Watchmen - What a pile of GAK!!!

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.

**radiohazard**

I want 2 hours, 35 minutes and 25 seconds of my life back.

Did anyone actually like this film???

**reds8n**

radiohazard wrote:

Did anyone actually like this film???

Yes.

**Kanluwen**

Alan Moore is right with you, Radiohazard.

Man, you don't ever really want to be there with him though.

**CaptainCommunsism**

It seems that most of whom I've met have liked it only if they read the graphic novel. The graphic novel is excellent, but it really doesn't (and shouldn't have been made into) a movie. For what it was, I didn't think it was so bad, but it really annoyed me at times. it certainly could have been worse.

**BrookM**

I really enjoyed the graphic novel but I found the translation from paper to silver screen not that great. Sure there are plenty of scenes that I enjoyed immensely but eh, some parts just didn't feel quite right.

**Kanluwen**

To be fair:

The novel's original "theme" wouldn't have translated well to a modern audience.

Remember, the whole theme of the novel is an outside threat(the squid beast rawr) forcing the world's nuclear superpowers into cooperation. Now, there's really not warring "superpowers". There's the US and Russia, who see eye to eye...mostly. Then there's dozens of "lesser" states that are nuclear capable.

**Jimi Nemesis**

I thought they did a fairly good job with the movie, although the lack of Squidmonster and subsequent explanation of what Bubastis is, is really quite annoying.

I also hate how they call Rorscharch "Rorshack"

**Ahtman**

Kanluwen wrote:The novel's original "theme" wouldn't have translated well to a modern audience.

Remember, the whole theme of the novel is an outside threat(the squid beast rawr) forcing the world's nuclear superpowers into cooperation. Now, there's really not warring "superpowers". There's the US and Russia, who see eye to eye...mostly. Then there's dozens of "lesser" states that are nuclear capable.

That isn't a theme, that is a plot point.

Jimi Nemesis wrote:I thought they did a fairly good job with the movie, although the lack of Squidmonster and subsequent explanation of what Bubastis is, is really quite annoying.

I also hate how they call Rorscharch "Rorshack"

That is how it is pronounced. It might be that you added in a 'r' that isn't there. It is spelled 'Rorschach'. The book explained Bubastis as well so I'm not sure what the problem is. I didn't miss the squidmonster. It was a McGuffin anyway. The thing itself isn't what is important, it is what it does that is important. This worked just as well with the added benifit of trying to explain that psychic powers are much more real in that world and that they could make a fake working brain that could send out a psychic wave that would make everyone have bad dreams about alien worlds.

Seems to be a polarizing film. People tend to really enjoy it or hate it with little in between.

**MeanGreenStompa**

I loved it, it most certainly beat the seven shades of gak out of transformers 2...

**sebster**

Ahtman wrote:I didn't miss the squidmonster. It was a McGuffin anyway. The thing itself isn't what is important, it is what it does that is important. This worked just as well with the added benifit of trying to explain that psychic powers are much more real in that world and that they could make a fake working brain that could send out a psychic wave that would make everyone have bad dreams about alien worlds.

It fit with genre deconstruction the comic was playing with, taking all the crazy ideas of comic books that were around in the 80s and taking them seriously. What better way to demonstrate that than with a supervillain's plan that involves a giant psychic squid? Of course, that isn't going to translate into a movie made 20 years later, so they snipped it out and reduced the plot elements. It was a sensible change well executed.

The bigger issue was cutting the black freighter. I understand running time was already a problem, but it was just about the most important piece of the text. Without it, you don't have the idea that a violent life warps the individual, nor the idea that Ozymandias might have been wrong about the inevitability of nuclear war.

Seems to be a polarizing film. People tend to really enjoy it or hate it with little in between.

I liked it somewhat. It looked great and in a few places really brought the comic to life (I never really got why people accepted the Comedian in the comic, but as shown in the film he made a lot more sense). But ultimately, I felt it was a fairly literal translation of a comic that was always going to be a very difficult conversion. The end result was two hours of exposition and then an anti-climactic ending - fine in a periodical cartoon but a big problem for a movie.

**reds8n**

Yeah, I didn't miss the squid idea at all really. That's the only thing that really jars in the original graphic novel.

**Wrexasaur**

I would definitely watch it again, mainly because I thought it was simply better than most of the comic conversions out there now.

Maybe Spiderman 3 just lowered my expectations, but Watchmen, was a fantastic pick for a movie. I hope in the future some of these studios think about picking up some of the more alternative heroes as well, in their crusade of silver screen awesomeness.

Oh, and Iron Man 2 better be awesome... or else Hollywood... or freaking else... umm, I guess I wouldn't watch it at that point. Yeah, that would work.

**Jin**

My biggest complaint about the movie was that they made the protagonists too 'superhuman', particularly when it came to the fight sequences (which also could've done without the Zack Snyder slow-motion back to normal time scenes). A large point was that these people are regular people. No super-powers or anything.

Really needed another couple of hours to flesh out the characters more and not rush through the story so damn much.

**Wrexasaur**

Knowing how to rush a good story (rather pack it into such a small window) is the sign of a good flick, but sadly, some stories simply are not popular enough to sink that kind of cash into them.

You could say the same thing about the Spiderman movies, but those have gone on, and on, and on, and... well maybe not too much further. There is really no way for a studio to guarantee results like that, so they automatically trim at least a few corners. A lot of people complained about Lord of the Rings, but in all honesty, how in the fething hell else could they have worked out the time constraints? Oh, and the enormous budget to manage too...

**Kilkrazy**

I liked it and I've read the original graphic novel.

Considering it's set in a parallel world where superheroes are real and helped the US win the Vietnam War, I don't think the precise anomaly about the Soviet Union should create serious cognitive dissonance.

It was a good translation from a comic book to a film. The director dropped or changed the right bits of the original story to keep the film a manageable length and still make sense.

It should be pretty easy to make comic books into films because they are basically a film story board to start with.

Things often go wrong somehow. (See League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for example.)

**Wrexasaur**

Maybe if some studio manages to get their balls and heads together, we could see an impressive comeback though. I truly think that work deserves another chance.

Wait a second... did they already make a second one? Am I looking at a strange alternate poster elsewhere? Hmm.... must investigate this.

**radiohazard**

Kanluwen wrote:Alan Moore is right with you, Radiohazard.

Man, you don't ever really want to be there with him though.

My house in Northampton is litterally down the road from Alan.

He's a really nice guy.

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I loved it, it most certainly beat the seven shades of gak out of transformers 2...

Yea but so did every other movie.

Off topic but if you have kids and an excuse, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is righteously funny. Any film that has James Caan, Mr. T, and Bubba Hotep" Campbell is twisted and excellent.

**George Spiggott**

Watchmen isn't even my favorite Alan Moor comic but I liked it, it wasn't amazing but it wasn't a waste of my time. It was better than every other superhero/comicbook film I've seen since The Dark Knight.

**mockingbirduk**

It's a reasonable film. I was entertained and didn't regret the ticket price, and there are some excellent scenes, but it didn't live up to the comic for me. I should point out that while I liked the comic, I'm not a rabid fanboy of it, so I wasn't going into the movie with unrealistic expectations.

The good:
The casting of Rorschach was impeccable, he's the highlight of the film for me, truly excellent.
The comedian - as someone said, I preferred the character in the film to the comic version just because the addition of the human element (movement and mannerisms) makes him that much more a believable and likable character.
Dr Manhattan's giant blue wang. Never before has a film caused me to check the titles for the role of "lead wang animator".

The bad:
Night owl senior missing from the plot
Night owl junior being far too... tough, cool and handsome. Lost the heart of the character.
The slo-mo fight scenes. Leave it out.
The incredibly bad sex scene in night owl's craft... Oh dear god.
The end - I want my squid, logic be damned!

Overall a fun flick, but I hoped for more.

**generalgrog**

I liked the movie. I personally could have done without the blue pee pee all over the place, the soft porn and the rorschack "hack a bum" scene.

GG

**Wrexasaur**

I know what you mean man, I simply could not keep my eyes off of the damn thing... all the other stuff tried to distract me... but to no avail, I had to see it, I had too... and it horrified me greatly.

When the movie comes out on DVD, I am sure they will work out a blue-pee-pee filter button somehow.

**George Spiggott**

So you were surprised that the naked guys dick was the same colour as the rest of him? Get over it already. It's alright, you can't catch gay from looking at a man's penis.

**Wrexasaur**

Seriously though, we cannot have this kind of thing happening, I just can't take it anymore.

Must I watch again though... oh no... not again.

**mockingbirduk**

George Spiggott wrote:So you were surprised that the naked guys dick was the same colour as the rest of him? Get over it already. It's alright, you can't catch gay from looking at a man's penis.

I did, and so did my dog.

**Wrexasaur**

I think I found the cure for that, you can thank me later

.

**generalgrog**

George Spiggott wrote:So you were surprised that the naked guys dick was the same colour as the rest of him? Get over it already. It's alright, you can't catch gay from looking at a man's penis.

So I can't express an opinion without getting back slapped? sheesh

GG

**Frazzled**

GG, I think Wrexy's reply above yourse says it all. I invite us all to revist his epic and well written post.

**Kilkrazy**

It sounds like none of you guys have ever seen a penis before.

Don't American men try to aim for the lavatory bowl when they take a leak?

**mockingbirduk**

I'm British and Frazzled's Canadian (according to the little icon by his avatar). I am unable therefore to comment on the urinary habits of american men.