeleton in Dreiberg’s basement I thought, hmmmm they never got around to using this. I wonder what the chances are of a sequel? (for the comic, not the movie.) Of course I know the chances are pretty well zero. But I wonder how many writers have penned a possible Watchmen II?

  25. Re: Osterman’s pauses- I thought they were very indicative of how the character is distant, not interested, distracted, removed.

    2:45 and I was not bored at all. That’s got to be positive. Also, I’m thinking, this is the first anything like this has been attempted, so I think this will be historically significant.

    My whole reaction right now is that I’m stunned in the literal sense of the word. I think the podcasters are also a little stunned. A lot of things to process here.

    It’s a very dense film and it puts yet another nail in the coffin in which the stigma around comics seems to lie in more and more permanently.

  26. Re: clunky dialog, my thought is that it’s quite intentional. This is a very subversive film.

    Question, do novel fans discuss how adaptations are changed from their favorite books? Just wondering.

  27. Josh Flanagan josh (@jaflanagan) says:

    I’m sure they do.  Lord of the Rings is still being debated to this day.

  28. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    @JumpingJupiter – Are you kidding?  All the time.  

  29. kwisdumb kwisdumb says:

    Downloading this now, just got back from the midnight showing. Thanks for this!

  30. Superyan Superyan says:

    I was lucky enough to see it Monday night in Pittsburgh, PA for an advance screening. I’ll be honest, I’m not a diehard fan, but I have read it and appreciate it. I went in thinking the movie looked pretty cool, and it definitely lived up to my expectations. I think Zack Snyder did a really great job of adapting the "un-film-able" graphic novel. Clearly, in 3 hours, you can’t include everything, but when I came home I started flipping thru the novel and they really hit all the main points and I think there is a great attention to detail in really going shot for shot in some cases. I guess there’s pro’s and con’s to that, but I really liked it! I thought the acting was top notch in all cases! They found a way to bring each character to life without, I dunno, it seeming ‘fake’. The running time wasn’t a problem for me either. I honestly could have sat there for another 3 hours. I am wondering though about how many main stream folks not familiar with the story will try to take kids to see this. Hopefully they realize its R, cuz it definitely earns it! The fight scenes get pretty brutal! Not to mention… when the Owl Ship’s a rockin, don’t come a knockin’!! Oh well, I am looking forward to listening to the podcast now. I for one loved it and will be going to see it again on Saturday… in IMAX this time!  I can’t wait!

  31. EAGLEBAUER EAGLEBAUER says:

    Looks like I agree with Ron: after having a few days to think about it, I liked the movie more than I did initially. Still, though, I didn’t love it. In fact, my ambivalence toward the whole thing is a big problem: it didn’t really move me one way or the other. I thought the first 30-45 minutes were great, especially the title sequence. After that, though, the movie felt like a series of "greatest hits" from the book. Sure, it looked great and was really faithful to the book, but all the context that gives those moments emotional weight was missing. The sense of impending nuclear war that permeates the book is just replaced by characters saying, "hey, world war III could happen any moment," and the ending was so dumbed down it barely packed any punch at all. My biggest complaint, though, was the fight sequences (in the ally and prison) and the sex scene. At those moments, the movie felt like just another big, dumb, stereotypical "comic book" movie. The book is cited as a mature work not because it was graphic, but because it was morally ambiguous. Here in the movie, we have people in costumes snapping off people’s arms and throwing each other across the room (Snyder did realize that Nite Owl and Silk Specter don’t have super powers, right???), which is exactly the sort of juvenile non-sense that Moore was critiquing in the book. That said, like Conor, I would be curious to see it again, not in nit-picking mode.

  32. ohcaroline ohcaroline says:

    OK, I won’t see the movie until tonight and I haven’t gotten to hear the podcast yet (I didn’t realize it would be up so soon — Nice work, guys!)  but I’m nonetheless enjoying people’s thoughts.  It looks like the IFanboy verdict was positive overall, so that’s encouraging to hear.

    @JumpingJupiter — I’ve always thought a large part of the appeal of adaptations is to compare them to the source.  It’s a vehicle for talking about the different ways a text can be interpreted or updated.   

     @LukeB — "if I had to find something I was a little annoying was the lack of lesson’s learnt by Dan and Jupiter that they had to go through by the end of the book, everything just seemed to go back to normal for them" — is that any different from the book, though?  I sort of see that as the point of their characters; they’re the most "normal", human and on the surface the most sympathetic characters, but they’re also the furthest from actually being able to change anything.  It’s why (I think) they’re not the heroes.

  33. WetWork WetWork says:

    The film exceeded my expectations.  As faithful to the source as I could have hoped for.  I’ll be seeing it again tonight and expect to enjoy it more as I won’t be analyzing it and constantly comparing it to the book.

  34. I interpreted the "bog, dumb fight scenes" as a cop-opt of a common trope. You know, like how the book did it.

  35. OddsBodkins OddsBodkins says:

    1. I liked this movie so much more than I thought I would. Rorschach, Nite Owl and Comedian were all acted out wonderfully.  The rest… well, they used a lot of $$ on effects.

    2. Everyone keeps ripping on Snyder’s use of the Dylan track at the beginning.  I just don’t get it… if anything, it’s another example of how much he stuck to the story.  I thought the soundtrack throughout was great… especially the musak version of Tears for Fears "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" in Ozy’s office.

    3. No squid… but this ending still worked.   Most everytime he updated the script for the movie (ending, Rorschach getting his mask back at the prison), we still arrived at the same place. 

    4. I don’t know how anyone could think that Malin Ackerman did a good acting job in this.  She is easily the worst actress working today.  She completely blew the scenes on Mars and the ones with her mother… even bringing down Carla Gugino’s performance with her.  

    5. The mood/theme music throughout was a little offputting.  Seemed too modern for this.  I understand having to keep the dark tone throughout, but I don’t know.

    6. Their "super strength" was also a little weird to me.  I understand that it’s a movie, but punching through walls and kicking people across a football field’s length was bizarre.

    7. I wish Hollis’ killing was included… as that’s an impotrant plot device for peeking into Dan’s head at the end.  I also wish we got a stronger sense of the overall paranoia of the city and the world.  In the book, it hits you over the head constantly.  But, I think they did the best they could with the amount of time in a movie… especially since we don’t see/hear from the newsstand guy/New Frontiersman hardly at all.

    All in all, Snyder was about 90% faithful to the book, which is what we were all hoping.  I’ll trade a few quibbles for that percentage every day and twice on Sunday.  I’m seeing it again, on IMAX, tomorrow and will hopefully feel even better about it!

  36. Aquaman Aquaman says:

    I dont see why I should see the movie. Ive read the book and how can the movie be better? The only thing the movie would do is make me either angry or content. If I hear great things ill watch the watchmen.

    Hurm indeed

  37. broderboy broderboy says:

    so tired

  38. OttoBott OttoBott says:

    @edward – jk

  39. yamiangie yamiangie says:

    I’m with you oddsbodkins the opening credits where so good set to "the times they are a changing."  I thought the who sound track was very well done.  I’m going to have to get it.  Also it was nice to get into a small screening at the thearter my boyfriend works at and not the public one.  In this one only guy fell asleep and snored.  Saddly everyone would have noticed me and my boyfriend spaszing out ever time roschach was out with his end is nigh sign. 

  40. mrmister mrmister says:

    All the people at the place where I saw it clapped during Rorschach’s "You are in here with me" line, and it was pretty awesome. Loved the movie. Don’t be too cool for school just go see the damn movie I promise it is more fun than sitting around with Alan Moore worshipping a snake.

  41. The debate on this film’s adapataion will perhaps even challenge the endless debate over the adaptation of "How to Eat Fried Worms".

  42. Jim Mroczkowski Jimski (@jimski) says:

    It’s been sixteen years, and I’m still a little peeved about the changes to Jurassic Park.

    I mean… John Hammond, a cuddly elven grandpa? Come on, Steve!

  43. @edward: ‘Synder should do Kingcom Come next. Considering how closely he adapts the material’

    ….Yes….Yes!!! Let’s have that happen please Warner Bros!

    I am a bit still confused on whether this is going to be a good film or not. I mean the majority of the comments here seem rather positive; but the critics are a good 50/50 on the film. Makes me all the more pumped up for the film.

    Let me ask the people who have seen it…..is this better then Iron Man or Dark Knight?

  44. OddsBodkins OddsBodkins says:

    @TNC – Way better than Iron Man, but not better than TDK. 

    TDK had killer actors, at the top of their game, all playing off one another.  Watchmen suffers a bit from acting, but makes up for it in style.  I just can’t put Sin City/300/Watchmen in the same category as a "typical" Hollywood offering.  

  45. drakedangerz drakedangerz says:

    I shall listen to this Saturday afternoon, since the earliest I can watch this is Sat. morning.  Glad to see some discussion on this movie :-)

  46. MeanOldPig MeanOldPig says:

    Maybe this will keep me awake at work…

  47. mrmister mrmister says:

    @TNC – I liked this more than Iron Man and Dark Knight.

  48. rayclark rayclark says:

    hmmm i thought it was awesome. my friend didnt like it thought it was too matrixy

  49. lol @ "Hallelujah" for the opening to the podcast. That was like the only flaw in my opinion, the heavy-handed music choices. A solid adaptation overall and i actually said before listening that it was 95% the same.

  50. SixGun SixGun says:

    I loved it more than I could have possibly imagined. Very cerebral, very subliminal in its craft.

  51. SixGun SixGun says:

    Snyder proved to me with this movie that he is actually a good director who makes good films. Not just a guy who can adapt panels to film-reel.

  52. LukeB LukeB says:

    @ohcaroline -  Exactly my point, to me in the book it felt like they were compelled to leave it all behind because they had been successful in failing to stop Adrian from ‘saving the world’, I mean it couldn’t be that difficult to determine that dan was the Nite Owl and that he was active again, he and Jupiter broke Rorschach out of prison and it’s not like the government wouldn’t have been keeping an eye of her, like the book they should have been hunted down at Dans place, showing that this life is not for a normal person, then having them be completely useless in stopping the millions of deaths and a possible solution to peace should have made them realize that what they do is useless, then go back to their un-superheroic lives with new identities……… as I said, it’s about the only nitpick I had, no repucations for Dan and Jupiter, annoying ;)

  53. ActualButt ActualButt says:

    What I liked:

    - The opening credits.

    - Rorshach

    - Malin Akerson’s hotness

    - The Star Trek, Wolvie, and Terminator trailers.

    What I didn’t like:

    EVERYTHING ELSE!

    More specifically:

    There was zero charisma between Laurie and Dan.

    The added fight sequences.

    The soundtrack. Dylan during the opening credits was cool, but 99 Red Balloons? Seriously?

    Overall, the movie was a chunk of ass. Snyder is a terrible director and the talent just wasn’t there. The only interesitng camera angles were the ones that were lifted directly from the book. The dialogue came off cheesey and contrived. I hated it, and wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

  54. bean6344 bean6344 says:

     2 wedings this weekend are keeping me away from this until Sunday. D’ho!

     

  55. yamiangie yamiangie says:

    As I think about it the music seems to remind me of how they used music in the Graduate.  It’s the music of that time more or less and 99 Red balloons is about anit nuclar war and it was like being played as backround music in the street. 

  56. I’m usually pretty cynical about movies, but I find myself pretty excited about seeing this one.  300 is what it is and nothing more, and Dawn of the Dead is underrated.  No doubt that Snyder will pull this off but I think my expectations have been ratcheted too high.

  57. akamuu akamuu says:

    I went and saw the midnight showing with some of my fellow comic store coworkers and some nerdtourage.  I don’t think there was anyone in the theater who didn’t enjoy the movie.  And I got to hear most of them, since I left my hat in the theater, and had to stand by the door and listen to everyone walk out before I could get in to retrieve it.

     

    Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  And, working in a comic book store, I know there are a good chunk of people who just aren’t happy with anything.  Well, those people shouldn’t go out and see any movies, or read any books or comics.  Ideally, it will end all of their unnecessary stress and blood pressure problems.

     

    The thing is, this was a great movie for comic book fans, and people who’ve never read the book.  Was it 100% clinging to every panel of the comic?  Hell, no.  Nor should it be.  When something moves from one media to another, there are things that have to be tweaked. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t.  I think most of the changes they made for this movie worked.  And those that didn’t, didn’t take away from my enjoyment of the movie.  And none of the acting ever took me out of the experience, though there were a few breathtaking cinematic shots (and, no, none were in slow motion) that did make me think "why haven’t I seen a shot like that in a movie before?"

     

    If you’re someone who likes movies, you should see this.  If you liked The Watchmen or loved it, you should see it.  If you’re a total purist who finds change terrifying, you should stay in your basement, curled in a ball, and not talk to me, or in my presence.  And, especially, stay out of my store.

     

    Regarding the podcast, I didn’t know that Alan Moore had all the money go to the artists.  I’ll try and think of that, and not this comic the next time his name comes up in conversation.

  58. Josh Flanagan josh (@jaflanagan) says:

    Great comments akamuu.

    Look for some podcasts with Alan Moore interviews.  There are a couple out there, from Indie Spinner Rack and Fanboy Radio I think.  He isn’t scary at all.  He’s really friendly sounding.

  59. piscespaul piscespaul says:

    @akamuu 

    I don’t have a basement, where should I go to curl in a ball? Oh and why wasn’t I part of of the nerdtourage ?

  60. eagle6002 eagle6002 says:

    I just felt like the movie was rushed pacing wise. It just jumped from scene to scene. I never got the feeling like I was getting to know the characters like I did in the book. I never cared for them. Rorschach, Nite Owl, and the Comedian were great, but the scenes for each character in the movie seemed so short that I never developed a connection with the characters. With the book, I felt that I was with the characters in their struggles and felt their pain, but in the movie, I just kept thinking,"I remember that scene from the book. I want to go read that scene now."

    In addition, the death of the citizens of New York didn’t hurt as much as it did in the book. I never cared about the New Yorkers in the movie, but in the book, the death of all these people tore me up because I felt so close to them and realized how cruel such an event is.

    The book really left me with a profound sense of the value of life and kept me asking myself what the right decision was. It led to internal conflict. The movie just left me thinking how I liked the scene much more in the book. Some scenes were great, but they also reminded me how much more I enjoyed them in the book and how much more of an impact they left.

    Overall, I felt like the movie was a hollow shell of the book. It had all the pieces of the puzzle, but they weren’t put together like they were in the book. I felt like the book was really speaking to me as I read it. The overall message sent across by the book left me thinking,"That was amazing." I left the movie thinking,"I want to go read the book."

  61. @akamuu

    While I don’t necessarily disagree, I don’t think it’s fair to disparage someone for not liking Watchmen just as it would be unfair to call someone out for liking it.  This is kinda the Morrison discussion all over again.

  62. muddi900 says:

    It was a great piece of fan service. Other than that it missed the boat on a lot of things. I liked it, I don’t know anything about someone who’s not a fan.

  63. snappants snappants says:

    Psychologists have found that when very young children see an image of a human face they are content.  When they see an image of something very foreign they are content.  However, when they see an image that is a human face with foreign elements in it they become agitated.

     I find this to be true in the case of this film.  As an adaptation it comes excruciatingly close to the source material, however, for it to translate things must be cut, squeezed or altogether altered.  I found that the only times I was disturbed was when something was completely altered.

     I really look forward to an extended DVD but sadly believe they won’t have the book’s original ending coupled with it.  I did enjoy the film, but feel that a director who wasn’t trying to directly replicate the book might have finished with a more refined piece, perhaps if some of the story lines and scenes had been cut in order to flesh out the central tale.

    Final Say: Adaptations are a Tricky Beast.

  64. s30 s30 says:

    after hearing you guys talk about it, i am SO annoyed that i cant see it. i dont know wat he technicalities of the R rating are, but in UK, i amnt seeing this baby in the pictures unless im 18, and im not. i am going to try and get in, for the good of…me. i tried that once, it didnt turn out so good. wish me luck!!!

  65. edward says:

    I thought the music was fantastic. The scene with Dr. Manhattan in Vietnam set to “Flight of the Valkeries” got the most laughs in my cinema.

    and 99 Red Balloons … I went online and looked at the Lyrics:

    Ninety-nine red balloons
    Floating in the summer sky
    Panic bells, it’s red alert
    There’s something here from somewhere else
    The war machine springs to life
    Opens up one eager eye
    Focusing it on the sky
    As ninety-nine red balloons go by

    Ninety-nine decisions treat
    Ninety-nine ministers meet
    To worry, worry, super scurry
    Call out the troops now in a hurry
    This is what we’ve waited for
    This is it, boys, this is war
    The President is on the line
    As ninety-nine red balloons go by

    WTF! I had no idea but that song is fucking prefect for this movie.

    @TNC: the Dark Knight and Watchmen are very close, however, I think both films leave Ironman in the dust.

     

    @akamuu: um, sorry?

  66. Pleasantly surprised. 

  67. Megnolia Megnolia says:

    My experience watching the movie reminded me a lot of my experience reading the book the first time. There was so much baggage, that it took a long while before I could just enjoy the story. With the film, I spent a large chunk of time thinking "ok, they didn’t fuck up that scene, character, etc" and had a hard time watching it as a movie. And first time I read it, the weight of it’s history and importance were with me until, at least, halfway through the book. As the book layers upon rereading, I cannot wait to watch the film again without the baggage.

    Random thoughts:
    –The gore factor really surprised me. I thought it was appropriate, but jarring.
    –The sex scene took me right out it–it didn’t seem to fit the pace and tone of the rest of the movie.
    –Liked the music a lot, except that is my least favorite version of Hallelujah. Much prefer Jeff Buckley.
    –Loved the really specific details from the book, like the Gunga Diner elephant balloon.

  68. Josh Flanagan josh (@jaflanagan) says:

    @Meg

    The Leonard Cohen version is the original version, and was era appropriate as it was released in 1984. Jeff Buckley wasn’t around then.

    The sex scene was in the book. Both are all about the deconstruction of superheroes.  The fact that it was jarring is the reason it was there, because it wouldn’t be in a Superman movie.

    That’s what I think anyway.

  69. Megnolia Megnolia says:

    @Josh

    You’re right, the Cohen version is era appropirate. Jeff Buckley should be reserved for scenes involving Mark Harmon.

    I recognize the sex scene’s importance to the plot and overall themes of the work, I was speaking more about the way in which it was done. I think Ron’s analogy of "it’s still going" was close to my reaction.

  70. CGPO CGPO says:

    I definitely liked it, but most certainly want to see it again.  Without a doubt this is a movie that rewards multiple viewings and will be discussed for years.  I’m very interested in seeing the extended cut to see what Snyder filmed but left out.  I noticed a lot of the minor characters were either left out or glossed over, so hopefully some of those will be included.  I also hope he shows more of how Dr. Manhattan has had an affect on the world in terms of technology, etc.  I expected to see more electric cars and charging stations, but really that’s just nit picking and did not make me like the film any less.  I agree with the squid not being there, I think it would have been difficult to pull it off and may have pulled people out of the experience as it may have been too "out there", even for Watchmen.  And I agree with Josh in the podcast that the movie really should have opened with the opening of the comic as it is quite iconic.  But still, I think it’s an amazing achievement and thoroughly enjoyed it and I look forward to Snyder’s next film.

  71. theronster theronster says:

    I’ve read the book 2 or 3 times since 1991, so there’s that…

    However, the film left me completely underwhelmed. I was fascinated by the acting out of scenes from the book, but seriously guys, if you think that they’ve filmed the unfilmable then you’ve seen a different movie to me.

    Lets start from scratch: 

    When Moore said it was unfilmable, he didn’t mean the nuts and bolts story – that’s obvious. However, the true beauty of Watchmen is the stuff you only notice on the 3rd or 4th reading… The way different chapters overlap in time so you can see characters in the background. The detailing in the artwork that endlessly references the same visual motifs. The background characters who infest the intersection the story revolves around.

    All of this stuff is expunged to make what is, essentially, a straightforward story with a few flashbacks. And not for nothing, but that isn’t the reason Watchmen (no ‘The’, note, for an important reason) is so revered. Its more than just a ‘grown-up’ super-hero story.

    The techniques that Moore and Gibbons employed to tell that story are STILL worth paying attention to, as I don’t think the super-hero genre has yet produced anything as literary as they did 20 years ago, and I don’t even think its Moore’s best work by a long-shot. Gibbons, on the other hand, has never bettered this.

    Oh, and ‘The’ Watchmen? I think anyone who has read the book should be able to realise that the title doesn’t solely refer to the costumed adventurers in the story – it refers to ALL forms of authority, both elected (like the President) and self-appointed (like The Comedian). To re-appropriate it as the name for a super-team is to completely miss one of the main themes of Moore’s original work – that ALL authority’s integrity should be scrutinised and suspected.

    To assume that the comic was JUST about the central story is to do it a disservice, and to assume that acting out scenes of it means it can be translated to screen seems a little naive.

    The movie is a moving, audible tribute to the book. But only about, oh, 50-60% of it. There’s none of the original texture, none of the amazing attention to detail regarding space and time (surprising, given Gibbons heavy involvement), and there’s a shit-load of extraneous sex and violence seemingly amped-up to lend the picture the appearance of being a grown-up film.

    Which, going by the rather shallow appreciation of the book Snyder seems to have, it isn’t.  

  72. theronster theronster says:

    Shit. After all that, I go back and read the first line and realise I’ve left out ‘a year’.

    So, the first line of my rant should read: 

    I’ve read the book 2 or 3 times a year since 1991, so there’s that… 

  73. Why are people shocked that the literary techniques and deep involvments the book provided isnt going to translate fully to a film format? This isnt a static panel by panel shot, it’s a free flowing picture….there’s no way to make this 100% of the GN and there is no way all of the things Moore and Gibbons touched upon (both art and story) will be able to translate to the film.

    I’m just flabbergasted why people still think this. Even after when they see the film

  74. Grayghost Grayghost says:

    I didn’t go in with big expectations, so I wasn’t really disappointed.  It was too long and that’s because Snyder tried to put in as much as he could because he had to.  I really think they should have done a 12 episode series on HBO or something to really get in the story.  Otherwise, anyone that hasn’t read the books is not going to know what is going on.  The cinematography was great and there were parts I enjoyed.  But as a whole, I left with the feeling I went into it with: underwhelmed.

  75. theronster theronster says:

    Thanks for making my point – if you CAN’T translate what made the GN great in the first place, specifically because those things are intrinsic to the medium it was created for, then WHY make it into a movie that’s a shallow reflection of its source material?

    I have no problem with stuff like Spider-Man, Batman or whatever being made into movies, as those movies (it can be argued, anyway)  aren’t retellings of definitive comics stories – they are re-imaginings of those characters for the screen.

    That isn’t what has happened here – NO imagination was employed. It was an attempt to recreate a comics masterpiece in a medium it was expressly designed NOT to work in, and its my opinion that it fails.

    If anything, this makes me even more impressed with the comic – it achieves SO much more than the movie, and cost a tiny fraction of the latter’s budget to do it.

    All hail the power of comics! 

  76. akamuu akamuu says:

    @ultimatehoratio: My comments are more geared to the people dissing the movie that haven’t, and probably won’t see it.  Yes, people have a right to dislike it.  But, based on my experience with the movie, and with rabid fans, many to most of the people who will trash talk it are the sort of people who will never be happy.  And will feel the need to spend lots of time telling me why they don’t like it.  Even, if they haven’t seen it.  And most of them, except piscespaul, have basements.  I’m not saying they live in them, but they’ve spent some time down there.

     

    @piscespaul: Tom calld me at 6 to tell me there were free tickets waiting for me at the theater.  Also, I haven’t had our phone number since we were twelve.

  77. chlop chlop says:

    Someone should have showed the Watchmen moving comic instead of the film…now it’s too late. That would be a great gag.

    @edward – they should have totally showed him watching Inspector Gadget to explain the cat.

    @robbiedzwonar – did you quote Rorschach outloud to her?

    @jumpingjupiter – yes! Harry Potter has uncombed hair. Great disappointment – seeing that his hair is neatly combed.

    @superyan – kids need to be taught about attempted rape and wars. A movie might be the way to do it.

    @EAGLEBAUER – Nite Owl 2 gets free drinks all the time with his sad sack personality. That might be considered a superhero power… To be serious for a second – read the book. A flying ship and a clunky robot suit and grapling hookes aren’t very realistic…

    @ohcarloine – the second nite owl might be useless, but with his flying whatisit he can spread the gospal! If you ever been to Jerusalem you might have encountered vehicles with speakers on top of them and someone shoting in a distorted voice about god and messiah and what not. He’s perfect for that.

    @OddsBodkins – a flirt is a flirt, no matter how sparse they are.

    @Aquaman – so you’ll understand the sequel.

    @mrmister – show some respect! A snake cured the Israelites, and it took a lot nagging god to get it done. Read your bible.

    @ActuaButt – Scrubs used that song in the best way possible, and that wasn’t called for. I guess it was part of the "obvious songs about doom and change" hits cd… and the comicbook doesn’t have some weird text? "I have seen its true face" etc.

    @akamuu – cool comic. Thanks for the link.

    @snappants – also if you put a mirror in front of a bowl of candy, they will take less candy. Thank you BBC (I think).

    @s30 – a knife and extra clothes so the cops won’t pull you out of the theater miday through the movie.

    @edward – They should have gone with the original choice "Humpty Dumpty":

    "Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,
    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
    All the king’s horses
    And all the king’s men
    Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty
    Together again."

    To adapt the pirate part in the movie so it would be more true to the spirit of the book.

    @CGPO – the squid is indeed out there, even in the comicbook and a pretty laughable choice that takes away from that part of the book.

    ————————-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv_I1cUdOyY 

  78. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @Grayghost: HBO was offered WATCHMEN. They didn’t want it.

  79. I saw it this afternoon. I LOVED it. Period.

    When it comes to the movie critics/fanboys/average everyday people reviews, here’s the damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario…

    Zach Snyder was SO loyal to the source material he allowed little room for personal, artistic execution. Sometimes when you give the fans what they want… they don’t know what to do with it.

     

     The Tiki 

  80. edward says:

    @Chlop: what exactly are you talking about?

    @akamuu: i owe you an apology. Since my last post I did some stuff around town. At two different points (on the bus and at the hair-dresser), I over-heard two different pairs of what can only be described as nerds loudly bitching about the book and movie without any real analysis. You right a certain kind of person will complain for no reason.

  81. chlop chlop says:

    @edward – people wanted the pirate parts in the movie, and the Humpty Dumpty rhyme sang in the background as part of the soundtrack might have been an adequate replacment, leading to a better adaptation of the comicbook.

  82. I caught a midnight screen last night and honestly I had the same reaction you guys had in that I walked out not exactly knowing what to think. However, after thinking about it all day and just listening to the podcast the more and more I liked it. Im not a die hard Watchmen fan so I wasn’t bothered much by some of the deviations with the exception of a few minor ones(which hopefully will be put back in the directors cut). While I wont say this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, this definitely was for the most part what I was hoping for. It looked great, with the exception of one or two cast members everyone was great, especially Jackie as Rorschach who I think gave one of the best performances in a comic book film.

     However, I had two major faults with the film. I felt the violence in the film was so over the top that it bordered on being cartoonish, there were moments of extreme violence that shouldn’t have been funny, but I laughed my ass off at it. The other problem I had was some of the music, I loved The Sound of Silence during Comedians funeral and a few other songs (the synthesizer score was amazing by the way) but I feel some of the songs gave the film the wrong tone. The Vietnam scene could have been really dramatic but the music played during it made gave it a different tone and everyone (including myself) was laughing.

     Other than that, I thought it was awesome and definitely think I have to see it again before I can give it a firm score though

  83. peterporker peterporker says:

    dont know what you guy are talking about  adrain was the best actor in this movie his character was better than in the book. i like his sutle accent it added more to his popus character.dont understand why your calling him nancey boy. hes suposed to be a bit metro sexual and elitist but i dont think thats nancy boy of him .the real nancey  boy was nite owl with his wooden woody allen impression, i mean really he was never that wippy in the book. also i didnt think rorausach was that great all he did was overdue the body languag, made me like i was watchin the power rangers     

  84. After the Angels and Demons trailer the entire audience burst out laughing! I went "pffft!", if I had pop in my mouth I would have spit it out my nose. We were literally in stitches, laughing ourselves into the next trailer.

    So, Wolverine? Terminator?

    I thought the Wolverine trailer looked cheesy but I think it looks like it will be a good popcorn flick. Mmmm, powers!

    Terminator looked like it will be a cool action flick. Mmmm, ‘splosions!

  85. edward says:

    @Chlop: I know what you said, it still doesn’t make sense.

    Here’s some random thoughts:

    I really don’t want to knit pick but casting Mickey out of Sienfeld as Big Figure wasn’t very clever, it took me right out of the scene.

    I really loved the Tim Burton batman-ish shot of Nite Owl as he is shot of out the bottom of Archie at the prison.

    Snyder used too much ultra violence too early in the film. It made the Rorschach

    Origin seem less valid because all the masks were confronted with that amount of violence constantly.

    Speaking of Rorschach’s origin; the actor did a really excellent job with that scene. Even though his face isn’t seen his wheezing, forced breathing really conveyed the character’s mental implosion.

    I like how many of the shot in the film were divided into obvious rigid thirds. Think of the shot of the Comedian’s apartment door framed by the hallway. It was almost like making the nine panel grid on film.

    Did the shot of the Veidt company re-building the New York explosion site imply that Ozymandias had an alterative motive?

    The recreation of the famous image of the man kissing the woman during the WW2 peace parade using the Silhouette was very cool.

    The shot of young Walter Kovacs looking ominously at the viewer during the credits was fantastic.

    And on a personal level, The comedian in older age looked like my Dad.

  86. I saw it and I felt identical to the iFanboys. To the tee. Really, you guys just said everything I would say.

  87. I miss the Alien.

  88. It made it hard to like the Commedian(Which I thought was needed to hate Ozymandias) when they show that he killed Kennedy.

  89. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    You’re not supposed to like The Comedian. He’s reprehensible.

  90. I also feel that they made Rorschach a little more pitiable, and made him crazier, cause he didn’t kill the guy, he chained him up and set his house on fire. But that would have added alot more money to the flick.

  91. nickmaynard says:

    it’s funny that THAT was the reason you found it hard to like the comedian and not the dozens of other examples of truly evil shit he does.

  92. captbastrd captbastrd says:

    @GreenLantern2814

    Cuz that’s worse than shooting the pregnant would-be mother of your bastard child?

    I just got back from seeing it w/ a few friends. myself, two who read the comic, three who didn’t. I didn’t get to go too in depth to see their opinions as we all had to leave right after, but the 3 of us who saw it liked it (I think I did most of us all), I didn’t get the opinion of one of them, and the two others didn’t much care for it. One friend because he’s a philistine, the other because she couldn’t get past the flaws of the characters (specifically saying that she was mad Dr. Manhattan cheated on Janey Slater), to which I tried to explain how it was a deconstruction of the superhero archetypes, but it was late) One of the guys who had read it was a little bit displeased by slight, barely significant changes, but not too much.

    I felt some things were a bit off, of course. I wish they’d better established Rorschach when in plain clothes a little more, along w/ the news stand guy & kid (I was glad that in spite of this, the guy covers the kid when the blast happens, which for some reason is one of my favorite panels of the book). I felt whatsername playing Laurie wasn’t so bad. Same w/ Veidt. I felt Manhattan was spot on, Nite Owl, and definitely Rorschach. I dunno why but I thought I wouldn’t like the scenes of him w/o the mask, but I liked them even more. I was a little disappointed w/ the scene w/ the "never compromise" line (only because it’s my favorite quote of the book), but the "You’re all locked in here with me!" and "DO IT!!" gave me goosbumps. Also, I loved that Snyder added a scene w/ Dan’s reaction to Rorschach’s death, especially Veidt not fighting back.

  93. (This is a repost of my review on the forums….maybe a little long but I think this it’ll explain for itself.)

    Review (with spoilers!!)

    ———

    It’s been a long time coming but now that the film, the unfilmable film, is upon us…..Is it worth anyone’s time?

     

    The answer: A resounding yes.

    Coming into this film I was nervous, as I am sure a lot of you were as well. We all know adaptations of Alan Moore have been 0 for 3 so far. It also doesn’t help we have Zack Synder as director. Who, although did a phenomenal job with 300, is mostly known as a man who puts style over substance in only two films directed. I knew, again as did many, how some of the scenes from the graphical novel were changed for the film including the infamous altered ending. There was griping before the film was even released and it was all really much nitpicking in my eyes. Well even know with the film being released, it’s still nitpicks….as I don’t think there is anything wrong with this film.

    Patrick Wilson does a good job being Nite Owl and so does Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. The voice for Manhattan is something to get used to, but it overall makes sense on why his voice is so calm (he’s not suppose to have emotions so it works). Jeffrey Dean Morgan does an amazing job as The Comedian, making you want to kill him for some of his actions but still feeling upset for his fate none the less. The two actors that most critics had problems with (even for good reviews) I actually did not find fault with them. Matthew Goode does a respectable Ozymandias even if the character seems to be a bit more bitter then usual; and Milan Anderson as Silk Spectre is just as good…they aren’t the best actors in the world but they still were able to make their performances believable enough to follow with them.

    The differences that make this film from the graphic novel is obviously apparent….even in the very first scene. The fight scene between the Comedian and his assailant is much longer then in the book (and is very violent). Then we get right into the opening credits with supply us with enough back history for this film and gives us more insight that the ‘Under the Hood’ or other prose parts of the novel gives us. It’s changes like that, that gives it a more enhancing look into the overall story. Some dialogue gets mixed around (notably early on with Dr. Manhattan giving some his ‘humanity speech’ to Laurie in our very first meeting of the characters. More dialogue is spun around to make more sense of the actual plot but also give us more headway into the alternate ending.

    I take the standpoint that most of these changes or altered scenes are necessary and actual make the film better for it. So much of the graphic novel, although don’t get me wrong I love it as much as anyone else, is very convoluted in nature. I can see where some purists or people hating the film are going to groan at some of the major changes in the film. I’ll miss characters like the newspaper vendor or plot elements like the literary technique of Dr. Manhattan’s interview mimicking the Laurie/Dan fight scene with the gang. But it’s to be expected, because it would’ve just bogged the film down. If you want to see all the characters, all the dialogue from the novel, and anything else I haven’t covered here in the film….then it would just be too long for non-fans and even fans of the book. The ending in itself actual makes perfect sense when you think about it. It doesn’t matter what the cause of the destruction of New York City is, as long as Ozymandias’s reason for doing it is in then it’s all for naught. Some people have found ‘holes’ in the logic for the change ending, but to be perfectly honest….people like that are thinking way to much into the thing and not the purpose of it.

    More to address real quickly, the special effects were quite good. Rorschach’s mask is down perfectly, and it’s striking to see how much it changes ever scene. It makes sense in the comic because it’s static panels. But here in the film it’s a free flowing object that just astounds how long it took to get the to even work. Dr. Manhattan is also done very nicely as well. Sure you could probably tell right away he is a CGI character, but his overall movement is amazing to see and Billy Crudup did an amazing job considering he is barely himself in the film at all. Other effects like the explosions, or fight scenes did their job nicely. Sometimes it feels like Synder is going for more blood and gore then usual (like Manhattan’s killing of Moloch’s thugs or the bizarre change in Rorschach’s handling of the child killer and one of ‘Big Figure’s goons) but it still fits with the tone of the book. The adding fight scenes are very violent and very good looking; some people have pointed out again how fight scenes seem to replace dialogue. But again, in my eyes, it’s all nitpicking.

    There’s really not much to complain here. Sometimes the comic book fan in me is trying to scream out ‘THIS IS WRONG!’ or ‘THIS ISN’T RIGHT DAMNIT!!’….but I literally drowned that out because I was having fun with watching this. Again it’s all nitpicking at this point there are two things that did bug me about the film. Some of the music choices were very badly timed or unnecessary (like ‘Battle of the Valkaryes in Manhattan’s slaughter of Vietcong Soldier and the ‘Hallelujah’ seemed more for laughs then anything else) Plus speaking of the Hallelujah song….damn where did that sex scene come from? Again it’s not bad in any way but….it definitely pretty much gave it the R rating it has (that and blue glowing penis Manhattan shows).

    So nitpicks aside….there’s not much else to talk about this film. Purists will undoubtly hate this film, and to this extent I can agree with them. Scenes are sometimes drastically altered or changed, dialogue is severely cut or not shown at all, and the changed ending is more then enough to make them hate this adaptation. But that’s what this film is, an adaptation and nothing more. Synder, the crew, and cast did an amazing job making this as close to the original graphic novel you can get too. Sure there are changes, but that is too be expected. Again if this was purely 100% of the novel, then it would be too convoluted, too long, and maybe even too boring for the majority. The graphic novel will always remain one of the greatest pieces of literature ever written…..But this isn’t a bad film, it’s actually pretty great….Practically on ‘The Dark Knight’ level of greatness. By good conscious I cannot say this is better then ‘Dark Knight’. That film raised the bar and practically defined what a comic book film should be. But this adaptation does just as good job as the Batman film did. It’s on the level of ‘Dark Knight’, maybe even in arms length of being better….but as it stands now, in my opinion this is the 2nd greatest comic book film to come out.

    It’s not like the book where it changes the film industry or will be lauded as the greatest film ever made…..People will be debating for years (including myself) to come on how great or terrible this film was….But in my eyes and in my opinion, this unfilmable film is as perfect as your gonna get. Alan Moore will never like this nor will he ever accept this new version of his magnum opus….But it’s certainly going to entertain you and bring you to new levels of how a superhero film should be done. It puts almost the majority of comic book films to shame…and that my friends, could make it a turning point for the entire genre.

    Grade: A

  94. Tork Tork says:

    There were good parts and bad parts.  Overall, I thought it was okay.  I thought the ending actually worked much better like this and a lot of the actors work well (I don’t know what people are complaining about with Veidt, I thought he was real good.) but there’s a lot of weird acting (especially in Nixon… I wanted to leave every time he was onscreen) that taints this for me and some moments that felt sadly ridiculous ("What do YOU SEE?!?!?" probably tops that list.)  Also, the music choices wane between really good and bloody awful.  Is it a good movie?  I suppose.  Is it better than Iron Man or Dark Knight?  Eh, no.

  95. I say we just saw three movies that will be considered a classic trinity in the history of comic book movies. Dark Knight, Iron Man and Watchmen.

  96. BTW: Any of you TV watchers know if any of the actors did some promo, like Letterman or whatever?

  97. edward says:

    @JJ. maybe search youtube. letterman plus watchmen

  98. @Jumping Jupiter:  Download the latest Word Balloon podcast.  Suintress did roundtable interviews with the cast.

     

    the Tiki 

  99. I did listen to that word balloon. I also found Crudup on Jimmy Fallon.

  100. It was ALRIGHT, didnt blow me away

     

     

  101. Eyun Eyun says:

    I absolutely loved it! Much better than it had any right being. I went in hoping to just like it, after all even if it was a let down I still had the awesome book. What I wasn’t expecting was to be blown away by how faithful and smart it was. Zack Snyder nailed the tone and, more importantly, the point of the novel.

    I thought the cast did an amazing job. I’ve heard some people say that Malin Akerman was underwhelming, and to be honest her character probably had the least impact, but I honestly think that was because her story was the most truncated in the movie and through no fault of the actress herself. In fact, at many times it felt like a shorter vision of the film than Snyder would have liked (The Comedian as Laurie’s father being a prime example, revealed quite clumsily to join the dots) so I think the much-touted 3-and-a-half-hour director’s cut will be the true version Snyder wanted. And Matthew Goode, who again I’ve heard some call another weak link, pulled it off brilliantly in my opinion. He was cold, calculating and chilling. I even liked the half-German accent, reinforcing the idea of a public false persona.

    The music was brilliantly chosen, the score fantastic and relevant (even down to the Top Gun style 80′s electric guitars). I was most nervous about the changed ending, but it made brilliant sense. I may even prefer it to the squid. I don’t want to say it was more realistic, as blaming a big blue super-atomic man over a giant alien squid is in no way more "realistic", but it worked so well for the characters and the world Snyder presented. And the end result was the same, the ending of the movie didn’t change from the book – it just took a different route to get there.

    Most importantly, half the people I went to see this film with hadn’t read the book, had very little idea what they were going into, and they all loved it too. Obviously, I and a couple of others who were fans had our little geek-out moments, but the people who knew nothing about it came out saying how much they enjoyed it. And they want to see it again, as there was so much to take in the first time.

    That, to me, means Snyder succeeded with this film. You shouldn’t need to have read Watchmen to enjoy it as a film. And from my standpoint, last night both fans and first-timers loved it.

  102. patio patio says:

    Things I liked about the movie: Rorschach. Dreiberg. The knot-tops. Veidt building a coliseum in the hole left by the explosion. The ending sequence at the Frontiersman offices. Various other scenes in the movie, in particular, most of the backstories of the heroes. The music choices. 

    Things I didn’t like about the movie: Laurie. Manhattan’s voice. Veidt. Nixon. The pacing. The clunky, overbearing way that music was used in the movie, in particular the Miami Vice synth horn groan over a depressed Dreiberg, and Hallelujah in the sex scene. Oh, and the sex scene. And, the movie as a whole. There were numerous times when I just felt like walking out, and I might have if it wasn’t for me being stuck in the middle of a row and being with a group of 8 people. I don’t know how much worse off I’d be if I had.

    Things I didn’t like that they changed from the book, but I understand why they did: The lack of a squid monster was disappointing, but ultimately the way they did it in the movie made more sense for a movie. It tightened the story up. The conjunction of some scenes and the brevity of others.

    Things I didn’t like that thy changed from the book, and I don’t understand why they did: Manhattan hypothesizing about oncoming nuclear armageddon in the first 10 minutes, instead of creating a building tension that rises significantly when he leaves. The severe truncation of Laurie’s story and the brevity of her realization scene. Also, "do that thing you do to me." And, because Manhattan seems to be steering the boat toward his own profound realization, it makes him seem a little silly. The method Rorscharch uses to dispatch the kidnapper/killer. Showing the comedian kill JFK, whereas in the book he makes a joke that alludes to it, but it’s certainly not a known fact.

    Bottom line: In talking to people afterwards, listening to ifanboy’s podcast, and hearing other opinions, I’m softening in my dislike of the movie. It did a lot of things right. It could have been worse. The movie proved that the story wasn’t unfilmable. But it didn’t bring to the screen the magic of the book. 

     

  103. FACE FACE says:

    As much as most sex scenes seem unnecessary to films they’re featured in, the scene with Dan and Laurie is necessary in regard to the impotence factor. I was hardly bothered by it, espec. after several good looks at John’s hefty smurf. Which I kept telling my girl not to stare at, and she’d tell me the same. Oh, how we laughed.

    Most of the characters in the film were spot on. Rorschach and The Comedian knocked it out of the park while Laurie kept me hot and bothered. My only valid complaint would have to come in the form of Nixon. Could they not have found somebody who resembled the man, rather than slapping that big dumb fake nose on some guy who can impersonate him? Another costume failure might have been Silk Spectre in her later years.

    I really enjoyed the opening credits because I have read the book but they immediately made me feel for those who hadn’t. Sure they got the jist of it, but I can’t imagine many first time viewers left the theater without questions. If I remember correctly, most of what took place with the early Minutemen story happened within the excerpts from ‘Under the Hood’ and the movie was taken primarily from the panels. So, you win some you lose some. Maybe in the DVD’s bonus features?

    I loved the movie but I’ll be damned if I sit through it at the theater again. Sitting still for three hours (when you include previews and arriving early so as to get good seats) is definitely not my thing. The music score was also a great addition. Even ‘All Along the Watchtower’ found a good home here – strange as that was.

     

      

  104. SixGun SixGun says:

    best thought out discussion to ever be on this site? I think so

  105. hxcscarecrow hxcscarecrow says:

    did anyone notice the folder named "boys" on viedt’s floppy disk?

  106. OttoBott OttoBott says:

    @TNC – God bless you for leaving such a MASSIVELY freaking detailed review in the comments section of a special-movie-edition podcast episode. No sarcasm, I just started scrolling down thinking "…holy cow, thasalotta words." Glad you liked it.

  107. Timmy Wood TimmyWood (@TimmyWood) says:

    Saw it last night and feel a bit conflicted. Don’t get me wrong I enjoyed it. I really did. But like Ron said I might be too attached to this piece of work. It’s why I would never want them to make a Calvin and Hobbes movie, nothing can equal the way Calvin sounds in my head.

     That being said the only major complaint I had with it was some of the choices Snyder made with his directing. He is an action director and a very good one. But I felt some dramatice moments were rushed and some violent moments were dwelled upon. The scene that sticks out to me promenintly is the scene in Vietnam with Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian, when he shoots the predgnant woman. That is an amazing scene, both dramatically and emotionally, and it felt really rushed.
    I wish he would have allowed more dramatic beats.

    Also All I can think about is the line "What do you expect the Comedians dead." Delivered fine but rings wrong in my head.

    Don’t get me wrong. I really enjoyed it. Watchmen is still a good story and you can’t screw that up. I am curouse on what the masses feel about it.

  108. @Otto: Why thank you. :)

    You know the more I think about it, the more indifferent I am about Nixon in this film. It makes sense for him in this version to be more of a presense in the film physically. I mean in the book he is all around us, but more so in posters or just discussions by the characters. I dont know, I mean I was overall fine with the preformance of the guy but I definitely agree they should’ve done a better make up job for him. It’s funny that a film just recently came out about Nixon (Frost/Nixon) and that man did a hell of a job better then the Watchmen Nixon.

    Still it didnt bother me in the long run.

  109. Timmy Wood TimmyWood (@TimmyWood) says:

    oh my god have you seen this Watchmen cartoon. hillarious!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

     

  110. @Timmy: Hilarious, and I love it that it’s a FOX series…..WB wouldnt have put up for that crap :)

    Here’s a good question, how was your audience when you went to see the film?

    My audience wasnt packed, it was actually like 2/3rd’s full with the front row being completely empty. Most of the crowd I could tell if they read the book or not….but I have a feeling I got a crowd who didnt read the book period. Cause the people in front of me and in back of me couldnt shut the fuck up about what was going on screen. What happened to enjoying a film, especially at these prices, and not raising your voice so someone can hear you? Seriously, the two guys in front of me were on their iphones for most of the time…..That’s sad.

  111. Quinn says:

    This might not have been the best comic book movie ever, but I think that I enjoyed it more than any comic book movie I’ve seen with the word "Man" in the title (Spider, Bat, Iron, I’m lookin’ at you). TDK was probably an empiraclly better movie, but it wasn’t a joy to watch the way this one was.  It should be noted that I have really, really high standards.  I hated "Batman Begins," because I though that Bale’s acting was wooden and the story was weak.  So, why did I love this movie?

    Watchmen the comic was about layers.  Every schema, side-story, comic-within-a-comic and repeated idea added a new layer to the book, and it was meant to be reread.  If that’s true, then the movie isn’t meant to be a definitive be-all and end-all.  It’s just another layer.  It’s slightly different from the others (better in some ways, worse in others), but that adds even more to the story, because, instead of being static on the page, identical at every read-through, the story is dynamic.  It’s not that it’s a "shallow reflection of the source material" (@ronster), but is rather a distorted reflection, showing what else is possible.

    I thought that the ending of the movie was actually tighter than the ending of the book, which I’ve always been unenthusiastic about.  Now, when I go back to re-read the book this weekend, I can approach it with a differently layered understanding of what is possible, which is, arguably, exactly what Moore intended.  

    Seen in that way, Snyder’s version is as true to the "spirit" of the book as a second or third read-through is. 

    About ten minutes in, I found myself thinking, "what can movies do that comic books can’t?"  Then the music started.  A musical score is, again, another layer that is entirely missing from the comic books, a layer that comics can’t possibly include (no matter how much Chynna Cluggston or Keiron Gillen try).  Whatever you felt about the sex scene, Leonard Cohen’s voice was manifestly missing from the cold pages, and now when I read it I think that I will feel that lack.  (Seriously, I was Cohen to sing "Repent" as the soundtrack to my lovemaking, from now on.  In person. From the next room.  That may be TMI.)

    I got exactly what I wanted out of this experience, and I’m delighted that this movie was made.  Were there problems?  Of course.  There wasn’t nearly enough full-frontal-Crudup.  The love scenes (both of them) were too short for my tastes.  Carla Gugino’s makeup didn’t make her look old, so much as a victim of botched plastic surgery.  But overall this was an enjoyable movie that will enhance the reading experience of the material it adapts.  I don’t think we can ask for more than that from a comic book movie, and I don’t think that any other comic book adaptation has accomplished that goal this well.

  112. doddzilla doddzilla says:

    I just saw it.  I really liked it but it just felt like it was missing something.  It was still really good.  I went with friends and they hated it.  but they have never read the book.  I think if you’ve read the book you get sooo much more out of this.

  113. @Quinn: You made some really good points in your review. It’s something that I keep saying over and over again.

    The book has layers and we know it. It’s so deep of a book that even today after 20+ years of the original release we can still find some new things we didnt see before. For a film, your not going to get that or get very little of it. I was listening to the podcast again for this and I have to say something Ron mentioned. He stated that the art style is lost in the book and that Dave Gibbon’s work was sorta lost in translation. To me, it’s nearly impossible to replicate what Gibbons and Higgins did for the novel. Because again it’s adding layers to an already deep story. Would it be nice if some of their style was presented in the film? Of course, scenes like the RUMRUNNER sign blinking and effecting the background would’ve looked great…..But it wouldnt have made this film any better or worse.

    Besides, Gibbons worked his ass off for this film as much as anyone else. He approved of the set designs, the costumes, and helped added some of his visual touches for the film. There’s just too many things Moore and Gibbons did for the novel that could translate fully onto the big screen. So in the end, this is as close to the graphic novel your gonna get.

  114. Grayghost Grayghost says:

    I talked to my friend last night and he has not read all of the books.  He said he thought it was great.  After talking to him and listening to the podcast, I’d have to say that I agree that this is the best movie we could get for an adaptation.  That still makes me feel that there was almost not a point to making the movie.  I relate it to the podcast bringing up the remake of "Psycho."  Sure it was interesting to see, but I could just see the remake in the original form.  I’m still just indifferent and would probably need to watch the movie again to get a better feel for it. 

  115. theronster theronster says:

    Ultimately I think I’m too enamoured with comics as a medium to enjoy a film like this. I don’t read comics to get a super-hero fix, or because I think super-heros are cool, even (I don’t actually, I find them kind of dull).

    I read comics for what they can do that no other medium can do, and in this I feel Watchmen is a prime example. The fact that everyone is saying this is the best possible adaptation has left me feeling kind of vindicated, as I’ve spent the last couple of years saying to people that its impossible to do on screen what they did on the page.

    As I said last night – all they put in the movie is the story, nothing else. The feel of the comic is completely lost, at least it is for me. Also, its kind of worrying when people are going on about how cool the violence is, especially with regard to Rorschach: he is a dangerous moral absolutist, y’know? Not someone to be admired. Moore created him to show just how unpleasant a person someone like that would be, yet weirdly people seem to think he’s some sort of hero… It’s easy to feel sorry for him, as he’s clearly mentally ill. But to cheer when he hideously burns someone would make me a bit concerned for your moral compass… He’s a killer without a conscience, and maybe its an American thing, but in the UK the ‘Judge, Jury and Executioner’ character isn’t likely to endear him.

    Or maybe I’ve got humanity all wrong. I know Moore said that he finds Rorshach to be a horrid, yet sympathetic little man, and I can’t help but agree. 

    RE: Gibbons. He had an equal hand in creating the book, yet when you move to live action his work is jettisoned in favour of re-creating in ‘the real world’. Where does that leave his role then? Is a comic not equal parts writing and art? If we only take the writing, and an approximation of the art, is that not effectively saying that the art isn’t important in the medium we cherish?

    To be honest, I’m mainly just throwing out academic arguments, just to see what everyone thinks. Stuff like this is always on my mind when it comes to comics, but Moore seems to be one of the very few creators who actually has his work adapted as a piece (ie, based on his actual graphic novels). Most other comics adaptations just take the characters and then write a more-or-less new story for the screen, which strikes me as the most sensible way to go about things. Iron-Man, Dark Knight, Spider-Man, Hulk, X-Men – none of these were based on a single sotry by a specific creator or creators, so comparison with what has been done with Watchmen doesn’t stand.

    So, out of interest, am I alone in thinking that the movie is a hollow affair? Seems that way… 

  116. chlop chlop says:

    @edward – Humpty Dumpty wanted to rise above, be higher than other people, he crashed and couldn’t be put together again. That might be said about the Hooded Justice who started it and lost faith in the peofession sort of, the second silk spectre that found out more than she wanted to, the second nite owl who got his hopes and dreames crashed seeing that being a superhero isn’t all fun and games and not being able to return to it because of the act passed, Ozy when his plan was complete showed doubts about what can’t be unchanged, the Dr. can’t undo his condition and can’t return to his former state of being human, etc. All like eggs falling from walls and unable to be put together again. A shell of their former self.

    @josh – just listened to the podcast, and about Veidt’s plan in the film not lasting long – isn’t it the same way in the comicbook?

    Maybe the nuclear threat will be lifted a tad but people will still fight – I doubt Ozy wanted to create global peace. He has the wits and the money to make that happen but he chose a threat that won’t last long.
    He needed more manifestations of aliens and maybe appoint himself the speaker for the earth – an ambassador that will communicate to the aliens etc, but how long will that last? can he make sure manifestations of aliens can last? can he build an army of followers like in V for Vendetta to continue with it after his death? the other superheroes accepted it but might not have done the dirty work to keep it going, and I doubt the Dr. would participate even though he seemed to agree with what Ozy did in the end.
    He needs to create a visible threat that warns people to be good like in Childhood’s End, but how long will that last? He will be able to put cameras everywhere and monitor everyone but how long will it take until someone tries something?

    And if other manifestations don’t show themselves, than people will think it’s a fluke, or if other manifestations will appear but do the same thing, people will get outraged and he’ll end up needing to kill a lot more people.

    He can create something like in Childhood’s End where they talk through what looks like a television and show pre-recorded messages or use an image he created or not use an image – just the voice, and use a voice changer or a recorded voice for a film supposedly and kill the voice actors. That’s a flimsy tower of cards and is overly complicated and won’t last long, unless you think Veidt will create an anti aging substance.

    If the aliens will create hatred than if the people can’t hurt the aliens in some way or they will feel that the aliens are far superior to them and cold like in Asimov’s Elijah Baley series of books, than they might turn that anger elsewhere and how will he stop other crimes committed?

    Even if the nuclear risk to the USA will be lifted a tad other countries will continue to suffer and a more delicate work is needed there. It might sound fucked up but nuclear war might suppress ambitions of glory and conquest, and it might actually bring peace – a "don’t fuck with us" card of sorts that small and big countries can use. Also we’re still here so the nuclear threat didn’t play out like what was thought to happen, so in that way it’s a bit outdated, unless you think Nixon would have gone through with a nuclear attack, which I doubt.

    I find Veidt’s plan flimsy and flawed – wouldn’t it have been better to keep the Dr. around as a threat to other countries to not try something, and simultaneously Veidt could have created diplomatic links and improve things in other countries.

    Also he could have worked a way to fix all those nuclear rockets, and machine-gun to machine-gun fighting over landmine fields isn’t that appealing to countries. Also the threat that the Dr. creates would have deterred countries from attacking. Veidt could have improved the status of countries so people will have too much to lose and a nuclear war wouldn’t happen. He could have also effected the second Silk Spectre to change the Dr.s’ mind so he will help in case of a nuclear attack, but that is flimsy as well because it relies on them staying together, but it could have gained him time.

  117. IMHO you know why I think this movie is a success?  The conversations that I keep reading online are on a completely different level than any comic book adaption that has come before it.  :)

     

    the Tiki 

  118. OttoBott OttoBott says:

    @chlop – I was rereading it this weekend and thought the same thing; "this seems like an awfully short lived victory for Ozy."

    Random: If they stuck with the original ending, they should’ve created the Ultimate Hollywood-Blockbuster Frankenstein and done a sequelized mashup with a theoretical Watchmen 2 and Ender’s Game.

  119. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    ESTIMATED NORTH AMERICAN BOX OFFICE – FRIDAY

    1. Watchmen – $25,135,000

    2. Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes To Jail – $2,550,000

    3. Taken – $2,325,000

    4. Slumdog Millionaire – $1,975,000

    5. He’s Just Not That Into You – $1,350,000

  120. cormano cormano says:

    You guys liked it more than me, apparently.

  121. Tork Tork says:

    Yeah, I’ve always thought the ending was kind of weak in the book.  At least this way, to keep the peace going, Manhattan can show up periodically or declare "Be nice or I kill you all!"

  122. John42 John42 says:

    This was like going to see a band on a reunion tour. They weren’t as good as they were originally, but i loved jumping around and singing along.

  123. chlop chlop says:

    Nobody expects the Manhattan inquisition! I can see him now, teleportin to places periodically – "do you have this in pink?", "can you add it to my bill?", "can you do a sex on the beach?", "dont tow it, I was gone for just five minutes", "she’s a total slut", "look behind you!!" etc.

  124. I really dug it.  I can’t see how anyone who is a fan of the book won’t like the movie. As mentioned in the podcast, it’s a 95% perfect adaptation.  And I see no problem with the change in the end.  Seriously, I didn’t want to see a giant squid on the screen. It really would have been a little cheesy. 

    Regarding the question of the general public… in the theater I went to I noticed a couple in their 30′s with two 7-9 year-old children with them. I seriously wanted to go up to the couple and just ask "why would you bring children this young to this movie?" I think because of the marketing blitz there will be a lot of people who have no concept of the Watchmen and think it’s an Xmen/Fantasic Four superhero-team action flick, and they will leave very disappointed. Those "civilians" who realize that they are about to see a long drama/thriller with some action thrown in will like it. Unfortunately there will be hundreds of thousands like that couple I saw at the theater and it may cause this film to get bad word or mouth. 

  125. edward says:

    @Conor: is that good?

  126. Tork Tork says:

    I stepped out during the Leonard Cohen sequence because I was sitting right near a family of five.  Stupid parents… WHAT THE F–K IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!

  127. Scout Scout says:

    I thought the movie was great. A couple quick things I didn’t like so much though because they pulled me out of the movie had to do with the effects:

      1) the CG for Manhattan was a bit spotty and didn’t hold up I thought. Sometimes the facial animation was good and looked realistic. Other times it just didn’t look good at all. Too obviously CG and CG animation. The same with his clothes too by the way when he’s getting dressed to go on TV. Too nit-picky? Maybe, but c’mon, this is a big budget film. They don’t have any excuses for anything second rate when it comes to effects.

    Not sure how often, or even if they used Billy’s actual face in any of his scenes, but they could have done better. If you want to see how much better, take a look at this.

     2) the makeup used for the older versions of the characters looked too much like prosthetics and makeup.  Not only that, but the comedian and Sally Jupiter were supposed to be 67 (if I remeber right), but even though they looked older, they sure didn’t look or act like any 67 year old I’ve ever seen. More like 57 or 47 maybe. Besides, when’s the last time you saw a 67 year old man knock out a chunk of tile/brick wall with his fist like it was cardboard?

     These aren’t huge issues, and I enjoyed the movie a lot, but those 2 things made it a little difficult to remain immersed in the world they were rying to create.

  128. Neb Neb says:

    I just got back from seeing it.  I thought this was a masterful adaptation of a great comic book  I think Snyder did a great job of boiling the book down to its essence while providing a lot of fan service.  Haley’s performance was so amazing–it was on level with Ledger’s Joker for me.  I thought he just nailed it.  

    My only complaint was with the music.  While I appreciate the songs being songs of the period or from the book, I would have much preferred an awesome orchestral soundtrack like The Dark Knight.

    My favorite scenes from the film were the prison scenes with Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan’s monologue from Mars.  So, so well done.

    I can’t wait for the DVD. 

  129. lobofan lobofan says:

    Alright, I just saw the movie and heard the podcast, but I do have one nitpick.

    The sex scene was a little much.  I’m seventeen and went with my father and he leaned over to ask why I forgot this, and that was fun and all, but the scene is bad for other reasons.  The comic, for one, did not go that far with it, and the shock value it gave wasn’t all that much.  Heck I was more shocked by Dr. Manhattan actually being naked and Snyder showing it all.

    The translation of comic to movie was otherwise fine.  I loved how they did the convoluted comic issue with Manhattan on Mars, though some things were left out, but it was great.  Also, Rorschach was the perfect fit.  The other characters did fine too.

  130. brattyben brattyben says:

    I just watched it and I really enjoyed it.  It was the spectacle I was hoping for.  I thought the tone and the characters were spot on.  I was nervous about Adrian, but, Goode did a good job with it.  He felt like he was capable of doing those things, and that’s what sold it to me.

     Josh!  I totally had a big ‘ol wet tear ready to drop when I saw Rorschachs chin and lip start to quiver before he breaks.  In the book, I always read it as cynical and nonchalant.  Like, yeah, that’s the way it is.  But here, it took on a whole new meaning for me.  He knew he couldn’t exist in a world of complete utopia at the price of compromising to justice.  He knew he had to die.  And he didn’t want to.  ARRRGHHH!! Talk about tragic!

     And Conner, that line about ‘creating new life’?  I’d heard the cast before I went, and was waiting for that line, and waiting to be dissapiointed, but, it worked fine for me.  I thought his aloofness and his detachment was perfect for that.  He’s a kind of God.  He CAN create life, and that act in itself is kind of a mundane thing to him.  It’s be like growing fungus or something.  So I thought his tone was kinda perfect for that moment. 

     All in all, I need to see it again. 

  131. I can only imagine what how the MPAA rated this film.

    Rater 1: Well look at this, big blue penis, gonna have to give this an R.

    Rater 2: I dont know Bill….I mean The Simpsons Movie showed a 10 year old’s penis and we still gave it PG-13.

    Bill: Well damnit Bob we cant just give this PG-13! The general public can handle this gore and excessive swearing but we cant let them see this! It’s Nudity!

    Bob: Well…..Synder did put this sex scene in, let’s see it….Whoa….

    Bill: Bob….it looks like we got our R rating.

    Probably close to what really happened.

  132. daccampo daccampo says:

    Saw the film last night. I enjoyed it, but I didn’t think it was a great film. A few thoughts:

    1) Adhering so closely to the book makes for a great translation, but in places that was also the film’s weakness. Snyder was trying so hard to re-create the book, that he lost sight of the medium of FILM in some places. It led to some odd pacing here and there, some odd choices (to anyone who hasn’t read the material.  Also: adhering so closely to the material can also be a weakness because it ensure that you’ll lose anything that CAN’T be translated. So some of Moore’s nuance is lost here. 

    2) that said, the movie was intense, complicated, and a fair representation of the bleak viewpoint that Moore put forward.

    3) The acting was pretty good. I liked Haley, Crudup, Wilson. Morgan was alright as the Comedian. Akerman was a bit rough at the beginning, but I got used to her. And then there was Carla Gugino, who I generally like, but who I thought had a really tough time selling her role, particularly when she was older. I think that may have been the dialogue in those scenes. 

    4) I like the changed ending, but I believe it creates a logical flaw in the story. I talked myself out of it truly being a flaw, but here’s the problem: Ozymandia frames Dr. Manhattan, right? But then Manhattan realizes that Ozy is right, and he gets on board. So, when Rorschach storms out, and Manhattan decides he MUST kill Rorshach… it doesn’t quite add up. He doesn’t NEED to kill Rorshach. All he has to do is show up in any city and say "yup, I did it," and all of Rorshach’s conspiracy theories will be forgotten.

  133. @daccampo: Well no Rorshach’s plan to reveal everything is still a threat for Viedt. I mean even if the public wouldnt believe Rorshach’s insane ramblings, the media would certainly try to explore it….cause ya know the media is pretty petty like that (lol). I mean the New Frontiermen are definitely sleezy enough to dig dirt on Viedt. Plus if Viedt is somewhat stupid enough to keep his records on computers then a newspaper could definitely find it.

    So Rorshach might not be fully responsible for exposing Viedt, but he could definitely cause a whirlwind of trouble if someone listens to him.

  134. daccampo daccampo says:

    @TNC – not really. The whole "plan" was a frame-up of Doc. Manhattan. So whatever an illegal vigilante might sputter is really nothing compared to Doc Manhattan saying: "Yup, I DID do it." Physical evidence of Manhattan’s powers PLUS a confession. It’s not gonna do anything to reveal Veidt’s plan. It will just go down as conspiracy rumblings, ala the Kennedy assassinations or the 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.

  135. daccampo daccampo says:

    Er,I didn’t make that very clear. Yes, various magazines might try to dig it up, but they’re not really going to undo Veidt’s plan. It will be the equivalent of printing conspiracy theories. You can print ‘em, but they won’t have any impact.

  136. @daccampo: But you missed my point of the argument. Back then the media is as bad as today.

    Your telling me a newspaper or television network couldnt find the info on Viedt eventually? That no one could hack into his computer or personal belongings and find his plans? Besides, if your saying no one would listen to Rorshach then your not believing the original ending either. Cause either way we are suppose to believe the red headed kid for the paper will get his hands on the journal….But in your mind as long as it’s Rorschach then no one will believe him.

  137. OttoBott OttoBott says:

    My initial reaction is that this is an A+ movie, not so much because it was flawless, but because it was such a grand (and mostly successful) attempt at adapting what was deemed by the creator as unadaptable. Does that make any sense? I was staggered by it’s fidelity, agreed with 99% of Snyder’s direction, and the only way I think the story of Watchmen could possible have flowed more evenly would be to have done the 12 hour HBO series. Considering the constraints of the medium, the Watchmen movie was everything it could’ve been; an excellent effort by Snyder and company.

    I think I need need to watch it again though.

  138. daccampo daccampo says:

    Eh, sorry TNC,  but I didn’t miss the point. It has nothing to do with the media being "bad" — I don’t doubt they wouldn’t dig it up. My point is that the "conspiracy" is irrelevant if Manhattan is right there saying he did it. It doesn’t matter what a paper thinks. It matters what the public and the government think. That’s all.

    Like I said, though, this is a fairly minor flaw. It’s just that Manhattan didn’t need to kill Rorshach when he did. It invalidates that death as necessary, and that lessens the impact.

    Regarding the original ending: you’re completely missing it. I’m not saying no one would believe Rorshach. I’m telling you that with MANHATTAN standing in the middle of the city saying, "I did it and I will do it again," no one will believe Rorshach. The original ending is a faked alien invasion — there’s no confession possible. Thus, Rorshach’s points could have merit. Here, it’s Manhattan, and you have the actual Manhattan ON HAND, who could actually dispute Rorshach. And HE’s ALSO the one that chooses to kill Rorschach because he believes it’s NECESSARY. Do you see the flaw? He could have easily said: "sure, Rorshach, go tell everyone. Then I’ll just go and announce that it WAS me and I’ll do it again. They know I have the power."

    Then it really won’t matter if it WAS Veidt the first time. Because they’ll know the threat is real.

    Yeah, the more I talk about it, the more flawed I realize it is. It’s too bad, cuz it just revolves around such a small thing, but it definitely does cause a problem for the ending.

  139. Tork Tork says:

    Rorschach might have kept info on the Pyramid angle that could be verifed and link it to Adrian though.  We don’t really know what kind of information or data from Veidt’s office that he put in that journal when he dropped it off.

    Also, Manhattan might just be lazy and not want to show up and confess since he wants to leave the planet.  So, he just kills Rorschach so he can leave when he feels like it.  That’s the kind of douche move I can see Osterman pulling.  Heh.

  140. cman12 cman12 says:

    The sex scene was PERFECT. It seemed… so appropriate… so triumphant.

  141. Tork Tork says:

    Also, Manhattan may very well not know what kind of info Rorschach has either and simply being precautious so as to protect Veidt, given his role in the reconstruction.

  142. JimFromLima JimFromLima says:

    Sorry gang, I’m with Alan Moore on this one. The film seemed like "Watchmen: The ESPN Sportscenter Highlight Reel Edition". Perhaps the Directors Cut DVD will hold up better… Hurm.

  143. cman12 cman12 says:

    sorry, i was drunk when i posted my previous comment.

  144. DenverDave DenverDave says:

    It was really odd for me becasue I seem to have the book engraved in my visual memory. While watching it I was just so blown away by how Gibbons was able to put a comic together that was SO visually stimulating, sequential art almost like animation. It just isn’t as impressive in live action. Super fun to see them play around with it though. I liked it, and thought that the Dr. Manhattan sequences were brilliant.

  145. bean6344 bean6344 says:

    First of all, great podcast. 

     I finally got to see it last night and I loved it.  I can’t wait for the extended DVD to see all of the little things that they had to leave out to maintain the mass market friendly run time.  I really don’t have anything to add that wasn’t covered on the podcast or this thread.  I just wanted to cast my vote.

  146. daccampo daccampo says:

    @Tork — going back to my "flaw" for a moment:  Sure, Jon could have killed Rorshach to help Veidt or because he was "lazy" — but is that really how that scene came across? He (in the film) had just discovered the value of human life. He tells Rorshach he "can’t" let him go. He’s telling Rorshach his death is a necessary evil. My only point was that the changed ending really doesnt’ make that a necessary evil. All he has to do is stand in the middle of New York, and say he’ll do it again, and Veidt’s fake threat is now a REAL threat. Which is fine for the ending, but it simply negates the necessity of Rorshach’s death scene.

  147. RoiVampire RoiVampire says:

    @lobofan  I thought the sex scene was fine. The only part that i really took issue with was the extreme violence of the alley fight. That was a little much but the sex scene was beuatifully shot and the song was perfect.

  148. @daccampo: Your entire flaw to this argument is that….do you even know that’s what Manhattan is gonna do?

    That never came across (or at least in my viewing of the film) that Manhattan is going to be coming and going once in a blue moon to get this charade going. Nor will he return if someone is doubting Manhattan did the crimes to begin with. Just like in the book, Manhattan went off to another galaxy/universe/dimension to create life. He’d be too busy to care what is going on in the real world if he’s off doing that.

    Besides him killing Rorshach is still a necessary evil in the film. Manhattan even stated in the film that he wanted to keep quiet about the whole plot so there can be peace! So if he agrees with Viedt then he obviously has to stop Kovacs before he can try to get to the public again.

  149. Tork Tork says:

    Well, like I said, Manhattan doesn’t know what Rorschach has on Veidt or on the plot.  If people know that it was Veidt behind the plot, even if Manhattan decides to actually go rogue, it could fracture the peace established.  If Rorshach has some kind of verifiable proof of Veidt’s hand in this and this version of Nixon realizes this was done to fool him into playing nice with the Soviets, that can have very catastrophic consequences even if Manhattan confesses.

  150. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    I think people are placing too much emphasis on the plot resolution.  The themes are more important.  Time.  Perception.  Etc.  

  151. daccampo daccampo says:

    @TNC – nah, it doesn’t work that way. Manhattan believes in Ozy’s utopia. Thus, in the book, he has to kill Rorshach to perserve it. He SAYS he has to. But if HE’s the threat to the world, then killing Rorshach is NOT necessary. Not for someone who has learned the value of human life. It doesn’t add up. It doens’t matter if he’ll really be coming or going. All he has to do is stand there. That was never an issue in the book. In the book, Rorshach’s journal is the ultimate trump. It will undo everything. Rorshach’s journal in the movie ultimately doesn’t matter because Manhattan COULD come back if there is no peace.

    IT doesn’t MATTER if Veidt is exposed in this version because the fake threat becomes a real threat, by technicality. If Manhattan believes in Veidt’s utopia, if he’s willing to kill for it, then he certainly would be able to make an appearance to confirm that the threat is real. Thus it really doesn’t matter if Veidt is exposed. The the threat is still real.

    In fact, I’ll go you one better: Veidt also stands a real threat. In fact, instead of Doc Manhattan being the threat, what if Veidt WAS exposed? Couldn’t he just say "if I see anything but peace, I’ll kill a million more people." If Veidt has recreated Manhattan’s powers, then he could just be the real threat that the world rallies around. His same Utopia is created, and he’s just swapped Manhattan for himself.

  152. daccampo daccampo says:

    @Paul — I’ll agree with you, but this is a flaw in story logic created by the change to the book’s ending. I’m one of those craft guys who believes that everything in a film has to be necessary. And the weight placed on Rorshach’s death scene is enormous in the film. It’s not just Kovacs, it’s Jon as well. He’s just discovered the value of life, but he’s taking a life that he could avoid taking. That lessens one of the themes.

    Again, for me this was a rather small nitpick of the film, but it’s a very interesting one because it was the biggest deviation from the source, and it has a larger effect on the story.

  153. daccampo daccampo says:

    @Tork — I see where you’re coming from, but read my last post — how could Veidt’s exposure actually fracture the peace if the threat is now REAL (technically real… possibly real). They all know Manhattan COULD act in such a way. And if Manhattan appears and says, "yeah, I can and will do that" then it ultimately nullifies the impact of any exposure. Like… who cares if Veidt set it up? It’s real now. It doesn’t matter if Veidt is villainized because he’s already villainized Manhattan.

  154. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    No, I agree that it’s a flaw.  But I don’t think it bothers me all that much.  I don’t know if it’s my current mood or a reaction to the hypercritical fans out there, but I’m sort of relaxed with this film.  I don’t want to say forgiving, but I’m just sort of mellow about it.  So I certainly agree that the conclusion if flawed, but I do think, overall, the new resolution was a better choice than keeping the alien threat intact if only because it’s simpler and offers a stronger central thread for a story with a lot of diverse elements.  

  155. @daccampo: I’m sorry man but I have to agree with Paul. I think your putting too much emphasis on this new ending not making sense.

    Again, unless somehow your screening of the film has more diaologue in it, then there is no indicationn what so ever that Manhattan is EVER coming back. Whether it’s the people knowning the plot or not knowning, we as an audience never learn Manhattan is coming back. To me, and I’m sorry if this is coming out harsh, your nitpicking at this really unhealthy. Because to me it just seems like your shooting off ideas that not only did the film never address but even some of the book never addresses.

    But understand that is the whole point of the end in both versions. It’s great writing to end the film on an innocent civilian coming across the journal. So we can decide what could happen after the fact of that panel. So I can see why your trying to make us believe this ending doesnt work, but for all intent and purposes your just suggesting events to an ending that could have millions of possiblities.

    The strength of the end still stay in place in my eyes. Viedt kills millions of people to justify saving the world, the plan works and now Manhattan has a full reason to leave the planet, Kovacs had to be killed so this idea of peace can still happen, and at the end of the day there are still lingering threads of the whole plot that just so happens a person got their hands on….The ending in both versions, whether changed or not, still resonate what the overall plot was acheiving. In reality….you and others trying to make this new plot not work is just nitpicking at best.

  156. D0ct0rteeth D0ct0rteeth says:

    Watchmen vs Zack Snyder

    I had tried to read watchmen back in the 90′s, and I’ll be honest I never really got into it… But when I heard that they were making a movie I read it, and reread it over the last few years and I can truly appreciate it.

    The comic itself was a turning point, and it wasn’t that it was unique – but instead that it both critiqued and analysed everything that came before it.

    - what would it actually take in a real world for someone to dress up in a costume. If they did wouldn’t that person literally become a sociopath?
    - If someone was super powered – how would that impact their love-life and connections with humanity?
    - How would the rest of humanity truly look at heroes?
    - What is the connection between violence/power/control and sex?
    - What is the role of homosexuality and fetishism in comics
    - As we age and mature – how do we pass that on to our children and avoid damaging or controlling them?
    - How do we deal with a world that is changing so fast, and that uses us up, spits us out and in the end will destroy us.. How do we find hope and joy in this world.. or even a sense of purpose or meaning?
    - And despite however amazing the world is – we will always have a need and desire for escapism. You see this in the black freighter comic
    - How politicians and people of power will always seek to control and win and dominate – they are reactionary and respond only to fear. Fear of losingtheir power.. fear.. fear.. and more fear. and in the end it wasn’t hope or a sense of higher purpose or ideals that saved us… but a very very delicate balance based on a greater fear.

    This comic is praised so much, and over the past few weeks critics just say that it is a great comic universally – but never actually say why it is great. The comic is over 20 years old and the themes of Watchmen have been used and reused from Heroes, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and in some degree I will say that there is a part of me.. somewhere.. that says that this truly is the best Watchmen film that could possibly ever be made – but then there are also so many other things that absolutely made me shake my head. Now I will say that I feelSnyder did a decent job, and in a way I almost don’t feel that it is even fair to critique or judge this movie at all. This movie cannot be made. Its as if you tried to make Six Feet Under, The Wire or the Sopranos into a 2hr movie. Its too broad. its too epic.. and I know that they wanted to do it on HBO, but HBO said no. When the 3.5-4hr extended cut is released I will rewatch it, but even then I feel that you cant fix a bad recipe by making more of it.

    Snyder seems to have largely traded the subtext, nuance and social exploration aspects of the work for an excuse to just make the most brutal and dark superhero movie he could. Thisisn’t a terrible film… its amazingly reverent and loyal to the book – but it does so in a way that has actually misrepresented the original.

    Imagine if you went to a art gallery and it had posters and lithographs of Michelangelo, Degas and Picasso all over the walls… you may take 4-5 minutes and walk around and look at them, and comment that they are nice… However, you can never call them art.. they have no soul, they reflect the light completely differently and they will miss all of the texture, nuance and history that the original have that make it a true work of art. Most importantly, you should never miss the opportunity toactually see an original in Paris – and if you did, you would say, without any doubt – "Wow, I had no idea, it does look completely different".. the complexity of thecolors and the entire experience of seeing it would be completely different.

    Snyder’s film in dozens of ways has actually misrepresented the classic, and had traded substance for style, and is in a way satiring itself – which unfortunately becomes confusing and sloppy.

    For instance, just to take a single aspect – Violence in the original work was the exact opposite of every other comic book. Violence was a poor sad desperate result of fear or desperation. It was a central pillar of every character.

    Ozymandias killed the comedian because he was afraid his plan would get out. He was the Smartest man in the world… but like a Pharaoh, or King.. he was completely alone. Like a machine.. a reflection of Dr Manhattan – he will do what is logical in order to save the world but his plan, and the violence was pure logic. It was not out of love or ethics… but just amathematical desperate decision.

    Dr Manhattan was the mirror to Ozymandias in the fact that he was a central representation of love all thru the book. He truly loved Janey Slater. – but by being transformed into Dr Manhattan.. by actually being the representation of wish fulfillment an having all of the power in the world, he lost/chose to stop loving her. He abandoned his role as a husband and chose the love of another woman, Laurie – who ironically did the same to him with Dan. It is only on Mars when Dr Manhattan see’s the true complex beauty in Laurie that he begins to love again and becomes almost human again. Manhattan does several amazing things at the end of the book, all related to violence.

    1. He chooses to not stop or condemn Veidt. He literally chooses pacifism. Just moments after reconnecting with his humanity, this is not his apathy or ambivalence – but he absolutely chooses to stop the violence, both on Earth and in Antartica.
    2. He murders Rorschach, or more accurately commits Euthanasia to end his tragic life. He could have left him out in the snow, of course he would have died and would have no opportunity to tell anyone. But he kills him to ease his pain. Again mirroring the sacrifice of millions in NYC
    3. He doesn’t attempt to reunite or reconcile with Laurie, he steps aside and literally disappears. He leaves to allow her and Dan to mature into fully functional adults. All 3 of them have now left their twisted violent/heroic ways and are now true mature  adults and can have a relationship thatisn’t based on violence, S&M or approval of their mother/Hollis.

    The comedian was a weak sociopath who used violencece to control, dominate others – to the point of it becoming his career – in the end he realizes what a joke he is. He is mirrored by Rorschach whom shows how a life or repeated violence is literally so tragic and meaningless that he literally begs to be killed at the end of the story. Both men tried to find meaning in their life by dominating violencethru violence – ultimately both men were destroyed by it.

    Violence is literally a replacement for love or spiritual connection for both Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre. Hollis has actually moved on and found fulfillment in restoring old cars, mentoring Dan, and with the neighborhood kids. Hollis literally tells Dan to move on and he doesn’t need to keep coming around, and Dan blows him off… not to be polite… but because Dan NEEDS Hollis.. Dan is so empty and is missing something in his life. All of his money has been given to him, he has no one to share his life with – and is so desperate for companionship he has named his ship, and is in twisteddysfunctional relationships with both Rorschach and Sally (which eventually mature into more meaningful relationships).

    I could write about this for hours but the violence in the book is a conscious tragic substitute for life and meaning. As the characters mature they either chose to change, or be destroyed by it. Unfortunately the movie doesn’t truly illustrate this arc, but instead it celebrates the violence, amps it up and doesn’t add to or make the connections.. but instead it blurs them and this can be said about several aspects of the film such as the music, sex, and dialogue.

  157. FACE FACE says:

    DAMN! That post’s nearly as long as Manhattan’s wang!

  158. Doctor13 Doctor13 says:

    The podcast views were almost identical to my own view of the film. I liked the movie, but I’m not too sure of how much, if at all. I think I respect it more than I liked it, at least on the first viewing. I’ll definitely have to go back for a more nuanced interpretation. It did seem to be unnecessarily lethargic early on and then rushed at the end. That said, for "civilian" viewers out there this movie would have to seem almost insane (which is a compliment) and probably incomprehensible. This is a daring, radical movie, which, as I said, I’m not sure if it works or not. I am very interested in taking a look at the longer cut coming sometime in the future on DVD. Oh yeah, Silk Spectre…woof! 

  159. daccampo daccampo says:

    @Paul and TNC – guys, don’t get me wrong. I’m not out to say that Watchmen is ruined because of this. I even mentioned it was a minor nitpick. It’s simply a noticeable flaw (it occurred to me about 20 minutes after the screening because the girl I saw it with was lamenting that Rorshach had to die, and i thought… hey, why DID he have to die?), and it’s a flaw that only occured because of the change to the ending. It doesn’t invalidate the bulk of the film. I still largely enjoyed Watchmen, as I stated in my first post.

  160. Hoshigaki Hoshigaki says:

    So when do we get the sequel that has ghost Rorshach and Dr. Manhattan coming back for revenge.

  161. daccampo daccampo says:

    @TNC – last time I’ll mention this, but it’s really not about Manhattan "actually" coming back. That’s irrelevant. If he’s bought into Utopia, he’ll help it happen. To that end, he chose to kill a man instead of teleporting to New York, telling everyone "I did it," and then teleporting away. If Jon’s learned the value of human life, then action #2 is more logical. That’s all there is to it.

  162. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    ESTIMATED NORTH AMERICAN BOX OFFICE – WEEKEND

    (Final numbers on Monday)

    1. Watchmen – $55,655,000

    2. Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes to Jail – $8,800,000

    3. Taken – $7,450,000

    4. Slumdog Millionaire – $6,925,000

    5. Paul Blart: Mall Cop – $4,200,000

  163. Mari349 Mari349 says:

    Great podcasts guys!

    Went to see the film last night.

    While I did liked the film, I left the cinema quite dissapointed. I wasn’t looking for a frame by frame reconstrution and while it was so faithful to the original book, I found it lost a lot in translation yes all the characters ar there and all the major plot points but I felt a lot of the humanity was not forthcomng and I thought that would be one of the strengths of adapting Watchmen to film.

    I thought Comedian was quite one dimensional, I remember really feeling for him in his last days knowing what he did in the book. I found the sex scenes intention a bit of I always thought that part should have been more fetishistic (is that a word) more fast paced as Dan got off wearing the suit not the slow motion shagging we got in the film and I thought the fight scenes whike quite spectacular got a bit Buffy the Vampir, which I think goes against the premise of the story of real people in costumes, I almost with that the film would have been shot more like a documentary to relfect the realism that was portayed in the book.

    Don’t get me wrong there was a lot to like in this film and it really could have come out worst but I think it needed a more inteligent director. 

  164. Mari349 Mari349 says:

    @D0ct0rteeth I agree with your analysis 100% 

  165. ccordova2 says:

    took the wife to see it last night, i walked feeling strange. it was a beautifully shot movie & everytime Rorschach was on screen was awesome!! bout half way though i was getting bored cuz i knew what was coming & it got to the point where i was just looking for what was missing or what was changed.

    the wife said she was confused & didn think she was comic book geeky enough for it. which i can see because i know the story so if there was anything missing my mind filled it in, but the wife was lost.. 

  166. @daccampo: At the end of the day I think your just nitpicking, that’s my side.

    Your thinking on something that A) is never shown in the film and B) is never mentioned either.

    This is on the same lines of conor defending Hellboy 2 with the Kids. You dont see the kids, you dont know if the next film will actually have them, your just complaining on something that hasnt happened. In the end I agree with what conor is saying (although I still disagree), your arguing on something that hasnt nor will ever happen.

    You can complain and I’m fine with that. This is one of the few films I agree with both sides. But really….your just trying to find one tiny, irrelevent thing to make you hate the film. Just enjoy it man, and try not to look at the little things. This isnt a 100% adaptation so you should know already how dumbed down this got.

  167. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    As Dave said, he’s not letting it ruin the film for him.  He’s just picking out a flaw, which isn’t a condemnation of the film, nor a crime on his part.  

  168. @Paul: I’m not saying it’s a crime to nitpick on this film. I just said it on the post above you I dont mind him complaining.

    But he’s complaining on something that isnt a flaw.

    Manhattan has to kill Rorshach in order to keep Viedt’s peace in order. Manhattan stated he isnt coming back to their planet, so why the heck would you think he would come back? The characters felt there wasnt a flaw in Viedt’s plan so of course they had to get rid of Kovacs. Just stating ‘Well Manhattan could come back and state blah blah blah’…….Is just nitpicking. It’s not a flaw, it’s just a nitpick in your eyes. You cant complain (as I learned on this site the hard way) you cant hate on something if it isnt shown to you or is never addressed at all.

  169. s1lentslayer s1lentslayer says:

    I don’t need 500 words to say that I liked it:) It felt a little wrong to blame it on Manhattan but the audience knows it was really Veidt so I guess it’s the same ultimate conclusion. Whether that means a lasting peace I don’t know but that’s not really the point.

  170. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    No, Dave’s right, actually.  In this variation, Rorschach’s execution is a bit extreme.  

  171. @Paul: Okay so do you want him alive? I’m confused what you want.

    Both of you are stating ideas that arent in the film but complaing about it and now your complaining about Rorschach dying.

    How about we dont have the film released at all?

  172. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    I’m proud that it took three full days for the discussion to turn ridiculous and stupid!

  173. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    I’m not complaining about anything.  Picking out a flaw or agreeing about a flaw’s existence doesn’t mean I’m hot and bothered about it.  Going back to my original post, I really don’t care.  It’s not the fulcrum of the film for me.  

  174. Maybe if dave didnt turn his nitpick into a five paragraph post then I wouldnt be hot and bothered about it.

    I’ll say it one more time and I’m not discussing it anymore. Viedt Killed 15 million people using a neutral source and now that source has to leave. In order to keep world peace Kovacs had to be kept silenced perfectly. There….that’s all that the ending was….Jesus…

  175. drakedangerz drakedangerz says:

    I just saw it.  I liked it.  Didn’t love it, but liked it.  My first reaction was a good one.  I immediately turned to my wife and asked her what she thought.  As someone who only read the opening scene in the book, she enjoyed the movie.  She had a bunch of questions afterwards, mostly about what things were different, but overall she enjoyed it.  In that respect, I think the movie was a sucess. 

    The only real complaints I could come up with were the superficial ones.  The ones dealing with the differences between the it and the book.  Oh, and the ending.  But I think we have had enough bickering about the ending, so I won’t say anything else about it.

    Overall, a good movie. B, maybe B+. 

  176. drakedangerz drakedangerz says:

    P.S. I really really loved that they made Nite-Owl so much cooler.  He kicked more ass and looked super sexy in his costume.  Better in the costume than outside of it if you ask me. 

  177. robbydzwonar robbydzwonar says:

    Wow, I’m all Watchmen’d out.  Call me when the Blu Ray comes out.

  178. Neb Neb says:

    Maybe I plugged a lot of it in because of my exposure to the book, but I felt a lot of the thematic elements along with some of the nuanced aspects of the book were in the movie.  I went into the movie with an open mind, not looking to analyze it and was completely struck at how well everything translated onto the screen.  There were moments where I was fist pumping at just how excellent scenes from the book were done on the screen.  

    A lot of people think that the film lacks soul and that it feels cold, but I think that may be part of the point.  This is a movie that is based on a book about the deconstruction of the heroes, so it should be no surprise that we may walk away from the movie feeling alienated and ambivalent about the heroes on screen.  I think the movie’s main hurdle is has to overcome is people going to the theater expecting a superhero movie.  As my fiance (who doesn’t read comics and hasn’t read the book) has said, it’s not a superhero movie; it’s a drama. 

  179. eagle6002 eagle6002 says:

    People are still going to see Paul Blart?!?

  180. rwpos rwpos says:

    Overall, I felt that the film lacked a strong emotional impact because it tried too hard to preserve too many of the different aspects of the comicbook series.  Ultimately, there’s too much in the comic to present it all in a single film, and I think that in order for the film to have had the same emotional resonance as the comic it needed to be significantly adapted and reworked for the film medium.  What Zack Snyder and the cast did a masterful job of was recreating comicbook scenes and sequences in a faithful and amazingly direct fashion.  Unfortunately, what resonates so well in a drawn and written medium, over hundreds of pages and numerous hours of close examination, doesn’t really come across with the same impact in a film.  I enjoyed the movie, but overall thought that it was too slow in the beginning, too fast in the middle, and only really felt like it moved at the appropriate pace from the prison riot on.  I know that many hard-core comic fans might think it heresy to suggest, but I really thought that this needed to be more heavily adapted.  As it stands, it lacked the power of the Dark Knight and the fun of Iron Man for me.  I’ll definitely buy it on DVD and I’m sure watch it many more times once I have it at home – and I commend Snyder for taking on a nearly impossible challenge and doing the work such faithful service – but perhaps someone with less reverence and more creative initiative might have been able to make a more powerful movie out of this title.

  181. Churchill Churchill says:

    I think you guys we liked are projecting the themes and nuances of the comic on to the movie.  This movie was shallow and absorbed with visual effects.  The movie does little to explain anything and seems to be made only for fans of the comic.  Zach Synder made a terrific adaption but he made a medicore movie.

  182. Dave Withnall Cheezdog (@dww84) says:

    Had the Watchmen been a Saturday morning cartoon in the 80s:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

  183. Gabe Gabe says:

    Ok, so I just saw the movie (couldn’t get imax tix untill today)  Havn’t even listened to the podcast, but I have to rant.  I truly hated this movie.  I believe that this movie to the book is as batman and robin was to batman.  I will give a full on hate rant later, but just to scratch the surfice, the inclusion of the Kennedy assasination in the title sequence was truly offensive.  Alan Moore was completly right

    More later  

  184. @Gabe: I cant wait to hear your rant later (seriously) but I am curious on one thing.

    The Kennedy Assassination was over 40 years ago….Now that doesnt stop the sequence from being a bit hard to watch, anything like that is hard to watch. But offensive? I dont know man….if anything it gives more insight into The Comedian. Cause in the book it’s hinted at but never shown outright. Here I kinda liked it they showed it, only in the vein that it enhanced the character.

    But to each his own.

  185. edward says:

    @Cheezdog: Timmy Wood beat you to the punch.

    So I thought about the ending of the movie. If Veidt was smart enough to fool Manhattan into helping him re-create his powers as re-newable energy, to cloud his view of the future, to bait him with psychological trap and finally sway Manhattan’s opinion to his….

    Why didn’t Veidt just talk to Manhattan and make he go along with the plan to begin with?

  186. rwpos rwpos says:

    @edward – or more the point, if Dr. Manhattan can see the future the same as he sees the present, why didn’t he see that his ability to see the "future" (the point in time around when Veidt executes his plot) would become clouded, as well as seeing that beyond that point he would discover that it was clouded because of what Veidt had done?  The concept presented about Manahattan is that time is simply perception, and that all of time really exists "now", therefore Manhattan can’t really see the future per se, he’s actually only seeing all of his existance, his "now", which spans all of the "time" in which he exists, at once.  This is basically the idea of omniscience without omnipresence.  Thus, within the bounds of that logic, Veidt could never have surprised Manahattan…

  187. @edward and rwpos: Well you just said your own answer rwpos. Manhattan’s future is clouded. It’s never addressed in either version but even if Manhattan can see into the future at any time….Then there’s no way he could see that far anyways. Cause Viedt clouded that point. So maybe he can only see the future til Nov. 1st 1985 and that’s it. Again it’s never addressed but I’m just shooting off what my theory is.

  188. edward says:

    @rwpos: you’re right in that sense it doesn’t work but i think that’s a story device that just has to be taken for granted.

  189. Gabe Gabe says:

    Also, there were so many things in the movie that were not explained, even though we know how they are thanks to the book.  Babastis and the catching of the bullet are some prime examples.  

    @TheNextChampion  Regardless of when the Kennedy assasination happened, the way it was used in the movie so early for little more than shock value I found appaling.  The way the comedians involvment is hinted at in the book so artfully is inginious, and I found this verson just stupid.  I had similar feelings about the Rorshach sequence, although I thought it was well done, I think it is much better in the comic when it is slowly revealed.  I find that much more frigtining.   

  190. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @Gabe: What was it that needed to be explained about Babastis? He’s Adrian’s pet. It wasn’t explained much beyond that in the book either.  And the bullet catching wasn’t explained at all in the book. You were left to figure it out for yourself.

  191. @Gabe: Well I can see where your griping at. It does feel a little weird to show something like that. I guess in my head (and maybe others) are stating ‘it’s referencing the book’, so it’s okay to me. But that’s a gripe I can fully understand.

    But the catching of the bullet is referenced in the film. During Rorshach’s last narration when he drops his journal at the paper he states it. Something on the lines of ‘Viedt is so smug, he states he can catch a bullet’. Something like that I think.

    @conor: The bullet was explained in the book….Dan said it was bullshit he could do it and then a couple of pages later he does it….Unless your talking about how he can do it then yeah, dont know how he can do it. Someone asked where did Laurie get the gun? Yeah that bugged me, I dont know where she got it.

  192. rwpos rwpos says:

    @ TNC – your thinking is too linnear.  Manhattan doesn’t see the future in a linnear sense, he sees everything (e.g. all of his time) at once.  If there is a blind spot in what he see’s (e.g. the period of time when Veidt is clouding his vision with the tachyon’s), there’s no doubt that he can see his world after the point of Veidt’s act (the squid or the explosions), which means that Manahttan could always see beyond that point in his time, and by seeing that, know why he had the blind spot since he later discovered the cause.  Thus the plot device, if too closely inspected, doesn’t really work. 

    @ Gabe – I agree that Moore and Gibbons did a much more masterful job with the Rorshach sequence when he’s discovering the fate of the kidnapped girl, as well as his response with the kidnapper.  My reaction to that sequence in the comic was much more intense and disturbed than my reaction to the movie, which felt more like a slasher flick with the explicit cleaver to the skull.  Also, I agree that less-was-more with the Kennedy assassination.  I understand why Snyder made the choices that he made, but I didn’t think they were improvements.

  193. Neb Neb says:

    If the main complaint for the movie is that it’s too true to the comic, how much would people want to see changed?  I see people suggesting that Snyder adapt the material to the screen to give it more humanity and emotional punch, but how would he do that without completely changing the source material?  If he had changed too much, we’d all be sitting bitching how different the movie is from the book.

    I think too many people went into this movie wanting to see a comic.  Personally, I’m judging this movie on two criteria:  

    1) It’s ability to stay true to the original story, capturing the themes, visual pleasure and plot points.

    2) It’s ability to entertain me.

    This movie did both of those things for me, and for something as hallowed as The Watchmen, I think we should all be happy that the movie isn’t a complete piece of garbage.

    Also, those that think the movie needed to be fleshed out more, remember that Snyder’s original cut of the movie clocked in at more than 3 hours, so some of the missing character parts or emotional moments may have been left on the cutting floor.  Let’s not knock Snyder until we’re able to see his complete vision when the DVD releases. 

  194. Gabe Gabe says:

    @Conor and @@TheNextChampion

    Rorshach says we used to joke he was so fast he could catch a bullet.  What needed to be explained about Babastis was mainly, what the fuck is that lion bunny thing?  And it’s not so much that the bullet catching is explained in the book, it’s that it is aknowledged.  When Viedt first brings it up, it seems silly and small and is brushed off, so when it comes back, it is so very potent. 

  195. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @Gabe: I don’t understand your problem with the bullet catching – it was handled almost exactly the same in the film as it was in the book.

  196. @rwpos: Well then your not liking the original part of the story in the novel then. Cause in the original his vision gets blocked almost from the beginning as well. By the time he talks to Laurie on Mars he has a muddled sense of what is going to happen. So wouldnt that mean he could see the future past that blocked visions as well? Then he should’ve known from the first time we see Manhattan in the book he knows what is going to happen.

    Besides Dr. Manhattan said it best, he just goes threw the motions.

  197. Gabe Gabe says:

    @TheNextChampion I believe in the book, laurie gets the gun from one of the corpses.  @Conor I am bothered by the bullet catching for two reasons

    1:  The book answered an interesting plot hole, what would happen if the assasion had shot at viedt first

    2:  Themeaticly, it worked perfectly.  By far the biggest oh shit moment for me, and in the movie it seemed like

    "Oh he’s shot….OH wait he can catch bullets.  Great.   

  198. rwpos rwpos says:

    @ Neb – I understand your point of view.  Moore’s complaint (at least one of them) is that the story Watchmen has already been told, exactly as it was meant to be told, and that a film version would only be a pointless, hollow, imitation.  By attempting to transfer the comic directly to film as if the strengths and experiences of the two different mediums were fundamentally the same I think that Zack Snyder ultimately proved Moore right.  I view this movie as a supplemental piece for fans of the comic who want to experience parts of the comic with different senses, and I felt that it worked much better for me as a multiple-times reader of Watchmen than it did for my wife who’s never even looked at the comic.

    It seems that people keep viewing this movie as an effort to "do no harm" rather than as an effort to create a new and insightful look into the source concepts or characters.  I agree that fans would be complaining LOUDLY if the movie had severly departed from the comic, but despite that, maybe it would have been a better movie.  Dark Knight gave us a very different look at the Joker and I really appreciated what I saw, and felt that it was a perfect translation of the concept of the Joker onto film.  I don’t think I would have enjoyed a faithful CG transfer of Neal Adams’ or Jim Aparo’s Joker to the screen.  It would have been neither scary nor have been taken seriously.  Great creators understand their medium and play to its strengths, whether they work in murals, novels, comic books, sculpture or film.  Good creators understand their material and deliver it in ways that make sense, but which often fail to squeeze out every last bit of what their medium has to give.  That’s why it’s so rare to find greatness in art.  While I think that Alan Moore is one of the all-time greatest comic book creators, I don’t think that Zack Snyder will be remembered as an all-time great film maker.  He’s a good director and very creative, but so far I haven’t seen him achieve anything so revolutionary in film that I would call any of his work brilliant.

  199. @Gabe: But we dont know if he could catch a bullet. We were just told by Rorshach who thinks he can do it…Not like it’s proven beforehand in the film.

    I did like it Lee Iacocca got shot….I’m not even a political guy but I just loved it. :)

  200. rwpos rwpos says:

    @ TNC – I agree, the concept of Dr. Manahattan being fooled didn’t work in the comic either.  That wasn’t a criticism of the film, I was just  pointing out that you can’t walk the logic of that plot device through because it doesn’t hold up.

  201. rwpos rwpos says:

    @ Gabe – you’re correct, Laurie gets the gun from the body of one of the detectives (when she and Manhattan are in NYC inspecting the psychic squid bomb blast).  This detective is one that we had been following throughout the comic, and who appeared in several sequences of the film as well.

    As for Bombastis, he serves no role in the film and is essentially a visual non sequetor if you haven’t read the comic.  He’s in the movie as pure fan service, period.

  202. JoeNY JoeNY says:

    The most tragic aspect of this movie turning out to be what i think was a success, is that now everyone will know how amazing this story is, and it will no longer be as special as it was before….when only "we" knew how great it was

  203. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @JoeNY: Why would you want WATCHMEN to remain ghettoized?  Aren’t we trying to expose as many people as possible to the greatness of these comic book stories?

  204. rwpos rwpos says:

    @ Conor – Couldn’t agree more.  I’ve never been a fan of cliques, or the idea that many people liking something makes it less special.  It’s as if there’s a knee jerk reaction against the very idea of "popularity."  Many people liking the Jonas Brothers doesn’t make them talented.  Likewise, many people liking Watchmen doesn’t make it less enjoyable.  Quality, enjoyability, and popularity are each every different things.  And if the comic book medium is going to remain viable over time it needs a growing consumer base.  More people reading Watchmen can only be a good thing for people who love comic books.

  205. zombox zombox says:

    Saw it today.

    It was well shot, well written and full of fun action.

     It was not the Watchemen. Contrary to opinion it was similar to the book only superficially.  Hated the ending. Loved Rorshach, perfectly cast and perfectly played. Niteowl turned out a lot better than I thought he would, not bad at all. Silk Spectre’s actress was very beautiful, that’s true, but she was very stiff and not convincing in her role.Did not care for the relatively high level of superpowers that the vigilantes had, I prefer to think of them as mostly human and really being in danger.

     All in all I’d give it a C+ or so. There were things I liked a lot, there were things I hated.

  206. Neb Neb says:

    @rwpos~ I agree with your what your saying.  I guess my comment on Snyder was not that he’s going to be remembered as a great director, but more in saying I don’t think we gauge whether Snyder was completely successful until we see the cut he had initially intended.  While the current cut of the movie is long, it’s also missing quite a bit of stuff that he had originally shot.  I’d like to hope that these pieces would enhance the film, and maybe assuage some of the complaints that people have of the movie.

  207. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    Theory.  I thought Silk Spectre II was spot on, perhaps because of (and not in spite of) her somewhat limited acting ability. She came across as a naive girl who likes to play pretend, which fits with the portrayal of Nite Owl II as a nostalgic manchild who loves the escapist bravado of caped vigilantism.  

  208. I didn’t read the wealth of comments above me before writing this so forgive me if I repeat anything said above.

    I almost fully agree with the general consensus of the ifanboys. My friend asked me as the credits rolled how I liked it and all I could do was wave my hand and whisper, "eh". That sounds bad, but it really isn’t. Zack Snyder is a technically brilliant director who knows how to compose a beautiful shot. His dogged determination to bring the book to the screen shows in every scene. Favorite sequences: Manhattan’s memories of Vietnam with The Comedian, Rorshach in prison, and the opening credits montage. The casting throughout was spot on. I don’ think there was one person out of place in the movie. Everyone seemed to look and act like the characters I remember from reading the book. Rorshach was awesome and I was very surprised at how well Nite Owl II turned out. Patrick Wilson is a great actor and this role really proved it to me. 

    What I didn’t like about The Watchmen was the fact that the movie was a movie. Even as a strict panel-to-panel reconstruction of the book, I thought the movie lost something in the translation. Some moments, like the trip to mars, didn’t resonate to me like it did in the book. That’s no fault of the director or screenplay. It just doesn’t play well in a different medium. Plus, all the whiz-bang technology on display gets a little distracting at times. But, that’s also just a nitpick that I’m willing to overlook.

    Oh, I agree with Ron around the sex scene. Geez was that uncomfortable sitting in the theater watching that. I totally felt like a little kid waiting for my parents to burst in and drag me out by my ear. I wasn’t the only one judging from all the nervous laughter around me in the theater as the scene went on and on and on….

    So, in the end, I think I do actually like the movie as a movie in and of itself. It’s definitely an amazing achievement and Snyder bypasses a lot of worries I had about the adaptation by just sticking to the book. I was dreading that after The Dark Knight a studio would just turn out another "grim and gritty" superhero movie and not pay attention at all to the story or the context of the book, but Snyder really nailed this one. And, just like Ron said, I think this talk convinced me that I like this more than when I did walking out of the theater.

    On a side note, I’m on the fence about Wolverine, but the reshoots to add more Deadpool can only be good. I’m not convinced Whiteout will be good, just because Kate Beckinsale looks too beautiful to play that role, but I really want to be wrong on that. And G.I. Joe will be so the awesome this summer! Fuck Revenge of the Fallen. It’s all about soldiers slowmotion flipping through missile launches.

  209. I’m shocked no one has mentioned one of the most disturbing parts of the whole film. The scene where one of Big Figure’s goons gets his arms sawed off cause he’s caught on the bars….WTF!? Where did that rewrite come from!? I scream it out in the theater that ‘I would prefer a stab to the neck!!’. That was one of the grosses things I’ve ever seen….and I’ve seen all the Saw films.

    Oh and not to get off track but hawaiianpunch mentioned it above me…..Yeah Wolverine: Origins…..looks pretty bad from that trailer I watched

  210. I thought the movie was rather "meh". My girlfriend and I saw it and I think she summed it up best by saying that it felt like a shallow version of the book.

    The things I liked:

    All the bits with Rorschach were absolutely perfect(between this and Little Children I’m never going to be able to look at The Bad News Bears the same way again).

    All the Doc Manhattan bits were great.

    Patrick Wilson did a great job with Nite Owl II.

    The Comedian was perfect.

    The stuff I didn’t like so much:

    They didn’t capture the helplessness paranoia and fear, in the general public, of what an upcoming  nuclear war would bring.

    It seemed too much like a summer action movie and not an adaption of a true masterpiece.

    The nancy boy who played Ozzy was just not very good. Adrian should have been very likable not an arrogant rich asshole.

    Silk Specter II was Probably the least talented actor in the movie.

    The reveal that the Camedian was Silk Spector II’s father didn’t seem to have any weight to it, it should have been handle better.

    The sex scene was way to long and in the book the scene was very ackward, but what we got in the movie seemed like soft-core porn.

    Nite Owl I & II should have been developed more and have been fatter.

    All the fucking slow motion!!!D

    The opening fight scene went on way to long.

    There are other problems i had with the movie and I’m sure a lot of my problems will be resolved with the inevitable 4 hour directors cut of the movie. But, I just can’t help but feel we could have gotten a much better movie with a more talented director like Terry Gillian, Darren Aronofski or Paul Greengrass. In the end, Watchmen the comic is a true piece of art, and the movie didn’t feel like a piece art to me.

  211. ARead ARead says:

    Saw the movie on Sunday and agree with what seems to be the consensus in that I didn’t really watch it as a movie-goer, more so as a comic-reader at the movies.  Everything that was changed took me out of the story a little (not because it was bad, but because I thought I knew what to expect).  At this point there are a few things I wish didn’t change, mainly the way Rorschach deals with the kidnapper/murderer and the way Adrian’s assassination attempt went down (these are small things, and I understand that).  All in all I’m liking the movie the further I get from it, and look forward to seeing it again.  I will say that it looks like the movie, like the book, has a lot to offer the repeat viewer/reader, which is really nice.  I just watched a few interviews with Alan Moore and I was VERY impressed with how non-pretentious and cool he seemed to be, and he also offered some interesting insight into the story, ie why Rorschach had to die…

     PS.  Human Bean juice….. I love that.

  212. Neb Neb says:

    @WinTheWonderboy~  I agree with you on the Silk Spectre/Comedian father thing.  Not to keep harping on it, but I bet this is explored more in the deleted scenes from the movie.  It’s small plot points like that that probably hit the cutting room floor.

  213. You know the slow-mo didnt feel that out of place for me.

    There were some instances where it would just come on out of the blue. But still I think Synder tries to hold back as much as he can with it.

  214. ohcaroline ohcaroline says:

    Positive: I had great fun going to this movie with several friends I convinced to read the book, and another friend who now wishes the entirety of ‘Under the Hood’ existed so she could read it, and wants a HURM T-shirt.  We spent hours afterward talking about Watchmen, something that realistically wouldn’t have happened if not for the movie.  Also, Jackie Earle Haley is amazing.  I really thought that part was uncastable.

    Not-so-postiive: I can’t really say I enjoyed this as a movie.  I’ve tried to separate my thoughts about the movie from my thoughts about the adaptation, but I’m not really sure I care about it very much as a thing in itself.  Snyder’s "why show one bone breaking when you can show 17" style isn’t really for me.  This isn’t the kind of thing I normally like, and grafting it to a story I’ve already read many times doesn’t help much.  Ultimately, I sort of agreed with Josh’s point about it being superflous, like the ’Psycho’ remake.  But I’m glad that I got the experience of seeing it with people and talking about it.  So I’m not sure how to work out that contradiction.  

  215. "I’m not locked in here with you. You’re locked in here with ME!!!!" Best scene of the whole movie.

     

    I also agree with Ron that the violence seemed more amped up in the movie than the book and that was a bit offputting. I don’t think that if the book was written today that the violence would’ve been more graphic. It just felt unnecesary, but that’s neither here nor there.

    The problem I think comic readers are having with it is they want the exact same experience they had with the book and, Ron not withstanding, they didn’t get that. We have to remember that it’s a movie. Some things will inevitably get lost, taken out or added for the sake of the general moviegoing audience. It looks like a big summer blockbuster because it had to. It was probably the one big concession to the studio to make it look as epic as it did. We can never have an Aronofsky, Gilliam or Greengrass version because they’re not big names. They’re considered maverick auteurs who do they’re own thing with very little compromise. Some might say Snyder is such a director too, but Snyder started with Dawn of the Dead, a remake as commercial as a remake could get and did really well with it. The studios choose him because he has a way of making these niche properties accessible to a larger audience than just fans of horror movies, Fran Miller, or The Watchmen.

    Oh, the prison break scene I heard mentioned that it compared favorably with the scene in Old Boy. It is so not. But, if it was shot like the Old Boy scene then it might’ve been my second fevorite scene of the whole movie.

  216. Tork Tork says:

    The thing that bugged me about the Comedian/Silk Spectre thing is that in the book, they never actually say "the Comedian was your father."  They imply it strongly enough for a person to easily grasp it, but the fact that they actually proclaim that he was Laurie’s father at least three times really annoyed me for some reason.

  217. icn1983 icn1983 says:

    I loved it.  Saw it twice, seeing it in IMAX.  At the same time, I can see how someone could hate it.  A friend of mine who I saw it with also loved it but at the same time asked if we just watched "Watchmen" or "Watchmen On Ice."  I think he has a point, but I don’t care.  I saw all of my favorite moments from the book perfectly realized and my expectations blown completely away. 

    I want to talk about one thing: the music, both the soundtrack and the score.  I absolutely loved how ballsy they were with their music choices.  Who thought they were going to hear "99 Red Baloons?" (absolutely appropriate to the story if you know what the song’s about).  Because there was so little real-estate avaiable for each scene, Snyder used music to nail the mood of a scene immediately.  Sometimes it didn’t quite work ("Ride of the Valkyries" was a bit much) but whatever.  At the same time, Philip Glass helped make Dr. Manhattan’s origin one of the best parts of the movie.   

    Now, the score is brilliant.  It is a soundtrack from 1985.  It’s Vangelis, it’s Brian Eno, it’s Blade Runner.  Again, a very bold and divisive choice that appealed to me personally but at the same time I could see how someone could be driven up the wall by it.  Especially Rorschach’s theme.

    I’m very happy with this movie.  It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but I don’t care.  It’s a weird cult movie like "Dune" that just happens to have already made most of its money back, demonstrating that you can make profitable, R-Rated comic book movies with characters not everyone’s familiar with and non-linear storytelling.  Or at least trick everyone into seeing it once.  Hurm.

  218. The only things that really bothered me were Carla Guigno’s performance as an old lady and the music.  I hate the show "Cold Case" that uses music from the period and I hated it in this movie, too.  I prefer a traditional score.  Otherwise, enjoyable, but there’s only so much enjoyment that can be had with a story that you’re so familiar with. 

  219. @WintheWonderBoy

    I disagree that another director could have significantly improved this movie.  Terry Gilliam, in particular, would only have guaranteed that the movie never came out.

  220. And Aronofsky couldn’t even adapt his own graphic novel.

  221. USPUNX USPUNX says:

    I loved the film. I liked the comic. People, this podcast included, talk about the comic as genius. I see the writing and the complexity and nuance of the story as genius but the art is just passable in my opinion. What is so great? The drawing is good but nothing spectacular and the coloring is typical 80′s bright primary colors. I read this book for the first time two years ago so maybe that is why I do not see the genius of the art, if I had read it in the 80′s perhaps I would get it. I thought it movie was great.

     

    Also thinking Terry Gilliam or Darren Aronofsky could had made this better is a joke. Aronofsky has yet to make a film worth watching, except MAYBE Pi, and Gilliam has done nothing great since 12 Monkeys and even that is a stretch. 

  222. @USPUNX

    I’m not going to get into too much specifics here but you’re talking about the art on a superficial level.  Go online and read Alan Moore’s script for just the first page.  Gibbons’s ability to translate that script into something that’s meaningful to the reader.  There are so much going on beneath the surface. 

  223. I also dig sentence fragments and often rebel against subject-verb agreement.  Please excuse.

  224. Tork Tork says:

    I always thought Stanley Kubrick before he passed on could have made a good Watchmen movie.

  225. Josh Flanagan josh (@jaflanagan) says:

    I just typed a whole thing about why that assessment of Gibbons is woefully uninformed, but hey, that’s up to you.

    Horatio just learns English, yes?

  226. balsalm balsalm says:

    I thought the movie was great.

    Rorschach and The Comedian absolutley steal the show just like they did in the comic. I honestly can’t believe how good Walter J. Kovacs was portrayed, I thought Dr. Mahattan and Dan Dreiberg were also great.

    The best scenes in my eyes were the one when Rorschach takes out Big Figure and his crew very methodically in his cell. Another was his demise, it was very powerful, maybe even a little more since Nite Owl witnessed it and reacted very emotionally.

    What I didn’t like was the ending. It bothered me but it made sense within the context and direction in the film. I also didn’t like how Ozymandias (he was too lean, it became glaring to me after a while. This is a dumb compliant, I know)  was portrayed in the film, even though that was probably intentional to make a satisfying conclusion with his character. Another thing that bothered me for some reason was Silk Spectere. I thought the actress was great in some scenes but there were others were she didn’t really grasp me as Laurie Jupiter. Maybe it was her delivery of her lines but there was something (which I can’t exactly, pinpoint) which impeded me from completely buying into her character.

    All in all, I though it was a great adaptation for a brilliant comic book. There were somethings here and there, but it was mostly very fun and enjoyable.

     

  227. You know what was the more groan inducing part of that sex scene? That stupid sequence where she pushes the flamethrower button and the people down below (including the newspaper vendor and Bernie) seeing that….That made me groan more then the rest of that long winded scene.

  228. Gabe Gabe says:

    Really quickly, to adress the issue of Doc getting fooled, he only sees his own future, therefore, he didn’t know what Viedt was doing when he was not around.  Viedt created an interfierence, and Doc could sort of see through  it: he could tell he would kill someone in the snow…

    Also, it’s not that I am pissed that so many people know about watchmen, it’s that they had the book ruined for them by such a terrible movie.   

  229. Gabe Gabe says:

    Also, the fact that the rape scene had Sneider slo mo was pretty appalling.  Also, for those who claimed that Aronovsky couldn’t adapt his own graphic novel, the fountain was a screenplay before it was a comic

  230. Gabe Gabe says:

    Also, Nite owl screeming nooooo, after Rorshach got killed made me laugh, and want to vomit at the same time.  IT was soooooooo baaaaaadd

  231. edward says:

    @UltimateHoraito: that’s a very fuuny call about Aronovsky. the fountian was a piece of rubbish

  232. edward says:

    @Gabe: NiteOwl didn’t scream "noooo", he made a stock grunt

  233. edward says:

    you know what’s great about this movie…

    at work random people want to talk to me about Watchmen and comics in general. Old dudes who i never would have guessed would be interested, working mothers and the guys that normally bullshit on about sports.

     It’s like there has been some shift in the cultural opinion of comics since this movie has come out. This movie proved to more people that comic are a muture, legitimate form of liturature.

    seriously, i have a wonderful feeling of vindication after a lifetime of a comic-book related chip on my shoulder. Finally people know. it might not last forever but some people will remember and now they know

  234. @Edward: Yup, but it won’t help comics sales right?

  235. Josh Flanagan josh (@jaflanagan) says:

    Ugh. A year later, and you’re still missing my point. None of those old guys at his job are going to become weekly comic book readers. Not a one. Obviously, they’re selling a buttload of Watchmen trades though, a 23 year old book.

  236. @TheNextChampion: I thought that was the only part that I felt stayed true to the awkwardness of the sex in the book. 

  237. edward says:

    Honestly, I don’t care if they sell more. (stay with me here) Ballet, opera, noh theatre, whatever doesn’t generate as much money as The Family Guy or Two and a Half Men but they are recognized as valid, intellectual art forms.

    And right now, in my experience, this movie has made a lot of people realise the same thing about comic books.

    Fantastic

  238. I’ve never been asked "have you read the book" going into a comic book movie before until Watchmen.

  239. @Josh: I’m just Joshing you. Sort of. I still predict this translates into a trickle down. Right now many people are in graphic novel mode. Some of those will go to floppies. Maybe not. But that’s the pattern in other industries.

  240. Gabe Gabe says:

    This feels to me like the sales bump books get when they are part of Oprahs book club

  241. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    Who cares how they hear about it?  They’re reading it. Or at least trying it out.  And even if it’s probably just a blip, it’s a blip that wasn’t gonna be there otherwise.  

  242. Gabe Gabe says:

    @PaulMontgomery  sure they read Watchmen.  Perhaps they get it, perhaps not, perhaps they have it ruined by the movie.  Perhaps they read half, see the movie, never pick it up again.  In any vase, the vast majority of these people will never read a comic again, let alone an Alan Moore book

  243. Josh Flanagan josh (@jaflanagan) says:

    If not for the movie, they weren’t going to anyway.  it’s still a win. No one bemoans the popularity of the Beatles or how people learned about them. More people are reading the book. Net gain.  Win win. If they don’t read more comics, or more Alan Moore, they weren’t going to in the first place.  At least they gave it a shot.

  244. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    I’ve said it so many times since my column two weeks ago:  If they put down the book because they were turned off by the movie, I truly doubt they’d have appreciated the book in the first place.  At least, in this case, we know people have tried and many of them will enjoy it. It’s not about faith in humanity, but faith in classy, discerning people who know the difference between a book and a film.  

    Think positive, Gabe.  Accentuate it.  I don’t like seeing you hung about on stuff that you need not be worried about.  Celebrate the book and all those new people who’ve discovered it.  It’s an awesome time to be a comic fan, especially a Watchmen fan.  Don’t bother why. I smile every time I see it in shop windows.  It really is cool.  

  245. chlop chlop says:

    @gabe – that’s hilarious – that’s what I thought was wrong with the comicbook – pacing and lack of impact.

    And after reading this entire thread, I think people will be ready to read Alan Moore’s script. So many words. 

  246. USPUNX USPUNX says:

    Ok I just reread my last post and it was pretty stupid. When I posted that I had just had a long, beer fueled argument with one of my friends about the movie and he kept insisting the book far and away surpassed the film. He would not conceed the film is even worth watching so I was more lashing out at him than the art in the comic. My apologies to all Gibbons fans I offended. The art in Watchmen is not my favorite of all time but it is pretty impressive and groundbreaking.

     

    My comments about Gilliam and Arnonofsky still stand. 

  247. FrankGrimes FrankGrimes says:

    Read it, saw it, LOVED IT!!!!

    I have nothing bad to say about the Watchmen movie!

    thanks for the podcasts fellers.

  248. esophagus esophagus says:

    Just listening now. Josh, I don’t know if it has been pointed out yet but I read an interview that explained why Nite Owl wasn’t fat.

    In the book Dryberg isn’t fat in the flashbacks to the group post-break up. Those scenes were all filmed first. Right after those were filmed Patrick Wilson started piling on weight as much as he could. He managed to gain 25 pounds by the time they were shooting again. Its not enough to be fat, but its a notable number. You can definitely notice he gained a second chin.

  249. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    After the box office performace of WATCHMEN, Warner Bros. said to rule out any more R-Rated superhero movies.

  250. Yeah…..this was a failure in terms of the box office.

    I mean when your barely beating out ‘Paul Blart: Mall Cop’ or ‘He’s Just Not That Into You’ in overall box office numbers….that’s a bad thing

  251. chlop chlop says:

    http://plus4chan.org/boards/draw/src/123532457258.jpg – credit to the batmanobviously website.

  252. So what they want to do is skirt the PG-13 and R rating?  Dark Knight was as close to R as you can get.

    The ratings weren’t the problem, it’s the lukewarm word of mouth.  You know, though, had they cut this to a PG-13 I don’t think it would have hurt my enjoyment.

  253. chlop chlop says:

    Nite Owl 2: Did we do it?

    Silk Spectre 2: Yeah.

    Nite Owl 2: Awesome!

    —————-

    The Dr. : It’s getting chilly in here. Better put on a very large sweater.

    ————–

    city X bombed in the background, some extra: "We’re okay. It’s a miracle"

    other city bombed, another extra: "They can’t stand water"

    third city bombed: "it’s okay. It’s just New Jersey".

    etc. 

  254. @chlop: Is that….suppose to be your pg-13 version? :)

  255. chlop chlop says:

    :) yap. Nobody dies and no sex. In the end 99 luft balloons is played and JD from scrubs is dancing. You also get a few gag moments where the CGI penis gets turned to a banana, Silk Spectre 2 farts while having very short fake sex, and the guy that says "it’s a miracle" gets hit by a light fixture or by the boom mike.

  256. s30 s30 says:

    @chlop: your advice got me 8 months in county. they said i could have a phone call, and i was like "nope! give me one message board post instead".

  257. chlop chlop says:

    As long as you got to kill some people, it was worth it. Now looking back I think I sholud’ve just told you to go with a homeless guy instead.

  258. MattJ1991 MattJ1991 says:

    you guys should all watch the Ultimate Cut and podcast your thoughts on it.

Leave a Comment