comment #1

Chase Kahn says ...

agreed, this and the Dr. Manhattan/Jon Osterman origin are the best scenes in the film.

The credit titles are a little odd in their placement, though. Putting the title of the film, "Watchmen" over the picture of the "Minutemen" is a little strange, as well. Still a great accomplishment -- one of the few in the film.

comment #2

Geoff says ...

I read some of the Dr. Manhattan portion of the comic years back, but in general, I'm not one of the "fans."

But I really enjoyed this film and find myself in agreement with Roger Ebert over how cool a character Dr. Manhattan is. I was never bored and thought it had a great look to it (the slow motion stuff was fine with me.) The only thing that pissed me off was their portrayel of Nixon and his horrible prosthetic nose. I went in thinking it was going to be bad, but now I don't understand any of the really harsh backlash.

Again, I'm not a comic book guy and I totally dug Watchmen.

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

Too bad they don't have an Oscar for "Best Montage/Credit Sequence." If they did, Snyder could already start clearing the space on his shelf.

comment #4

Chase Kahn says ...

"I'm not a comic book guy and I totally dug Watchmen".

That's probably why. I love the novel, own it, have read it several times. The tone of it is inspiring and lyrical in its deconstruction of the superhero myth -- Snyder's movie misses the mark for the most part. I'm pretty much with Jeff -- liked it for what it was TRYING to do...

comment #5

rr3333 says ...

Seems like its a good idea to see the film before reading the novel.

I'm going to do that.

BTW : Great opening sequence. I'm sure they exaggerated Nixon's look for a reason.

comment #6

Abbey Normal says ...

Yes, the entire handling of Nixon was HORRIBLE. In the book, he's barely glimpsed, which is obviously the best way to handle it. The movie expands his presence, then compounds the error with that ridiculous, terrible makeup.

Also not sure why they amped up the violence so much...why have Rorschach cut the guy's head open with a meat cleaver? I like my splattergore, but it seemed odd and out of place most of the time here.

Otherwise, loved it...especially the credits.

comment #7

actionman says ...

Some of the best opening credits. Of. All. Time.

Overall, I thought the movie was pretty spectacular, and this is coming from someone not emotionally invested in these characters as a result of re-reading the graphic novel over the years.

The film has gotten better for me as I've been mulling it over since last Sunday. And last night, after my dad got out of seeing it, we must've talked about it for close to an hour, and I realized some things that I missed. It's an overstuffed movie which means that multiple viewings are really necessary. I'm expecting that viewing #2 (hopefully this Sunday) will be even better now that I have a general knowledge of the story.

The film isn't without its flaws but it's a massive accomplishment. And you gotta give Alan Horn and Zack Snyder some serious props -- this is one of the ballsiest, most daring studio movies ever made.

comment #8

Chase Kahn says ...

just to add to rr3333's comments: The Nixon didn't bother me at all, clearly Snyder wasn't looking for Frank Langella. I mean, I don't like the guy as a filmmaker, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that his Nixon was a clear, exaggerated personification.

comment #9

actionman says ...

And I had ZERO problem with ANY of the makeup. Nixon's makeup and elongated nose were done for satirical reasons. It's not really all that hard to understand.

Also, the violence directed at the child-killer (the repeated meat cleaver hacks to the head) were completely justified. Who doesn't want to hack a child-killer to death? And that was precisely the point of Rorschach's character -- he's willing to take out the trash.

comment #10

George Prager says ...

What if the Drudge Report was around in 1963. The page would begin with a siren gif, then KENNEDY SHOT.
The lines below would read:
FLASHBACK: REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT LINCOLN KILLED BY DEMOCRAT
FLASHBACK: REPUBLICAN PRES. MCKINLEY SHOT IN BUFFALO BY ANARCHIST
FLASHBACK: REPUBLICAN PRES. GARFIELD SHOT

Morris: Bobby in `64, Teddy in `72?
Dowd: Poor little Jackie's Chanel dress ruined.

comment #11

DavidF says ...

I agree about Nixon - the huge nose bugged me at first but then I settled into the comic book reality of it.

I also doubt Nixon's real war room would have looked like the one from Dr. Strangelove, but this wasn't supposed to be reality.

The acting itself, I thought, wasn't terrible. Dude wasn't Langella but he wasn't doing some Ed Sullivan show type shtick either.

comment #12

Sabina E says ...

That was ONE OF THE BEST opening sequences, period.

comment #13

Sabina E says ...

actionman, i agree, i loved the brutal violence against the paedophile killer. I wanted to cheer while Rorscarch did him in.

good riddance to the paedophile!

comment #14

DavidF says ...

Damn, I just rewatched and that is a fine sequence.
And unlike, say, Se7en, this was clearly coming from the director and not some outside house.
Snyder might not quite be Kubrick but clearly he has some chops.
My fave part might be the sailor looking on as Silhouette kisses the girl on VJ-Day, unaware how he juuuust missed his role in history.

comment #15

JB Moore says ...

Love the book and the movie, warts and all.

It's Jackie Earle Haley's show all the way.

In the book, Rorschach handcuffs the killer to a radiator or something, sets the house ablaze, and tosses him a hacksaw. Too close to the first SAW, maybe?

I just wish they had gone with Dylan's original version of "Desolation Row" for the close instead of whatever floppy haired, eyeliner-wearing emo band they chose for the cover. Why not bookend the film with Dylan songs?

comment #16

Rich S. says ...

"Seems like its a good idea to see the film before reading the novel."

Not sure about that. I'm too close to the problem, but my hunch is you might feel a little lost.

The movie has only grown in my eyes since I saw it a few days ago. Haley, particularly, just gets better and better. I almost never see movies more than once in the theater, but for this one I might make an exception.

comment #17

lazarus says ...

I don't think only people who haven't read the comic like this film. The reaction seems pretty split across the board, whatever level of baggage you're bringing in.

comment #18

Chase Kahn says ...

That "floppy haired, eyeliner-wearing emo band" you're referring to is the ridiculous My Chemical Romance, and that song left a bad taste in my mouth leaving the theater -- of course, compared to the rest of the music in the film, it wasn't that terrible.

comment #19

Ryansi51 says ...

I really didn't expect to like WATCHMEN so much, but fucking a i LOVED it. Can't wait to see it again to pick up on the things i missed.

comment #20

MeandMyselfandI says ...

The opening wasn't the best part of the movie for me, although very well done it was. The whole story of Dr. Manhattan sequence was better, for one.

I thought there were several scenes done better in the movie than the comic book. The prison break, for example, where Rorschach goes into the bathroom to kill the little guy where you can see the guy cowering as the door swings open. I also liked the movie's depiction of Rorschach killing the child molester rather than going with the Mad Max rip-off in the comic book.

comment #21

chicagodad says ...

Those credits are great.

For comic geeks, The shot of Nite-Owl in action is a big ol' easter egg. There are Batman posters on the right, there's a Die Fliedermaus poster up to the left, and he's apparently saving a wealthy couple leaving the theater. Thomas and Martha Wayne, perhaps?

I still would've like some differences in the way stuff was handled, but overall, it was pretty satisfying.

The Dr Manhattan sequence was great and Rohrscach's scenes were spot-on.

The Nixon/McLaughlin/Buchannan/ Eleanor Clift/Koppel impersonators bothered me a bit, but I got over it. Being a nerd, I was wondering why Pat and John weren't still involved in Nixon's administration.

My single biggest thing I'd have liked? I think it would've been more effective to have the fights be less cartoony.

comment #22

actionman says ...

The Dr. Manhattan/Mars stuff was definitely my favorite section as well. And yeah, the swinging door bit was a small stroke of genius. Also, all of the musical choices were fucking sweet.

comment #23

mutinyco says ...

I actually really didn't like that. It's clever and technically well-done.

But my problem is very simple: That piece completely negates the significance of real history.

Dylan's song was a legitimate protest song in its era, and it's been turned on its head for the sake of irony. Same with the trove of events depicted. It's clever if you spoof one event like, say, the Seinfeld JFK/Hernandez/spitting episode. But when you take on everything from JFK to the A-bomb to Vietnam to the moon landing, I think there becomes a dangerous vibe of trivializing history.

comment #24

Rich S. says ...

chicagodad, given your comment on the fights being cartoony, are you with me in believing this movie could have gotten a PG-13 without much trouble? Go for CSI-level violence, put a loincloth on Dr. Manhattan (or do some Beowulf editing), suggest, more than show, the sex scene in Archie (which should have happened anyway).

I know they wanted an R to be as faithful as possible and to make it seem more adult, but I think they still could have kept the adult themes, and helped their bottom line immensely.

comment #25

actionman says ...

Mutinyco, are you serious? It's a comic-book fantasy world where EVERYTHING is heightened. That's sort of the point.

comment #26

mutinyco says ...

Yes. Exactly.

comment #27

bluetide says ...

In total agreement with the Chase on this and the Manhattan origin sequence. Jackie Earle Haley and Billy Crudup carried this movie. It's a solid movie with some great ideas as is, but the overstylized action and violence undercut the ambiguity of the characters. Snyder ended up being more adept at character development than I expected, but I just wish he had toned the violence down a notch (the comic book was violent enough, adding more violent scenes that idiots think are "cool" just misses the point) and had kept the world they inhabited a little more realistic.

comment #28

actionman says ...

I am so happy that this film is a hard R. There's nothing else that you can compare Watchmen too. Fine, Hancock covered some of the same thematic ground, but in a way more cartoony and jokey fashion. The R-rating really helps set Watchmen apart from all of the other crime-fighter movies that have recently been released. Who cares about the bottom line of the film? None of us invested our money in it.

comment #29

mutinyco says ...

Who's the main audience for this movie? For the most part, it's not the people who were alive and remember Hiroshima or JFK or Vietnam. It's mostly people 35 and under -- people who either have vague memories or none at all. These credits functionally dehumanize and trivialize the true weight of history.

comment #30

actionman says ...

you're reading waaaay too much into these opening credits, mutinyco.

comment #31

Rich S. says ...

Mutinyco, I had the exact opposite reaction you did. When I first saw the Japanese trailer, where they showed the Comedian's involvement in the JFK assassination, I thought, "oh come on!" But seeing it in the context of the credits sequence, it fits.

Snyder is trying to establish that these are comic book heroes, but they exist in their own version of "the real world." They start off in these pulpy poses in these goofy costumes, just like "our" superheroes. But then reality starts to intrude. As America grows, matures and evolves, so do the heroes. They're not innocent any more and neither are we. And that's why the song also works so well.

The real scenes don't trivialize the events, but instead drive the theme home. By the end of the credits sequence, you are prepared to view this movie in context.

Hey, it's just a comic book movie, after all. But this sequence is very well done.

comment #32

mutinyco says ...

No, I'm not. I'm actually reading them. That's all.

comment #33

chicagodad says ...

Rich, I think so.

I just think it'd have been more effective to have the fights seem more brutal. No breaking huge chunks out of walls with a punch, no slamming through granite countertops,etc. The combination of all those classic comic memes (cosumes, etc) with more "realistic" violence would've just been more interesting to me. Why would you care when Ozzy was beating the crap out of Dan and Rohrschach? You knew they weren't going to suffer any real ill effects.

I mean, the most effective violence in the movie was the least cartoony stuff. Namely ,Comedian's assault on Sally and his encounter with the Vietnamese woman.

But yeah, I think if they'd dialed back the gore factor, and cut the Skinemax scene in Archie, they could've left in the blue wang and maybe still gotten a PG-13.

comment #34

Geoff says ...

I've lost all perspective on what's considered violent these days. I kinda had the same reaction to the violence as I did during 300.

The most troubling scenes belong to The Comedian because violence against women is always cringeworthy.

But with all those bass heavy punching effects (which I thought were great) I just never see it as extreme.

comment #35

Michael says ...

"Seems like its a good idea to see the film before reading the novel."

I bought the graphic novel 4 months ago in anticipation of the movie, and after seeing it I'm telling everyone I know to read the book first. Because HOLY SHIT would I not have cared about anything going on had I not. I thought the first 90 minutes were outstanding, and it fell off a bit once they had to start cutting parts out of the book...but damn I thought it was great. I get the affection people have for the property.

comment #36

mutinyco says ...

It serves the same textural purpose as Chevy using American Pie (because "Chevy" is mentioned) or Nike using Revolution (to suggest its shoes are a revolution). You're completely re-contextualizing something that had an actual meaning or significance -- like the death of American innocence or political protest -- thereby neutering its original intended message. It then becomes nothing more than "style."

Those credits rely on the same techniques as fascist propaganda.

comment #37

televisiontears says ...

In the world of Watchmen, Bob Dylan has morphed from and noble, enigmatic troubadour of the people into a bitter, pathetic sell-out who appears in commercials for Victoria's Secret and Pepsi.

Oh, wait...

comment #38

Joe M. says ...

Great movie. But now for a quick SPOILER question (only those who saw the film should read on!)... At the end, was New York the only city attacked? It seemed like the plan was to hit several cities with the contrived "rogue" Dr. Manhattan attack, but we really saw only New York hit. Actually, that would make the most sense... the Russians would have been less likely to back down and feel sorry for the U.S.- Doctor Manhattan frame job or not- if one of their own cites was also devastated. What sense did the rest of you get on this plot point... maybe I just missed a moment of clarification.

comment #39

Rich S. says ...

Joe M. (SPOILER ANSWER)

In the comic, only New York is hit. In the movie, it was my impression that several major cities, including specifically Moscow, were taken out at the same time. Which is why that aspect of the film doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Had that really happened, the missiles would have been flying before Tricky Dick could have called to smooth things over.

comment #40

Ryansi51 says ...

SPOILER ANSWER:

i thought they carried out a bunch of attacks, but more than that, as much as i liked this twist, was this REALLY going to solve the problem for more than say, a month or 2? I mean, the same problems are still going to exist, and its not like we're fighting dr. manhattan with the rest of the world and need to stick together.

comment #41

Rich S. says ...

Mutinyco, since this kind of stuff happens throughout the movie (Dr. Manhattan single-handedly wins Vietnam) I think it's safe to say this movie is not for you.

comment #42

televisiontears says ...

mutinyco, isn't liberal interpretation of art what makes it art? If we're held to only one "original intended message" of a song, doesn't it eventually not mean anything at all? That's what makes great art what it is, it can be many things to many people in many different contexts.

Is "Layla" in Goodfellas fascist propaganda? What about "God Only Knows" in Boogie Nights? "The End" in Apocalypse Now?

comment #43

chicagodad says ...

I don't really think the ending was changed to make it more palatable or plausible than the one in the comic, I think it was just changed to avoid having to include all the context for it. (the missing writer, etc.)

It doesn't really hold up any better than the comic ending, and actually introduces some more flaws and problems.

comment #44

Kristopher Tapley says ...

Yeah, and it was all downhill from there. 90 degrees.

comment #45

mutinyco says ...

It's context. That's my point.

Plenty of movies use music or other artwork to alter their meaning. A Clockwork Orange does this brilliantly.

This was different. And part of the problem, as I see it, is that 20+ years after the novel was published, none of the depicted events have any modern context. When the book came out, it was a commentary on its era. The movie, however, by keeping the original's timeframe, abstracts that meaning. In fact, the movie itself is a perfect example of my point -- the content has been removed from its original context, and it's just style and meta-references now.

When the book came out at the height of the Cold War, the nuclear attack ending was a protest against escalation. The book featured pages of gore after the explosion. That was designed that way for a specific reason. Now, with the movie, it's just discussed as a plot point.

It's the shift of content to style. Does this make sense?

comment #46

actionman says ...

why hasn't WB asked Joblo to stop running the opening credits video yet?

comment #47

chicagodad says ...

mutinyco, I get what you're saying, and I agree to a certain extent.

The sequence you're talking about from the end of the comic is a great example. Part of its power was seeing all those background characters, the newsvendor and the kid, and Rohrschach's therapist, and the lesbian couple, who you hadn't really realized you'd come to care about, dead. They were the most impactful deaths in the book, by far.

So would you argue that the book really was unadaptable (at least this faithfully), outside of maybe a 4-5 year window after its release? Because it was such a product of its time? Or would it have to have been more of a reimagining?

I wonder how differently it'll be viewed by those of us that came of age in that era as opposed to those who came before and after.

Interesting point, and thanks for raising it.

comment #48

Rich S. says ...

Well, if you want to get down to it, as some have pointed out, the whole premise of Watchmen has proven to be false. Though it was Nixon in the comic, it was clearly critical of Reagan's brinksmanship and military escalation. But the world wasn't destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, and the Berlin Wall fell just a few years later.

I'm not saying that there's direct causation between Reagan's actions and the collapse of the Soviet Union, but his administration's actions did not trigger the events Moore was apparently certain they would. So Watchmen, movie and comic, exist more-or-less as cultural artifacts.

comment #49

mutinyco says ...

Yeah, pretty much. Either it needed to be made within its era, or it needed to be updated in some way.

That's one of the drawbacks of being topical and striking the zeitgeist, I suppose. Ultimately, that element that makes something so significant tends to date it.

comment #50

televisiontears says ...

You're getting away from your original point, but I'll bite. I agree that the film loses some relevance in a modern context, but the core of your argument is I think misguided. You say that the use of music, specifically "The Times They Are A-Changin'" cheapens the songs by robbing it of it's original meaning. I'd argue that the film is re-imagining these songs in the context of the alternate history it presents. For example, what if Dylan's early work was influenced by the events in the alternate back-story? If a blue super-god ended the Vietnam War in a week, what would the "Flight of the Valkyries" scene in Apocalypse Now look like?

I'm not saying the film is perfect by any means, but there is some very innovative and thoughtful use of music here. It's stylistic, sure, but behind that style is functionality that adds layers to the universe presented in the film.

comment #51

mutinyco says ...

I'm saying it cheapens both the song and history. It's using them primarily for stylistic purposes. And since the original book was about its era and the movie is not, it's removed the power of that song and that history and turned it into clever entertainment.

Look at that sequence, and now imagine if the material had been updated, and George Bush I was the president still in office (a satire both on his one term and the fact that his son was never elected), and we're seeing more recent events like the Berlin Wall or 9/11 or whatever with something like REM's "Man On the Moon" (first song that popped into my head) playing on the soundtrack...

Same concept, different context. Only because we're seeing more recent events that actually reflect on our current lives and current fears, the sequence and setup has actual dramatic weight -- it's topical satire -- instead of just an ironic twist.

comment #52

berg says ...

"I'm not saying that there's direct causation between Reagan's actions and the collapse of the Soviet Union" ....

Boris Yeltzin going into a supermarket in Houston (Clearlake, NASA in 1989) led to the collapse of the ussr - as much as anything else

comment #53

televisiontears says ...

Mutinyco, you're wanting the film to be something it was never going to be. It's a straight adaptation of the book, and as such, is a document of the Cold War paranoia of that era. It didn't need to be a reflection of modern times. The film (and the book) is a collage of history and pop culture, composed to present a specific viewpoint, and the pieces (music, historic events) need to be bent and cut for it to fit. I don't see how your theoretical updating would skirt any of the problems you see. It would still be a different version of modern history and a different context for the music.

Furthermore, if the material had been updated to a modern setting, wouldn't you be complaining that it cheapens the original intended message of the graphic novel?

comment #54

mutinyco says ...

My point is that the book was of and about its time -- the 1980s.

The movie of the book is not about its time -- it's about the book's time.

Therefore, the whole point of the original book has been lost. And what was immediate and political is now just ironic.

Either leave the book alone or try to find a modern corollary so that the movie comments on its era just as the book commented on its era.

comment #55

Gordon27 says ...

"actionman, i agree, i loved the brutal violence against the paedophile killer. I wanted to cheer while Rorscarch did him in."

Yes, one of my biggest problems with the movie was the way that it seemed to agree with everything Rorschach did; I don't think it takes any balls to create a scene where you're glad somebody kills a child molestor, and I think that a movie which celebrates violence to that extent is missing Moore's point completely.

comment #56

Gordon27 says ...

Mutiny - I had thought about what you're saying too, regarding the '80's. I concluded it can't fully work either way. The book was written to take place in the "present day", and I agree with you that doing the movie as a period piece 20 years ago loses that [especially when it's such an '80's caricature]. But, at the same time, Alan Moore incorporates every detail into the bigger design and, while writing it, I do think that the time period became very important to the events in the text.

I think that the only way to address what you're talking about who involve a complete re-write of everything except for the characters themselves, trying to come up with a new plot involving them which works in the modern day and expresses the same themes. And it seems like a writer good enough to be able to do that would be better off writing original material.

comment #57

televisiontears says ...

I understand your point. I simply disagree. Yes, the book is a product of the mid '80s, and that's fine. It loses some relevance in a modern context, but not a lot. Almost exactly six years ago, our government convinced enough people that a nuclear strike on U.S. soil was inevitable if it didn't invade Iraq. Threats of escalation are everywhere. People are still worried about a terrorist organization acquiring WMD's. Paranoia is still thriving - you don't need to talk about Bear Sterns, AIG, and Barack Obama to be relevant.

It's no mistake that the "nobody wants a cowboy president" line is still intact.

comment #58

televisiontears says ...

"Yes, one of my biggest problems with the movie was the way that it seemed to agree with everything Rorschach did."

Spot on, Gordon. I completely agree.

comment #59

actionman says ...

Sorry if I think that child killers and child molesters should be killed. Soooo sorry. The movie agrees with Rorschach's POV because, most of the time, he's on to something smart and rational, however violent his actions are.

Child killers/molesters should be wiped off the face of the planet, Dr. Manhattan style if possible. But seriously -- I guess it comes down to whether you think scum of the earth deserves to live.

comment #60

bmcintire says ...

Gordon:
"Yes, one of my biggest problems with the movie was the way that it seemed to agree with everything Rorschach did."

I think the fact that he was narrating the thing played pretty heavily into that POV.

Mutiny:
Your question of whether or not it should have been told doesn't quite seem to fit with your claim that history and pop culture have been cheapened somehow. And does topical satire now trump irony on a validation scale? Your present argument would seem to argue against any period peice in which there are people still alive who were present during the era being portrayed (at least during the film's production and/or initial theatrical run). ELIZABETH = go ahead and fuck with historical accuracy and cultural tenets - who's to complain?. REVOLUTIONARY ROAD = cheapens everything by not turning the story into a post-bubble mortgage broker's circling of the familial drain.

comment #61

televisiontears says ...

I don't think anyone's endorsing child molestation, actionman. I thought that the Rorschach character lost some of the moral ambiguity he had in the book, sacrificing some of his depth in favor of making him a more traditional protagonist.

And no, I don't think child molesters should be killed. I think they should be raped and beaten for the rest of their natural lives. I was kind of disappointed when Rorschach went straight for the head. He got off easy.

Anyway, thanks for asserting your moral superiority over people you've never met. Real classy of you. Do you perhaps want to talk to me about Jesus?

comment #62

mutinyco says ...

bmcintire, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Your argument makes no sense and is completely stepping all over its own toes playing a convoluted game of strip Twister.

I think you're trying to argue with me for no other reason that to argue with me.

comment #63

Gordon27 says ...

"The movie agrees with Rorschach's POV because, most of the time, he's on to something smart and rational, however violent his actions are."

I agree with you that the movie thinks this; but interpreting the book that way is completely missing one of the most fundamental themes.

"I think the fact that he was narrating the thing played pretty heavily into that POV."

Well, yes, having him be the primary narrator of the film as a whole does contribute. Also, having every single hero murder criminals without thinking twice about it (except *possibly* Nite Owl, who might only repeatedly witness other people casually murder criminals without expressing any regret, because he's the loser nerd of the group who's not cool enough to kill people; I don't remember whether he ultimately does kill anybody or not). Also, making all of the violence completely justifiable and audience-friendly-awesome.

I went back and flipped through the book and was amazed by how many subtle changes were made to the text which, whatever the reason behind making the change [I don't think Snyder was consciously making a pro-violence movie], contributed.

comment #64

Gordon27 says ...

"I understand your point. I simply disagree."

TVtears (assuming this was directed at me) - I should say, I haven't settled in on exactly what I think, regarding the time period. I agree with the points you made as counters to what I said. But I don't think the movie did a good job making the Cold War a parable for the modern geo-political state of things either, though I'm sure that was the intention behind including the WTC in every single skyline shot.

comment #65

televisiontears says ...

Sorry for the confusion, Gordon. That was directed towards mutinyco. I left my desk in the middle of writing that post, and assumed it would appear under mutinyco's when I finished.

comment #66

Gordon27 says ...

Since I'm kind of going after Rorschach a bit, I should say, I thought Haley did an AMAZING job with the character.

And, from the "say something nice" department, I also thought that Dr. Manhattan was perfectly realized, a technical triumph and a wonderful performance.

That, that's about it, really.

comment #67

Gordon27 says ...

TV - Well, it's still a good post ;)

comment #68

Josh Massey says ...

"...and he's apparently saving a wealthy couple leaving the theater. Thomas and Martha Wayne, perhaps?"

Good catch. I watched it again, and it actually says "Gotham Opera House" on the rear wall.

comment #69

actionman says ...

the video is down. shame on WB for not properly releasing this.

comment #70

frankbooth says ...

If the Waynes were saved from their untimely deaths, why would there be Batman posters? That makes no sense, even as a gag.

comment #71

MovieBob says ...

Regarding the physicality of the characters:

Outside of Dr. Manhattan (who's legitmately super-human) and Ozymandias (who we're informed is considered frighteningly formidable by the others) none of them really do ANYTHING that's entirely implausible. Rorscharch's building-hopping is basic parkour/free-running moves, professional martial-artists break concrete with their fists daily in competitive exhibition.

Keep in mind also that all of the "big" fights are between these highly-trained people and amateur attackers. The ONE team we see one of the Watchmen up against a number of trained, well-equipped foes it's Rorscharch vs. the SWAT guys, and he loses.

comment #72

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

A little late to the discussion, but here we go...

"Mutiny - I had thought about what you're saying too, regarding the '80's. I concluded it can't fully work either way. The book was written to take place in the "present day", and I agree with you that doing the movie as a period piece 20 years ago loses that [especially when it's such an '80's caricature]."

Wait a second...are you saying a movie primarily set in the '80s can't work as a modern dramatic film? Because we just had The Wrestler, which I thought was one of the best movies of last year. What about Donnie Darko? I don't really think it matters when the movie is set, as long as it is handled correctly.

Or are you saying that the philosophies and sensibilities have to be updated for modern times in order for a work to truly transcend? This point would be a little bit less ridiculous, but I'm still not sure I buy it. Even by the mid-'90s, A Clockwork Orange had some horribly dated ideas of the "future," but had the film been released then instead of the early '70s, I don't think it would take away from the sheer power of the ideas contained in that film (for me personally, the novelty would probably increase its power).

Some of us just actually had a similar debate on Kubrick's films via an Eyes Wide Shut thread. Some people were calling his latter-day work "out of touch." I think their reasons for saying this were misplaced (they contend that the sets in EWS tried, and failed, to be 100% real-life authentic), but I think I agree with their general sentiment -- he was out of touch. Well, with everyone but himself...he always knew what he was interested in. That was enough for me, and certainly enough to make a string of classic films.

Now, Zack Snyder is certainly no Stanley Kubrick (he hasn't even directed original material yet, for God's sake!), but I'm not sure he's made a misstep in the way he's adapted Watchmen, either. I think it mostly works just fine as an illustrated recreation of the graphic novel.

By implication, most of you seem to be clamoring for an update on the material that Paul Greengrass was going to attempt. Honestly, I think that had just as much (if not more) of a chance of failing horrendously than succeeding spectacularly.

It really is okay to be thankful for what we get once in awhile, even if it's not perfect.

comment #73

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Oh, and complaining about Rorschach in this film is a bit like complaining about Hannibal Lector in The Silence of the Lambs. He's really the best thing about the movie (along with Doc Manhattan), and to say the film endorses all of his actions -- which I disagree with -- is probably more a function of the fully-realized nature of his character, and the great performance (and extremely well-cast) of Jackie Earl Haley.

Along with the Comedian, he was always supposed to be on the extreme end of the Watchman scale. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are supposed to be the more moderate, humanistic "superheroes" and -- surprise, surprise -- they just don't register in the same way. But I find it hard to blame this all on Snyder when it's actually probably an equivalent flaw in the original source material.

comment #74

ZayTonday says ...

In the GN, they try to make a point of there not being enough evidence to know for sure that the guy Rorschach kills actually killed the girl. He jumps to conclusions and decides to be the judge, jury and executioner right then and there and that's when he REALLY became Rorschach, because before that he was soft on criminals.

comment #75

ZayTonday says ...

Oh and BTW, Greengrass was going to direct David Hayter's original script which took place in the present day and had Ozymandias die at the end.

comment #76

Gordon27 says ...

Kaned - I'm not making some grand statement that applies to all films, I'm talking specifically about 'Watchmen' itself, and primarily the political side of it. I think the political side was meant to be "contemporary" rather than "period piece" when it was originally written, and I don't think Snyder did much to make it relevant to contemporary politics. And I think that updating it to modern day would be much easier than trying to make a Cold War subplot also a parable for terrorism. The two have some similarities, sure, but a whole bunch of differences as well.

Anyway, like I said, that's more a stream of consciousness post than a fully formed opinion. I guess the point is that I disliked so much about the movie that I began to speculate about radical changes to the source material to make a good movie.

comment #77

Gordon27 says ...

"He's really the best thing about the movie (along with Doc Manhattan),"

I like Haley's performance and Manhattan entirely, as I mentioned.

"and to say the film endorses all of his actions "

First of all, of course it does. That's why they made sure that every extreme action we see him take is justified completely -- they cut out the fact that, when Rorschach doesn't have leads, he goes to bars and puts people in the hospital until he randomly finds somebody who does know something and made sure that every time he tortured somebody, they knew something; they even Greedo'd the knife fight in the prison by making the guy come at him with the knife *before* he scalds the guy (I'm surprised more Internet geeks aren't bringing that up, to be honest). And they make sure all of the violence is totally awesome.

That said, I said that the movie was endorsing his *philosophy* which is not the same thing...

"Along with the Comedian, he was always supposed to be on the extreme end of the Watchman scale."

I know, that's why it's weird when Silk Spectre casually murders the muggers, and when Nite Owl doesn't care that Comedian is gunning down American civilians. It's weird little things like that [things I went back and found out are not present in the book], odd changes, that make the movie seem much more on the side of what Rorschach does.

comment #78

Gordon27 says ...

"Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are supposed to be the more moderate, humanistic "superheroes" and -- surprise, surprise -- they just don't register in the same way."

After seeing people defend the use of 'Hallelujah', I've been waiting for somebody on the Internet to say that Akerman, Goode, and Wilson are all deliberately terrible, that it's some kind of meta-commentary on blahblahblah.

The only reason they don't register the same way is that Zack Snyder isn't interested in the human characters of 'Watchmen' (the book), or the human side of the heroes (except that he made Manhattan's much more explicit -- maybe it was a meta-reference to '2001'!).

comment #79

crazyeight says ...

Good thread here. Caution, spoilers ahead.

A few observations:
-- I read the graphic novel (comic book ;-) back when it was released. Liked it, didn't love it, but recognize its influence.
-- I liked the movie when I saw it-- but now, a few days later, I'm finding that it really stuck to the ribs. It's a good movie to chew over.
-- The musical choices are meant to be ironic, folks. They're on the nose for a reason-- OF COURSE you're going to use Dylan for that credits, because that's what everybody does. OF COURSE you're going to use 99 Luftballons in a movie fearful of nuclear war. OF COURSE you're going to use Ride of the Valkyries for the Vietnam sequence.

The songs were chosen not for the reasons of the film, but for the reasons of OUR associations with those songs. It's just further commentary.

I think the problem a lot of folks are having is looking at the film as an adaptation, asking whether it succeeded as an adaption, instead of looking at it as a film, and asking if it succeeded there.

I think it suffered a bit as a film, but given the stylistic choices by Snyder, it becomes a different story than the book. Not necessarily a bad story-- just different.

I think anyone discussing whether this movie could be PG-13 is missing a big chunk of the point for why it was R. Just like the novel, Snyder's movie is violent not just because violence is cool, but BECAUSE violence is cool. It's exciting, enticing, enrapturing. It's why the Minutemen got together, it's why the Watchmen exist. Violence-- whether in the hands of the State or the fists of masked heroes-- is empowering to those frustrated by the world around them.

Hell, it's Rorscach, in a nutshell. How much more satisfying to be a vigilante and kill the bad guys then deal with a justice system, no?

With the exception of Dr. Manhattan, all of the "heroes" in this movie are violence addicts. Nothing separates the Comedian and Night Owl/Silk Spectre but degree. Shit, the latter two aren't even able to get turned on without beating the crap out of people. They have to put their masks on in order to take their clothes off.

When we get to the end of the film, we're all asked to condemn Ozymandias's mad plan. That's what the gut says to do. But again, it's all a matter of degree-- if a little bloody awful violence is necessary to protect society, what's wrong with a LOT of bloody awful violence?

Yet, Snyder goes a different route than Moore did. Unlike Moore, who showed all the blood and destruction of squid-crushed New York City, Snyder chooses that moment to be THE ONLY moment where we don't see the blood and gore. Why is that? Because we all know fistfights and gunshots are bloody and fun-- but yet, when it comes to things like war and destruction, we tend to sanitize it, look away, avoid realizing that it leaves just as much blood and death as Rorschach's cleaver.

In Moore's book, Ozymandias collapses in regret at the end, weighed down by the knowledge that even if he did the right thing, his means were so awful that he has to live with them for the rest of his days. In the movie, that regret is scaled back to the point that if you don't look for it, you'll miss it. Which is perfect-- after all, one death is a tragedy, millions are a statistic.

The only people who grasp the enormity of what's been done are the Watchmen present-- and none of them notice how hypocritical it is to judge Ozymandias for his actions. All he did was scale up what they do every night-- choose who lives and dies according to *his* sense of justice, and not society's.

And good things come from bad things, no? Even Silk Spectre didn't show up until the Comedian raped her mother. What's the difference between that and Ozymandias's plan, other than degree?

As for Dr. Manhattan, well, he's beyond such things. He's beyond EVERYTHING-- issues of morality are kind of irrelevant to him, as irrelevant to him as they are to the rocks on the surface of Mars.

I dunno, guys-- this movie was FAR better than people give it credit for. There's a lot lurking beneath the surface here.

My only complaints, really, center on casting-- Malin Akerman is not a good actress, and Matthew Goode should not have gone the laconic Bowie route. After all, the strength in the graphic novel's ending is discovering that the very good guy Ozymandias is, in reality, the "bad" guy. It's not just a surprise-- it's a *shock* to discover someone taking the "vigilante justice" route to its logical and awful extreme.

Other than that, I really liked it. Not a perfect film, certainly not a perfect adaptation, but FAR more interesting & layered than its critics-- and the terminally hostile & analytically lazy Wells-- give it credit.

comment #80

crazyeight says ...

Oh, one other thing: the GF and my best friend never read the graphic novel, had no idea really what to expect, and both really liked the movie.

So reading the comic and enjoying the movie are two separate things in this case. I did and I liked it; they didn't, and they liked it. Of course, I've met people who read it who didn't like it, and people who didn't read it and were lost.

Bottom line: there's no trend here. Which to me, logically means this movie is more interesting than the haters are willing to admit (after all, nobody is agreeing with what's wrong here).

comment #81

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"I think the political side was meant to be 'contemporary' rather than 'period piece' when it was originally written, and I don't think Snyder did much to make it relevant to contemporary politics."

Agreed, but to be fair to Snyder, I don't think he was really trying to make any sort of political statement, either (outside of where the plot absolutely necessitated it). I think he assumed that the winding plot and the character's philosophies towards heroism and violence (more on this later) were more than enough to bite off for an adaptation, and I think he was right.

Whatever Greengrass's Watchmen was going to be, it would have inherently been a lot less faithful to the text of the GN. Now, whether or not Snyder can actually handle subtext is another matter entirely. On the basis of his first three films, I'd have to lean toward a definite "no", but having said that, I did find all three of them pretty engrossing on a superficial level -- whatever the hell that is worth (probably not much).

"That's why they made sure that every extreme action we see him take is justified completely -- they cut out the fact that, when Rorschach doesn't have leads, he goes to bars and puts people in the hospital until he randomly finds somebody who does know something and made sure that every time he tortured somebody, they knew something"

Yes, and that's fine as far as it goes, but since he was such an unremitting character, I think it was fair that the merciless violence cut both ways. He also gets his ass handed to him by the SWAT team, the prison scenes are arguably more psychologically intense than in the comic, and let's forget he is the only one of two main Watchmen not to survive at the end. I don't think there was really any cinematic "justifying" going on here (whatever the hell that means), I just think he was one of the most morally uncompromising figures in the picture, and as a result of this, he met his doom.

"That said, I said that the movie was endorsing his *philosophy* which is not the same thing..."

You said, "one of my biggest problems with the movie was the way that it seemed to agree with everything Rorschach did." Sounds like an endorsement of his actions to me, I honestly can't tell the difference if there is one...

"I know, that's why it's weird when Silk Spectre casually murders the muggers, and when Nite Owl doesn't care that Comedian is gunning down American civilians."

Yeah, odd scenes. In the former, I think he was trying to shoot for how the two were regaining their passion (Dan for crime-fighting, Laurie for connecting with another human being), but that seems a bit extraneous given their love-making scene (which was a bit extraneous in and of itself). No excuses, that was a horribly miffed scene...not only did it not further the story in any way, it actually sort of betrayed their (original) characters' true nature.

"The only reason they don't register the same way is that Zack Snyder isn't interested in the human characters of 'Watchmen' (the book), or the human side of the heroes"

Agreed. I think the flick got three characters pretty right-on (Ror, Comedian, Dr.), really missed the mark with two (Spectre, Owl), and really didn't even devote enough time to Ozy for his to even begin to work.

So, definitely a mixed-bag for me. But I was intrigued enough that I'm willing to give his Director's Cut a shot later this year...

comment #82

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Nothing separates the Comedian and Night Owl/Silk Spectre but degree. Shit, the latter two aren't even able to get turned on without beating the crap out of people."

Yeah, I think this is where the movie starts to lose a lot of people like Gordon (and to a lesser degree, me) because this is just simply not Alan Moore's Nite Owl and Silk Spectre. At all.

Sure, they put on their costumes and get aroused, but there is hardly any fighting by either of them throughout the whole comic. Okay -- one short scene when they're "rescuing" Rorschach, but their violence is hardly gratuitous, it's more about reaching their fellow Watchman. I literally think there's a total of about three or four panels of them engaged in violent action.

I think you're correct in assuming one's enjoyment of the film will have a lot to do with how ready and willing you are to "check" any Alan Moore baggage -- if any -- you may have brought to the theater.

comment #83

air nike shoes says ...

In the GN, they try to make a point of there not being enough evidence to know for sure that the guy Rorschach kills actually killed the girl. He jumps to conclusions and decides to be the judge, jury and executioner right then and there and that's when he REALLY became Rorschach, because before that he was soft on criminals.

comment #84

wenwen says ...

ed hardyed hardy

Gucci HandbagsGucci Handbags

Louis VuittonLouis Vuitton

Columbia SportswearColumbia Sportswear

Links Of LondonLinks Of London

comment #85

free online games says ...

Can you pleasee supply much more points on this field?? Also your web site is wonderful. Best regards!!

comment #86

software2010 says ...

13. How to Convert 3GP

http://www.how-to-convert-3gp.com/

how to convert 3gp to AVI, 3GPP, 3G2, DivX, F4V, FLV, MKV, etc.

How to Convert 3GP

http://www.how-to-convert-3gp.com/what-is-3gp.html

What is 3GP What is 3GP


How to Convert 3GP to F4V How to Convert 3GP to F4V


How to Convert 3GP to DivX How to Convert 3GP to DivX


How to Convert 3GP to 3GPP How to Convert 3GP to 3GPP


How to Convert DivX to 3GP How to Convert DivX to 3GP


How to Convert 3GP to Video How to Convert 3GP to Video


How to Convert 3GP to MKV How to Convert 3GP to MKV


How to Convert 3GP to FLV How to Convert 3GP to FLV


How to Convert 3GP to AVI?How to Convert 3GP to AVI?


How to Convert 3GP to 3G2 How to Convert 3GP to 3G2?

3GP Converter3GP Converter

3GP Converter for Mac 3GP Converter for Mac

Top Software Review

http://www.top-software-reviews.com provide reviews for software.

comment #87

istanbul says ...

travesti genclik kolları başkanı sayın travesti carpici aciklamalarda bulundu nolcak bu vip travestiler in hali bilmiyorum. travesti