The Watchmen

[taksraven]

A totally enjoyable film. Although the sex and violence had me wondering why it has only scored an MA rating in this country.

Go see it. And for once using the smiley icon is totally relevant..... :) :)

Taksraven

Edited March 6, 2009 by taksraven

[eugimon]

I'll be going to go see it tomorrow morning, can't wait!

[Scream Man]

i also really liked it, and im actually not a bigfan of the comic. It was ok, but a bit pretencious for my tastes.

the movie was awesome though. i guess i see what people mean about pacing, but i cant say i really noticed it in the film.

[Shmitty]

"pretencious"

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I did thoroughly enjoy this film, though. An impeccable adaptation, and a solid piece of cinema to boot. The extended cut will hopefully make the initial exposition a little less dragging, though. With the notable exception of Adrian (for good reason), all the characters were nearly identical to their illustrated counter-parts.

Also, it was excessively gorgeous.

[VT 1010]

Watch out!

[dizman]

Watch out!

Oh wow, that was amazing. In just 1:21 seconds they completely destroyed the watchmen .

[Mr March]

Watch out!

Deconstructing the Watchmen?

[eugimon]

saw it, loved it. Agree with Scream Man that the story is a bit pretentious but then again, having basically two god characters discuss the state of humanity in "them" terms tends to move in that direction.

[EXO]

I liked it... the slomo was a bit too much on top of the slow pacing. Coulda been better at 2 hours.

[wolfx]

I liked it... the slomo was a bit too much on top of the slow pacing. Coulda been better at 2 hours.

I liked the 300-esque slowmo-fastforward effects.

And that Watchmen cartoon parody is LOL!

Edited March 7, 2009 by wolfx

[Duke Togo]

The movie was ok. Not sure I'd consider it a rental, though, I don't think its worth paying to see in a theater. Jackie Earl Haley steals the movie, its great to see him get another solid role after making a bit of a career comeback in Little Women. Buddy of mind tells me he is in Scorsese's next film, which is great news. Anyway, the special effects are bad and the makeup is even worse. The rest of the acting, for the most part, is pretty mediocre, and you really don't get much emotion out of the climax.

How they let the clown who did 300 get his hands on this material, I just do not know. I think the movie pays a heavy price for it.

[taksraven]

Good review for the film + director and some of the cast interviews.......

Taksraven

[gingaio]

I loved Rosarch in the comic....I loved him even more in the movie. They really did justice to his character. I've always felt that he was the hero that everyone feels the most attachment to. As a person, he was the least "screwed up" next to Doc Manhattan.

One of Alan Moore's longstanding laments was precisely this reaction of the fans--that the majority of them identified most with Rorschach, the moral absolutist ultra right-winger with the goofy face.

That he bears more than a passing resemblance to Alfred E. Neuman has got to be some kind of an in-joke, or a reference at least to the oversimplified nature of his moral barometer.

Personally, I found him to be one of the creepier (in the sexually repressed, manically violent sense) characters in the comic, which is saying a lot.

Anyway, from dailygazette.com:

“Rorschach is clearly the most compelling character in the book in many ways,” said Matthew Costello, a professor of political science at St. Xavier University in Chicago and a comic book aficionado. “Alan Moore has said on a couple of occasions that Rorschach is a psychotic killer, and he doesn’t understand why everybody likes him so much. Yet Rorschach is clearly the character he gives depth to.

Edited March 7, 2009 by gingaio

[Evil Porkchop]

I really enjoyed Nite-Owl II in the comic over all the other characters. Rorshach was much more one dimensional IMO, much more of the "Wolverine, I'll never compromise" character. Nite-Owl seemed to be conflicted though out much of the Watchmen comic. I really hope that carried over to the movie... which I have yet to see.

[MacrossMan]

The movie was ok. Not sure I'd consider it a rental, though, I don't think its worth paying to see in a theater. Anyway, the special effects are bad and the makeup is even worse. The rest of the acting, for the most part, is pretty mediocre, and you really don't get much emotion out of the climax.

How they let the clown who did 300 get his hands on this material, I just do not know. I think the movie pays a heavy price for it.

My sentiments exactly. The movie came off as insignificant and unecessary. It was somewhat painful to sit through the whole thing to the end.

Edited March 7, 2009 by MacrossMan

[chowyunskinny]

Guess I'm going against the grain then, because I enjoyed it

I actually thought the book was a slow read (until I hit the reveal about

The Comedian's relationship to Silk Spetre II

), so I found the movie a lot easier to digest.

From what I remember from the book it seemed pretty close to the source material (except the ending of course) and a few other minor things like...

Young Roschach

putting a cigarette out in the other kids eye

seemed to be missing as well as that

weird shaped water pipe/bong

that Laurie often

smoked

in the book.

[Mr March]

One of Alan Moore's longstanding laments was precisely this reaction of the fans--that the majority of them identified most with Rorschach, the moral absolutist ultra right-winger with the goofy face.

Personally, I found him to be one of the creepier (in the sexually repressed, manically violent sense) characters in the comic, which is saying a lot.

I think Rorschach appeals to people in the same way Travis Bickle/Robert De Niro appealed to the masses in Taxi Driver. These characters personify our own rage and frustration with society at large. The idea of just letting loose and brutalizing the guilty because you're so fed up with all the pressures and repression in the modern age is an appealing, albeit violent fantasy for many people. I'm not forgiving or excusing Rorschach's "moral lapses" (to quote Watchmen itself), but there is a fundamental appeal to his actions if not his motives or state of mind.

[Gubaba]

I think Rorschach appeals to people in the same way Travis Bickle/Robert De Niro appealed to the masses in Taxi Driver. These characters personify our own rage and frustration with society at large. The idea of just letting loose and brutalizing the guilty because you're so fed up with all the pressures and repression in the modern age is an appealing, albeit violent fantasy for many people. I'm not forgiving or excusing Rorschach's "moral lapses" (to quote Watchmen itself), but there is a fundamental appeal to his actions if not his motives or state of mind.

...or his diet...or his smell...

I will admit though, then when I first read Watchmen when I was twelve or thirteen or so (man, if my parents had only known!), I thought Rorschach was the "hero," probably because he had the most action in the story. Older and wiser now, I'm rather repulsed by him.

[bluecyclone]

F this movie, it blowed. The only remotely "ok" part was when that Specter chick rode that Owl dude.

[Loner]

One of Alan Moore's longstanding laments was precisely this reaction of the fans--that the majority of them identified most with Rorschach, the moral absolutist ultra right-winger with the goofy face.

That he bears more than a passing resemblance to Alfred E. Neuman has got to be some kind of an in-joke, or a reference at least to the oversimplified nature of his moral barometer.

Personally, I found him to be one of the creepier (in the sexually repressed, manically violent sense) characters in the comic, which is saying a lot.

Anyway, from dailygazette.com:

“Rorschach is clearly the most compelling character in the book in many ways,” said Matthew Costello, a professor of political science at St. Xavier University in Chicago and a comic book aficionado. “Alan Moore has said on a couple of occasions that Rorschach is a psychotic killer, and he doesn’t understand why everybody likes him so much. Yet Rorschach is clearly the character he gives depth to.

Well, maybe Moore shouldn't have made Rorschach so f'ing awesome.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie, though the friends I went with debated the change in the ending.

I felt the change with Manhattan being the enemy, instead of the squid was fine. One of my friends disagreed and preferred if they used the squid as in the original story. The other friend, who didn't read the book enjoyed the film.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Loner

[mikeszekely]

Saw the movie, didn't care for it. Will now read the graphic novel and see if the results are any better there.

[miles316]

The reenactment of the Segruder film was disgusting.

Is the watchman graphic novel still available to buy. I just got back a few hours ago from watching the movie.

Edited March 8, 2009 by miles316

[Gubaba]

The reenactment of the Segruder film was disgusting.

Is the watchman graphic novel still available to buy. I just got back a few hours ago from watching the movie.

Don't you mean

the Zapruder Film

?

And of course the graphic novel's still available! Do you think DC would miss out on the chance to cash in?

Besides, as soon as it goes out of print, all the rights revert to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, and that's the LAST thing DC wants...

[taksraven]

I think Rorschach appeals to people in the same way Travis Bickle/Robert De Niro appealed to the masses in Taxi Driver. These characters personify our own rage and frustration with society at large. The idea of just letting loose and brutalizing the guilty because you're so fed up with all the pressures and repression in the modern age is an appealing, albeit violent fantasy for many people. I'm not forgiving or excusing Rorschach's "moral lapses" (to quote Watchmen itself), but there is a fundamental appeal to his actions if not his motives or state of mind.

I totally agree. Rorschach is another in the long line of anti-hero's that populate the popular media. These anti-heroes range from Tyler Durden, through to Darth Vader and all the way to the extreme's like Hannibal Lecter. Look at the success of the TV series "Dexter".

These characters do the things that many people feel that they would like to do. (I think that most, however, if put in the same situation would not emulate their anti-heroes, however.) It also extends into real life with things like people wearing Charles Manson T-Shirts and others purchasing the artworks of John Wayne Gacey. You can be that even in Jack the Rippers day there were those who did not care about his antics since he was murdering prostitutes.

What is funny is that I do remember reading an interview with Alan Moore around the time that From Hell was being made into a film. He was criticising the latest Hannibal Lecter book, calling it a "pile of wank" and observing that serial killers are rarely, if ever, people who are geniuses like Lecter is supposed to be. He observed that every murder was a tragedy and even criticised Agatha Christie for turning murder into a parlour game. Maybe he needs to be so thoughtful about the nature of some of his own creations if he does not want them to be seen as heroes.

Taksraven

[taksraven]

The reenactment of the Zapruder film was disgusting.

Oh come on, its always great to see Jack go splat again. See Oliver Stone's JFK if you haven't already, you'll love it.

Taksraven

[taksraven]

Besides, as soon as it goes out of print, all the rights revert to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, and that's the LAST thing DC wants...

I didn't realise that was the case. Thats a GREAT way to have rights and copyright set up. They should apply that idea to the music industry, it would make things a lot fairer for artists.

Taksraven

[Uxi]

I went to the IMAX yesterday. I liked Rorschach. I thought it was spot on with the comic, for the most part and was amazed at how close they got so many details that jumped to mind (from the newspaper scene to others). Bunch of little details I think could be spotted when the Blu-ray comes out.

I disagree on Rorschach being an "anti-hero" though. He is the hero. And he loses. Part of Watchmen's underlying point (somewhere between cynicism and relativism).

[Gubaba]

I totally agree. Rorschach is another in the long line of anti-hero's that populate the popular media. These anti-heroes range from Tyler Durden, through to Darth Vader and all the way to the extreme's like Hannibal Lecter. Look at the success of the TV series "Dexter".

These characters do the things that many people feel that they would like to do. (I think that most, however, if put in the same situation would not emulate their anti-heroes, however.) It also extends into real life with things like people wearing Charles Manson T-Shirts and others purchasing the artworks of John Wayne Gacey. You can be that even in Jack the Rippers day there were those who did not care about his antics since he was murdering prostitutes.

What is funny is that I do remember reading an interview with Alan Moore around the time that From Hell was being made into a film. He was criticising the latest Hannibal Lecter book, calling it a "pile of wank" and observing that serial killers are rarely, if ever, people who are geniuses like Lecter is supposed to be. He observed that every murder was a tragedy and even criticised Agatha Christie for turning murder into a parlour game. Maybe he needs to be so thoughtful about the nature of some of his own creations if he does not want them to be seen as heroes.

Taksraven

Give the guy a break...From Hell was written almost ten years after Watchmen, and was done from a very different perspective (From Hell, while certainly bleak, is, I think, nowhere near as nihilistic as Watchmen).

Besides he made Rorschach ugly, unhygenic, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Not exactly the kind of "hero" most people would gravitate towards, and definitely not the kind most people would idealize.

Back on topic, I haven't seen the movie, but I talked to a bunch of friends today who had, and who all thought it was...not terrible, exactly, but not really worthwhile either. After they explained the differences, I really decided I'm not going to see the movie.

[Gubaba]

I didn't realise that was the case. Thats a GREAT way to have rights and copyright set up. They should apply that idea to the music industry, it would make things a lot fairer for artists.

Taksraven

You ARE joking, right? The only way they could get Alan Moore to write it was by dangling this carrot in front of him, and then making damn sure that it never happened. The original plan was for the trade paperback to be in print for a year or two, then DC would cancel it, and Alan Moore would publish it himself. And then DC had a change of heart, and violated the spirit (if not the letter) of the agreement.

Imagine if that had happened with, say, Dark Side of the Moon..."Yeah, we'll give you royalties on it as soon as we stop producing it." Pink Floyd would've never made a cent on that album.

[eugimon]

Besides he made Rorschach ugly, unhygenic, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Not exactly the kind of "hero" most people would gravitate towards, and definitely not the kind most people would idealize.

That describes Wolverine to a T and yet he's a cartoon character that kids worldwide adore and put on their lunch box...

[Gubaba]

That describes Wolverine to a T and yet he's a cartoon character that kids worldwide adore and put on their lunch box...

Yeah, but Wolverine's got claws! That's cool! Rorschach's just got a lame grappling gun and a hat...and he eats uncooked beans. Noisily.

[Uxi]

That describes Wolverine to a T and yet he's a cartoon character that kids worldwide adore and put on their lunch box...

Right. That's the point of Rorschach, I think. He's not attractive physically, but his uncompromising principles are idealized. And lead to his defeat/death.

[taksraven]

Give the guy a break...From Hell was written almost ten years after Watchmen, and was done from a very different perspective (From Hell, while certainly bleak, is, I think, nowhere near as nihilistic as Watchmen).

I just mentioned From Hell as a timeframe for the interview, I wasn't trying to bring it into the discussion.

Besides he made Rorschach ugly, unhygenic, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Not exactly the kind of "hero" most people would gravitate towards, and definitely not the kind most people would idealize.

Unfortunately, ugly, poor, nasty and short are all words that could be used to describe me and I am sure plenty of others out there. Apart from unhygenic and brutish, I see nothing unpleasant about the character descriptions.

Who else is there to associate with, an impotent Owl, an alien-like Manhattan, a foetus-slaughtering rapist Comedian or the big nerd Ozymandias.

All of the characters are intentionally flawed

Back on topic,

How were we off topic??

I haven't seen the movie, but I talked to a bunch of friends today who had, and who all thought it was...not terrible, exactly, but not really worthwhile either. After they explained the differences, I really decided I'm not going to see the movie.

Its your choice, but wouldn't you do better to actually see the film itself so you can make up your own mind about it properly?

Taksraven

[taksraven]

You ARE joking, right? The only way they could get Alan Moore to write it was by dangling this carrot in front of him, and then making damn sure that it never happened. The original plan was for the trade paperback to be in print for a year or two, then DC would cancel it, and Alan Moore would publish it himself. And then DC had a change of heart, and violated the spirit (if not the letter) of the agreement.

Imagine if that had happened with, say, Dark Side of the Moon..."Yeah, we'll give you royalties on it as soon as we stop producing it." Pink Floyd would've never made a cent on that album.

Oh, I didn't know about the not getting any money factor. Fair enough then.

Taksraven

[gingaio]

Loner wrote:

Well, maybe Moore shouldn't have made Rorschach so f'ing awesome.

Depends on what you define as f'ing awesome, I guess.

Gubaba wrote:

Besides he made Rorschach ugly, unhygenic, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Not exactly the kind of "hero" most people would gravitate towards, and definitely not the kind most people would idealize.

Exactly. Not to mention being saddled with "mother" issues and homicidal rage. I just read an essay in an academic journal that reasoned that Rorschach was the most sympathetic character to the hardcore fans because he was the most like them--outcast, reject, etc. versus the physically idealized Dr. Manhattan and Veidt. Anyway, not exactly a flattering thesis.

The analogy to Travis Bickle I get because that was another character not meant to be seen as an attractive "anti-hero" (a term used so loosely these days it can cover anyone from Batman to Justin Timberlake). In fact, Scorcese dealt with issues similar to Alan Moore's re: Goodfellas. Here's a film that's about how wasteful and destructive the mob lifestyle ultimately is, he reasoned, and yet, people thought it was the coolest thing in the world.

Taksraven wrote:

These characters do the things that many people feel that they would like to do. (I think that most, however, if put in the same situation would not emulate their anti-heroes, however.) It also extends into real life with things like people wearing Charles Manson T-Shirts and others purchasing the artworks of John Wayne Gacey. You can be that even in Jack the Rippers day there were those who did not care about his antics since he was murdering prostitutes.

What is funny is that I do remember reading an interview with Alan Moore around the time that From Hell was being made into a film. He was criticising the latest Hannibal Lecter book, calling it a "pile of wank" and observing that serial killers are rarely, if ever, people who are geniuses like Lecter is supposed to be.

I always figured the majority of people who wore those serial killer shirts to be poser counter-culturalists in search of an authentic ideology. The Jack the Ripper thing is about morality/class and a whole other can of worms.

And the comparison to Hannibal Lecter is apples and oranges--Lecter is portrayed as a charming, erudite man who always outwits his dunderheaded opposition in the end. He's a romanticized figure, a Byronic hero...like Count Dracula or something out of a Bronte novel.

Compare this to what Gubaba described above. Violence in Moore's comic book is not portrayed in a glamorous or funny fashion (compare the bits of humor in Silence of the Lambs to the grisly acts of violence perpetrated by the Comedian).