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.

11/10--- A true epic. I never read it, and so I don't know what the comic would rate in comparison, but the ending with Dr. Manhattan being the scapegoat makes a lot more sense to me than some ill-defined alien attack. And, yes they did make Nixon look like a caricature of himself in the later scenes. I think it was intentional. And Malin Ackerman is definitely third place in the wooden acting championships, with Keanu first and Hayden second.

Spoiler tags my friend! Please! Not everyone has seen it yet.

Fankyoo!

The opening credits were my coworker's favorite part. I haven't gone to see it yet, though.

warpcrafter wrote:11/10--- A true epic. I never read it, and so I don't know what the comic would rate in comparison, but the ending (spoiler snipped)

The comic was a deconstruction of comics, which are famous for featuring incoherent plans like giant psychic squid. It made sense in the context of the book, but might have felt out of place in the movie - I can see why it was left out.

I found it genuinely thought provoking at the end. Unfortunately, I cannot quantify it here without a massive spoiler which people might be tempted to read before they see the film.

So if you wish to know what I mean, and have seen the film, PM me!

The squid was something I thought was just plain dumb in the comic. I'm glad they changed that part they way they did, if anything so a non-comic-nerd audience could get it. I hate it when they normally change big things in movie versions, but in this case it was a good idea.

I'm also glad the whole pirate comic book thing was left out of the movie too. never understood why that needed to be in the comic other than as a space filler, kind of like the songs and poems on every other page in lord of the rings... but then I heard there's some kind of dvd you can get with the pirate comic done as a cartoon all on it's own. I'm sure there will be a 15 disc super duper blu-wiener-ray edition that will have every little thing included.

Necros wrote:I'm sure there will be a 15 disc super duper blu-wiener-ray edition that will have every little thing included.

Sig'd

Viperion

namegoeshere wrote:The Graphic novel is overrated - some super big fans of it, drown out so many nonplussed (I'm nonplussed). Rorsch is a great character, if it was just hte Rorsch comic I would have loved it - the rest just so-so

You may not be judging it from the perspective of the times when it was released in 1986-7. At that time it was quite a revolution in superhero comics, along with Dark Knight Returns released about the same time. These have been followed by various revisions of the genre so that they do not seem so ground-breaking now as they were.

Necros wrote:I'm also glad the whole pirate comic book thing was left out of the movie too. never understood why that needed to be in the comic other than as a space filler, kind of like the songs and poems on every other page in lord of the rings... but then I heard there's some kind of dvd you can get with the pirate comic done as a cartoon all on it's own. I'm sure there will be a 15 disc super duper blu-wiener-ray edition that will have every little thing included.

Snyder has already said that there will be a directors cut that is about an hour longer. I'm sure the CE will include the Tales of the Black Freighter cartoon (I think it was said it is integrated back into the film in the CE) as well as the hour special Behind the Mask (based on the book of course) that is a fake documentary from the 80's detailing the background in more detail.

As for why it is in the book in the first place is because it is a parallel for Viedt and his journey. It isn't just some poetic flourish.

Kilkrazy wrote:You may not be judging it from the perspective of the times when it was released in 1986-7. At that time it was quite a revolution in superhero comics, along with Dark Knight Returns released about the same time. These have been followed by various revisions of the genre so that they do not seem so ground-breaking now as they were.

Quoted for truth. This can NOT be overstated; the shame is that it took 20+ years to make the movie; if this had come out in 1987 it would be every bit as groundbreaking as the comic (can I say graphic novel without sounding like a fanboy?), but in 2009 anti-heroes have been done to death and without historic context it's "just another" grim-and-gritty hero movie.

Viperion

Viperion wrote:
Quoted for truth. This can NOT be overstated; the shame is that it took 20+ years to make the movie; if this had come out in 1987 it would be every bit as groundbreaking as the comic (can I say graphic novel without sounding like a fanboy?), but in 2009 anti-heroes have been done to death and without historic context it's "just another" grim-and-gritty hero movie.

Viperion

To an extent I agree. One criticism I've heard of the film is that the story is no longer politically relevant seeing as the cold war and hence threat of nuclear annihilation ended decades ago.

Personally I don't see how that that relevant to whether the film is good or not. Otherwise why bother making any period piece? But it is true that the impact would have been that much more powerful during the cold war. So should Snyder have updated the film to make it all bout the war on terror instead? Hell no says I!

Destrado wrote:Went to see the movie. I loved it. Especially because everyone in the movie was expecting a superhero movie like spiderman. Other than some different twists, I liked most of it because it was faithful to the graphic novel.

This is a point that has struck me with this film, as I said I haven't read the comics, yet I have read alot online, and seen various threads about it.

So I have to ask, was this film advertised poorly, or worse advertised in a way to make folks think they where going to see a 'Spiderman' type film.

I say this as after watching two 'Watchmen' specials, one on Sky, the other on film 4 neither programme made any serious note of how dark the films where, or showed any clips that would give the 'average' film goer any warning of what they where walking into. Almost in effect setting up an ambush. Thus perhaps the reason that father turned up with a group of ten year olds.
Same goes with the main adverts.

I mean now I have a strong idea of the story, the interview with the actor playing the 'Comedian' saying how he likes and empthizes with his character, is to be frank a little worrying. Considering what a dark and nasty piece of work that character actually is.

Just found it odd after all the conviction Synder had keeping the film faithful, they couldn't be honest talking about it, other than occasional quips about 'oh its really faithful to the comic' which generally helps no one out there in the general public who haven't picked up a Batman or X-man comic, never mind the Watchmen.

It is rated R. I would hope that parents would question why it is and make an informed decision on whether their kids should go. But, I know that isn't always the case. We stopped reading my 3-year old Peter Rabbit after she asked if the farmer was trying to kill the bunny.

But, I do agree. It was not marketed as an R-rated superhero movie. It was marketed as a superhero movie.

There are LUNCHBOXES!!!

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

*coughcough*


It's rated R. If you want your kid to see a R-rated movie, you should check out what the movie is about. Period.
I'm not saying that the rating board should have the last word, but damn, parents should!

Well in the UK you can't get a kid into anything over a 12 so thats not really an issue here.

It also doesn't answer the query I was putting up, which was the advertising poorly done. Thr rating isn't the issue, some adults won't even tend to notice that when it comes out, just walk through the doors, it not like I'm going to be asked ID at the door.

The thing I was referring to was how it was advertised on the main mediums for new releases like it was a Spiderman film.

SAW and so forth, the darker splatter fest movies and films with dark tones don't advertise with a big sit down special with the cast telling you how great their characters are.

Watchmen in the UK at least did, which is why I am asking was that wrong?


edit - I missed your post dietrich, 'Red' distracted me.. apologies, this was a reponse to Anung.

Although aye, that was my point in essence, it was advertised as a Superhero film, not as a 'R' rated one.

dietrich wrote:But, I do agree. It was not marketed as an R-rated superhero movie. It was marketed as a superhero movie./quote]

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:The thing I was referring to was how it was advertised on the main mediums for new releases like it was a Spiderman film.

It was not marketed as a Spiderman film, but it wasn't clearly marketed as a gory R-rated film either.

Was editing my post as you posted. I'm blind this evening it seems, or its because I'm slipping on and off Dakka on the sly at work so not checking the thread properly.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Well in the UK you can't get a kid into anything over a 12 so thats not really an issue here.

It also doesn't answer the query I was putting up, which was the advertising poorly done. Thr rating isn't the issue, some adults won't even tend to notice that when it comes out, just walk through the doors, it not like I'm going to be asked ID at the door.

My friends and I got carded, and we're OBVIOUSLY well over 18.

I haven't been carded in years, although I am 35, if you're under 25, then you aren't obviously over 18, if you are, then all I can say is over-zealous staff?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
Although aye, that was my point in essence, it was advertised as a Superhero film, not as a 'R' rated one.

I disagree that it was marketed as a superhero movie. There were "heroics" in the trailer, but there was also the Comedian lighting a cigar with a flamethrower then setting an unarmed Vietcong on fire as well as Dr. Manhattan exploding another Vietcong. And it was heavily advertised that it was directed by "Zach Snyder, the director of 300" a movie well known for being incredibly violent.

Add that to it's R rating and it doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together.

To say that people were somehow mislead to think that it was a "superhero movie" a la Spiderman doesn't pass the smell test. People are dumb and will take a 12 year old to see the Watchmen but whatever happened to accountability and blaming the parents bringing the kids and not the movie?

You underestimate the power of DUMB Ozy.

Actually, I've seen movie previews and didn't see the VC stuff. Had I not read reviews I would have been in for a severe surprise and would have likely walked out. Plus the costumes look stupid like Batman's Riddler stupid so would not have caught the coming gorefest.

I'd also stress that my view mainly comes from the 'Watchmen Specials' I've mentioned. These where in essence a sit down with cast and crew, chatting on how awesome the movie was, the clips shown where not that dark in my opinion. It seemed to concentrate on how awesome this film is and these characters are interesting to play. The problem with the specials where the seemed filmed in a way so they could be shown at anytime of the day, as they didn't to concentrate on any of the darker elements of the story.

Clips included Silent Spectre jumping into the burning building to save the people inside, Comedian doing his 'save them from their selves' line, the Minuteman photo bit, and so on, the worst clip shown was a molatov thrown at Nite owls ship. No fighting of note.

In fact by the end of the special, and before I went and looked into the material more, I would have thought 'Comedian' was a loveable rogue type, a sorta cross between Gambit and Nick Fury. Which he obviously isn't.

Regarding the trailer, it also moves so fast I didn't even pick up on the flamer thrower bit, and the Manhatten exploding Vietcong bit came across as a bit cartoony due to the blue aura.

Frazzled wrote:You underestimate the power of DUMB Ozy.

Actually, I've seen movie previews and didn't see the VC stuff. Had I not read reviews I would have been in for a severe surprise and would have likely walked out. Plus the costumes look stupid like Batman's Riddler stupid so would not have caught the coming gorefest.

Did you see 300?

And I wouldn't say the Watchmen is a gorefest, though there are a few moments when the whole audience gasped. My wife walked out of Sin City because of the violence but she thoroughly enjoyed The Watchmen.

Ozymandias wrote:My wife walked out of Sin City because of the violence but she thoroughly enjoyed The Watchmen.

Well of course she did, you are the hero right?

Am I? Or am I the villain?

(See that's why I love that movie/comic.)

But yes, I am the smartest man in the world!

*dances*
I are so smart! I are so smart! S. M. R. T....

Ahtman wrote:

Well of course she did, you are the hero right?

I'm not sure if Hero is quite the word I would use!

And thus we have the rather glorious morale standpoint debate, the main reason I really enjoyed Watchmen. It's all shades of Grey gentlemen!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And thus we have the rather glorious morale standpoint debate, the main reason I really enjoyed Watchmen. It's all shades of Grey gentlemen!

SPOILER

Necros wrote:I'm also glad the whole pirate comic book thing was left out of the movie too. never understood why that needed to be in the comic other than as a space filler, kind of like the songs and poems on every other page in lord of the rings... but then I heard there's some kind of dvd you can get with the pirate comic done as a cartoon all on it's own. I'm sure there will be a 15 disc super duper blu-wiener-ray edition that will have every little thing included.

Spoiler warning...



The pirate story mirrored the moral journey of the masks. In obsessing over evil and committing their lives to fighting it, they left themselves vulnerable to being lost in the cause, losing perspective and becoming just as evil as the enemy they fought. It also casts doubt on the ending, because in the end the town wasn’t under threat by the pirates, and the people the castaway killed were needless. Now consider Ozzy’s plan… was is the masterstroke of the world’s smartest man, or was it the insane conclusion of a man who’d been through the same journey into madness as the castaway?

Without the Black Freighter narrative, it’s just a comic book.

Viperion wrote:Quoted for truth. This can NOT be overstated; the shame is that it took 20+ years to make the movie; if this had come out in 1987 it would be every bit as groundbreaking as the comic (can I say graphic novel without sounding like a fanboy?), but in 2009 anti-heroes have been done to death and without historic context it's "just another" grim-and-gritty hero movie.

Viperion

I think the comic book has a lot of merit beyond being one of the earlier gritty comics. There's a depth to the story you just don't see anywhere else.