Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know someone already has a thread, and I figured I'll put my two cents in. It is an excellent movie, but be prepared to hold your bladder. Doc Manhattan's tool hangs out for you to see, but you have to look very hard to make it out. it follows closely to the book, with some minor changes to the plot. Top notch in my opinion.

Please direct your commentaries to this thread as the previous thread was closed due to untoward commentary.

Frazzled wrote:Please direct your commentaries to this thread as the previous thread was closed due to untoward commentary.

Am I in trouble? cause if I am, it's all Anung Un Rama's fault.

In the last thread, it was mentioned that the movie had dropped 70% in box office over one week. Blue wang was pointed out as one of the culprits, another was bad word of mouth which may or may not be blue wang related.

The blue wang seems to have bothered some people in some places, but I will say in the showing I went to there was no snickering or anything, and plenty of 20-something dudes in the theater.

Personally I'm not surprised that there was a dramatic fall in audiences. The movie has very little going for it in terms of making a lot of money. It is:

Long
Not very heavy on 'WOW' special effects
Not very straightforward/easily understood
Full of less than heroic characters, with a morally amibiguous story

Really, it's an artsy fartsy book that happens to be a comic book turned into a slightly less artsy fartsy movie that happens to have some explosions. If anything, its first week box office was much too high, probably due exactly to what some people were complaining about here, misleading advertisements.

As for negative word of mouth, i've heard it both ways. The reviews are halfway decent but not great, but much more poorly reviewed movies have done well at the box office.

As for blue wang...maybe, there is a lot of it. But there has been a lot of wang in movies in the last few years, especially in comedies. Judd Apatow seems to have taken a personal interest in ridding america of its fear of wang by putting a wang in at least one scene in every one of his comedys. But that doesn't mean people can take it.

I thought it had great sets, good acting, great special effects, and a decent story. Character development was good.

All that said, for some reason the whole was less than the sum of the parts. Why, I just can't put my finger on. Maybe it's just that they tried too hard. You could have cut 20-30 minutes from the movie and not impacted the story at all. The gratuitous violence and sex was overdone just a smidge in my opinion, and most of the whole Blue Guy on Mars stuff was just pointless. Why he made the big flying watch transporter to travel around Mars was never even close to being revealed, let alone clear. Was it because his daddy was a watchmaker? I dunno.

Still, worth the viewing for sci-fi and graphic novel buffs. I just wish I'd waited for the DVD release.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Please direct your commentaries to this thread as the previous thread was closed due to untoward commentary.

Am I in trouble? cause if I am, it's all Anung Un Rama's fault.

Well it was either his or Malf's, I just didn't know who .

Just redirecting people to YOUR thread GES.

Hmm, anyone got xbox 360 know if these Watchmen downloads are the actual comic, or something else.

Don't want to pay for something like a montage of pics, but I might consider getting a download of the comic book for about a £6, although it might be odd reading it on the telly.

Trying to track it down on the Net but I'm not finding anything on it. Listed as parts 1-4 and 5-8. I assume I missed parts 9-12 or they've condensed it down.

Just raising it here as Watchmen fans are more likely to know, and I'd really like to read the comic before I see the film.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Please direct your commentaries to this thread as the previous thread was closed due to untoward commentary.

Am I in trouble? cause if I am, it's all Anung Un Rama's fault.

Wait! What?

I agree that there should have been more blue wang, but the audience just may have not been ready for blue wang in general.

As for the actual movie, I went to it having never read the comic, or actually heard much about it at all till I saw the trailers. I really enjoyed it, but I am a layman when it comes to the original version.

I felt it was the right lenght for a bit of character development without sacrificing some really nice shots, but I think they shot themselves in the foot a bit by trying to make it so graphic.

The dog death and head + cleaver scene. I have not seen something that graphic in anything under 18 rated, and it was rated 15s here for some reason. Usually the camera would focus on the wall, and there would be a sudden blood spatter. This was full on gore detail.

Now I have no problems with gore, I dont flinch, but there were people in front of me that turned away from the screen, and that is not making for good word of mouth, especially if people go to a movie not expecting it.

Frazzled wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Please direct your commentaries to this thread as the previous thread was closed due to untoward commentary.

Am I in trouble? cause if I am, it's all Anung Un Rama's fault.

Well it was either his or Malf's, I just didn't know who .

Just redirecting people to YOUR thread GES.

Alright, just wanted to make sure I wasn't in trouble.

I've never read the comic, knew very little about it walking in, and I had a great time. Thought it was great fun.

feth the purists who whine about the lack of the squid thing or whatever.

feth the puritans who get uppity over a blue penis.

BYE

Yeah it was pretty cool, not amazing but still not a bad movie.

The flaw was the directing. Zach Snyder couldn't for the life of himself build the dramatic tension the film needed. The composition of the shot of Dr Manhattan's "birth" was boring and flat and killed the sense of wonderment the shot could have conveyed. The phenomenal thing about the book is the storytelling. The movie is awkwardly paced and many of the shots are poorly composed.

And I think Snyder made the movie needlessly violent. That is to say that he didn't need to show some of the most gruesome moments. He could have just implied them which in a way makes them worse (the audience is left to fill in the gaps and what you imagine is usually worse then anything a director can show you.)

The biggest let down was

And if you liked it, that's fine too. This is just my opinion, please don't crucify me for it.

Am I the only one who didn't mind Manhatten's penis?
It seems to me like EVERYBODY's talking about it and I hardly took notice.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Am I the only one who didn't mind Manhatten's penis?
It seems to me like EVERYBODY's talking about it and I hardly took notice.

Didn't bother me any. Of course I've been doing figure drawing for four years now so I'm desensitized.

BloodofOrks wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:Am I the only one who didn't mind Manhatten's penis?
It seems to me like EVERYBODY's talking about it and I hardly took notice.

Didn't bother me any. Of course I've been doing figure drawing for four years now so I'm desensitized.

Finally, someone who will appreciate me! Or at least be immune to me...

I still can't bring myself to see the movie. 2 hours 40 is a bit beyond my attention span.

Most of the people here are from America. In America the heirarchy of Evil goes:

1. Satan & Sex (tied for equal first and sometimes seen as the same thing)
2. Democracts
.
.
.
457,330,391. Violence.

So as you can see, and I have proven mathematically with my 100% accurate abridged list of evil in America, sex is basically the same thing as the devil, and the devil is evil, therefore sex is also evil.

The penis, be it white, black or even blue, is essentially a proxy for the Satan. So as Dr. Manhattan has a penis, he is essentially Satan.

Therefore Watchmen is evil, and we should all go to church rather than seeing what is essentially a movie that glorifies Devil Worshiping.

BYE

Anung Un Rama wrote:Am I the only one who didn't mind Manhatten's penis?
It seems to me like EVERYBODY's talking about it and I hardly took notice.

I never watched the movie , but my friend said there were blue penor flopping around everywhere.
So i made this to make fun of it xD

Anung Un Rama wrote:Am I the only one who didn't mind Manhatten's penis?
It seems to me like EVERYBODY's talking about it and I hardly took notice.

I wasn't bothered. I was actually confused. He can make himself incrediably tall, but keeps his wang small? Otherwise, it's hard to find unless you're looking very hard.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Most of the people here are from America. In America the heirarchy of Evil goes:

1. Satan & Sex (tied for equal first and sometimes seen as the same thing)
2. Democracts

And that's why we have the PresBO, and all of our Prime Time programming and cable programming is filled with sex. Thank you very much.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Therefore Watchmen is overly long and contains pointless nudity and violence, and we should all go see a better movie rather than seeing what is essentially an overly long, pointlessly nude and violent movie.

There... fixed it for you.

The Green Git wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Most of the people here are from America. In America the heirarchy of Evil goes:

1. Satan & Sex (tied for equal first and sometimes seen as the same thing)
2. Democracts

And that's why we have the PresBO, and all of our Prime Time programming and cable programming is filled with sex. Thank you very much.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Therefore Watchmen is overly long and contains pointless nudity and violence, and we should all go see a better movie rather than seeing what is essentially an overly long, pointlessly nude and violent movie.

There... fixed it for you.

Our primetime isn't filled with sex. It's filled with scenes with heavy sexual connotations to them but no nudity or bad words what so ever.

Just the way the good lord intended it! No cursing, no yucky no no parts revealed.

Does anyone read the thread title as UN biased review?

I keep thinking I'll click on some nutter arguing about how Watchmen shows the perils of unilateral foreign policy and the need for international law.

Thinking about it, the most powerful guy does have a blue helmet...

Typeline wrote:

Our primetime isn't filled with sex. It's filled with scenes with heavy sexual connotations to them but no nudity or bad words what so ever.

Just the way the good lord intended it! No cursing, no yucky no no parts revealed.

If only me and my wife and I could do it that way :( ;P

Anung Un Rama wrote:Am I the only one who didn't mind Manhatten's penis?
It seems to me like EVERYBODY's talking about it and I hardly took notice.

I know what you mean. I'm really mystified by the obsession some people are having with Doc Manhattans genitals. The reasons for his nudity are integral to the plot, It illustrates his continuing distancing from humanity, he sees no moral reason to wear clothes, nor a practical one as he feels no cold. From the way some people were banging on about it you would be forgiven for thinking there were porn style close-ups. At no point are his bits the focus of a shot so if your eyes are drawn to on them, well….

Seriously if you have a issue with Doc Manhattans penis then I would question how comfortable you are with your own sexuality.

Hear hear!
I want to echo the point from earlier about the bodies though.
I agree.

Ok, just for sake of argument though, if he's slipping from humanity why isn't he shifting to androgenous?

Possibly that's the next step.

Residual self image?

oh wait, wrong film...

Da Boss wrote:Possibly that's the next step.

Good point. Its an interesting topic not related to the film/comics. If you're losing your underpinnings on the whole Humanity thing?

1. What would your physical form look like
2. More importantly, were the Rooskies right (from the comic). As you lose your humanity, you could become a threat and not know it. If you forget what mortality is, could you kill people by mistake. If you're supremely powerful, could you kill a lot of people by mistake? (sorry stealing a sci fi / real world scenario fear of running across alien life so utterly alien it kills us all and doesn't even know we were here).

It was okay, the only thing I'd love to know is how the feth did Laurie get that revolver in the end to shoot Ozzy? In the comic she picks it up from a dead cop in the corpse choked streets of NY, but with no bodies in the movie and no purse to speak of one has to wonder where she pulled that six shooter from.