Sed, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes [Watchmen Movie Discussion]

127 posts / 0 new
Last post
So, the new Watchmen movie is out and it is apparently quite polarizing for critics. My favorite critic, Roger Ebert, loves it, so I think I will too. we'll know this afternoon after I go see it.

Anyone else planning on seeing it? Share what you think here.
Pfi!

I'm seeing it on Monday with a good friend of mine from back home. Some of my friends who are in frats saw it with their brothers. But seeing as I have a test today and flying back home I couldn't see it.
I'm seeing it tonight.
Never read the GN, so it'll be a purely unbiased review when I get back.
I'm seeing it tonight.
Never read the GN, so it'll be a purely unbiased review when I get back.

I hear there's a new Star Trek trailer in the previews—don't miss 'em!
So I just got back from seeing Watchmen. Here's a few real quick innitial reactions.

In the months leading up to it, my anticipation for this movie grew more and more. And with every positive preview released, my expectations for this movie grew as well. Lets just say that there's a reason that any negative previews were all but non-existent, and that's because this movie is just flat out great.

I haven't read the graphic novel that it's based off of, but despite that fact, I really enjoyed this movie. It's long, about three hours, yet unlike other similarly lengthed movies, the time just flies right by, and you can't even feel it. It's paced in such a way that you're never left questioning if it's about to end, you're just sucked right into the story and, from start to finish, there's not a single dull moment to be had.

Everything just flows together so well. All of the backstories of the various characters are integreted into the grand picture seamlessly. And all of the characters are actually quite interesting.

The movie earns its R rating quite handily, never holding anything back on the gore, sex, or languange, and it helps propell this movie to a place no other super hero movie before it has really been. And the story is just great, with everything wrapping up nicely for a very satisfying ending.

Since I haven't read the graphic novel (I felt I was already setting myself up for dissapointment with such high expectations out of it, I didn't want potentially add more on top of it), I can't say how accurate it may be, but purely as a movie going experience, this is a fantastic film that any fan of the genre must see. I really can't think of a single bad thing to say about this movie. Epic stuff.
I hear there's a new Star Trek trailer in the previews—don't miss 'em!

Oh yeah baby!
It's out? Excellent. I'm another who has never read the original, though unfortunately geek culture ensures that I already know how it ends.
Show
The Butler did it! Thirty-five minutes ago!

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

I saw it. Haven't read the original.

Spoilers inc.

Rorschadgschschzchs's voice (and the unspellable name) annoyed me right from the start. I now absolutely hate characters with Batman syndrome.

The origin story of the blue guy is downright retarded, but hey, he's a superhero. That's expected. I used to think that he was just some kind of alien - that would've made a lot more sense than a HURR DURR NUKULAR FIZZIX ACCIDENT OOPS. Moreover, it was a controlled experiment. The scientists knew what the chamber was doing, he just walked into it when he wasn't supposed to. So, they should be able to repeat the procedure to create more superhumans (who might've turned out less emo) - why didn't they?

The sex scene in the flying gizmo was beyond /facepalming. I get it, it was supposed to be funny with the music and the erupting jet of flame in the end and all that... but it wasn't. It was just bad. Unbelievably bad. Possibly the worst scene I've seen in a movie since Neo resurrected Trinity in Matrix Reloaded by groping inside her chest and removing the bullet.

Other than the above, I liked the movie. The visuals were great, especially views of the city and when the Comedian's funeral. Rorschagschzcshschhh was great, minus the voice, comedian was great (Hollywood grew balls to show a not-completely-100%-evil character shooting a pregnant woman!), others not so much. Blue emo guy was at least unique.

Under "neat little things", I absolutely loved the introduction. It was really well-done, mixing real historical events with the fictional ones, telling you how this world is similar to real 80's and where it's different, while also presenting the characters. It's a shame that the rest of the movie failed to maintain the same level of awesome.


tl; dr: It's not a masterpiece, but walking into a superhero movie I had low expectations anyway. Watchmen exceeded them.
-Rorschach. As in the psychological ink blot test.
Trolls in sheep's clothing have no redeeming qualities that are beneficial towards the health of the community. My Artwork/Photography/Literature
I just got back from the movie and I will just say that I pretty much agree with everything The Great Mosquito said about the movie.

It was great but I also have not read the comics. From the wikipedia entry there does not appear to be much difference although I am still unclear about the comic's ending though.

It going to be funny when parents bring their kids to this movie, thinking it's just an innocent comic book movie, because I was surprised by quite a bit.
There are reasons why they wouldn't create another superhuman:

1. They wouldn't be sure it'd work the second time.
2. They don't know how to control the one they have now. Why risk a second one?
3. They wouldn't nead another one, given that John's already godlike.

Also, I'd like to say I enjoyed the sex scene on the ship. It's real sex. Goofy and unglamorous. Ok, maybe not real. but you get my point.
First of all, and I really want to stress this, this is one of the greatest graphic novels of all time. Even if you do not like comics or whatever I highly suggest reading this. It is great.

BEGIN SPOILERS:
Snip

I'm pretty sure Rorschach is Moore's attempt to make a batman like character, that is to say a vengeance filled vigilante. His voice is referenced to being rough in the comics so there's no harm in putting it in the movie. Also it was much less annoying than Batman in The Dark Knight Returns.

Dr. Manhattan's origin is also the same in the comics. It's stupid but so is the whole idea of superpowers when you get down to it. I feel the movie made him seem too depressed and less distant. In the comics he was more distant, like removed from everyone. Here he just seems like a sad lil boy who does not fit in.

The intro was superb. It was probably my favorite part of the entire movie.

END SPOILERS

For a movie, it was a great movie. It portrayed the novel well enough even if some major things were changed. If you thought the idea of the movie was remotely interesting I seriously recommend reading the book.
Read. The Damn. Graphic Novel.
I'll say that first.
Second, I will say that I absolutely loved it. I really did. All of the actors did such a terrific job playing their parts.
However, the three that stand out the most to me are Jackie Earle Haley as Rorshach, Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan, and Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II.
Jackie blew Rorschach out of the ****ing park. Holy God he was amazing. Beyond amazing.
Show
his death scene was so saddening... he really made you feel bad
.
Billy Crudup, through all the CGI, still managed to show us his emotions. They were PERFECTLY expressed even from a big blue man with a floppy *****.
Patrick Wilson was also a perfect Nite Owl II, he just nailed him.

I also commend Jeffrey Dean Morgan for his role as Comedian. He really nailed him too.

Now, there were of course things cut. That must happen. But, all in all, the movie flowed perfectly. I also enjoyed the soundtrack greatly.

I can't wait to see the Director's Cut (3 hours 10 minutes).
COB.png
Rorschadgschschzchs's voice (and the unspellable name) annoyed me right from the start. I now absolutely hate characters with Batman syndrome.

In the comic book at least one character remarks that they hate his weird voice, so that's just good acting!

Also, they got his look down pat.

The origin story of the blue guy is downright retarded, but hey, he's a superhero. That's expected. I used to think that he was just some kind of alien - that would've made a lot more sense than a HURR DURR NUKULAR FIZZIX ACCIDENT OOPS.

I think he should've been bitten by a genetically altered tachyon.

The sex scene in the flying gizmo was beyond /facepalming. I get it, it was supposed to be funny

Moreover, it was supposed to show that while Dan Dreiberg was weak and impotent (as exemplified by his earlier failure to perform), his alter ego was powerful and virile. Despite seeming relatively normal, even he has a touch of the crazies.

My review of the movie is as follows:

It's now the best comic to movie adaptation in my mind. My only "major" problem with it was the ending change, but in light of how well everything else was done that becomes a minor quibble. And any minor quibbles I had virtually disappeared, though I expect some of them may literally disappear in the director's cut.

The keystone of the movie is the guy playing Rorschach. They got his look perfect and the actor perfected the performance.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
Read. The Damn. Graphic Novel.
I'll say that first.

This, though I'll add that I can see someone actually enjoying the movie more than the graphic novel.

The rest of my thoughts on the movie can be found here, in the Watchmen thread that was seemingly started first though it is more trickily named.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
It's stupid but so is the whole idea of superpowers when you get down to it.

Well, there's this thing called "suspension of disbelief" that makes us swallow the whole superpower deal and not complain about it.

I'm fine with that.

Where my suspension of disbelief stops though, is when the movie expects me to believe that in the whole scientific community nobody wants to attempt to repeat the experiment. They know what made Dr. Manhattan, they are able to repeat it, they likely stand something to learn from it... and... you know, that's basically how science works. Except not in the movie.
I'm afraid that I had a full on nerd rage after hearing that the ending had been changed.
I felt like this was of interest.
I'm afraid that I had a full on nerd rage after hearing that the ending had been changed.

Same. And I think the comic one was better. But the movie ruled.

It was pretty much exactly what I wanted out of a Watchmen movie. It had value that the comic didn't, but left the comic with some artistic twists that it didn't have. Now, this means that they both are good as a whole and individually. That is a fantastic achievement in adaptation.

My one problem was Ozymandias was too evil. He sounded like a Bond villain, whereas I felt Alan Moore portrayed him as quite a nice guy. I think a lot of that is just the actor read the script and thought "Right, I''m the baddie. Better sound evil then."
They know what made Dr. Manhattan,

We've only read the graphic novel once, so perhaps we missed it, but it seems to us that they don't know what made him. They know the circumstances leading up to his reconstitution, but they don't know what enabled that reconstitution. So far as they're concerned, the man was killed in a rather terrible way, and through some unknown method, managed to retain a consciousness that could manipulate the universe at a sub-atomic level. Duplicating that would essentially mean killing someone else, and hoping that it all worked out the same way.

It would be like someone developing a new gun, accidentally shooting someone in the process, and then having the person who was shot climb out of their grave three weeks later. Sure, they could shoot someone else and see if that person came back as well, but there's no real reason to believe that it was the gun that was responsible. Maybe John uniquely always had the capacity for those powers, and all it took to trigger them was the destruction of his body.
Where my suspension of disbelief stops though, is when the movie expects me to believe that in the whole scientific community nobody wants to attempt to repeat the experiment.

It doesn't expect you to believe that, it just happens that the movie isn't about attempting to recreate Doctor Manhattan and thus any hypothetical attempts to do so are unimportant. As usual, suspension of disbelief is a problem with the viewer.

How would they go about it, though? Usually such things get tested on animals first, but in this case intelligence and will might be a key factor. And even if it's not do you want a cosmic powered rat porting around turning people into cheese (probably not possible given that Bubastis apparently doesn't come back)?

So, in the search for a human test subject what do we look for? Someone who has the intelligence and will to potentially rebuild themselves from the ground up, who isn't insane or inherently prone to criminal behaviour, and who is willing to be disintegrated with no guarantee of surviving. How many terminally ill scientists do you disintegrate with no success before admitting Doc M was a cosmic fluke and give up? Hard to say, but it's not something the given story even needs to touch on because none of it is important.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
Well, there's this thing called "suspension of disbelief" that makes us swallow the whole superpower deal and not complain about it.

I'm fine with that.

Where my suspension of disbelief stops though, is when the movie expects me to believe that in the whole scientific community nobody wants to attempt to repeat the experiment. They know what made Dr. Manhattan, they are able to repeat it, they likely stand something to learn from it... and... you know, that's basically how science works. Except not in the movie.

Except you adress none of the points I made.

Scientists wouldn't want to repeat the process without first understanding how it works. The government wouldn't want another Dr. Manhatten walking around, so the government would probably quash any attempt to do so. The Russians might have been trying, but then again, Dr Manhatten would be compelled to stop them.
Same. And I think the comic one was better. But the movie ruled.

It was pretty much exactly what I wanted out of a Watchmen movie. It had value that the comic didn't, but left the comic with some artistic twists that it didn't have. Now, this means that they both are good as a whole and individually. That is a fantastic achievement in adaptation.

My one problem was Ozymandias was too evil. He sounded like a Bond villain, whereas I felt Alan Moore portrayed him as quite a nice guy. I think a lot of that is just the actor read the script and thought "Right, I''m the baddie. Better sound evil then."

If you think Alan Moore's Oxymandias was a nice guy then you missed the point of the character and need to reread the graphic novel.
If you think Alan Moore's Oxymandias was a nice guy then you missed the point of the character and need to reread the graphic novel.

QFT.
Ozy was a stuck up, fake, straight up conceited ******* in the graphic novel. And Goode portrayed him perfectly as such.
COB.png
That was already liked to once in this very thread.

As for the movie, I would definitely want to see it, though will likely be unable to...
Good Trades: 18 Bad Trades: 1
How is a thread in the rec room moved to the rec room?
http://toughmagicopponent.ytmnd.com/
How is a thread in the rec room moved to the rec room?

It wasn't moved to the Rec Room, it was merged with another.
COB.png
My one problem was Ozymandias was too evil. He sounded like a Bond villain, whereas I felt Alan Moore portrayed him as quite a nice guy. I think a lot of that is just the actor read the script and thought "Right, I''m the baddie. Better sound evil then."

I completely disagree with you, but they made him too sure of himself in the movie.

For instance, when he "destroyed" Jon and caught the bullet in the book, he said aloud that he didn't know if it would work. In the book when the USSR started friendly relations with th US, he shouted "I DID IT". At the very end, he asks Jon if he was doing the right thing.

None of this happened in the movie. Which I like, because it makes Veidt more of an *******, but I dislike, because it takes every ounce of humanity out of him. He seemed more of a plot device than a character, especially when Dan began beating him up (laughably, because it was completely out of character, and then he suddenly stopped for no reason) he did nothing.
I loved it. I was quite impressed at how the film didn't pull any punches (although, I'm hoping the DVD has the option to turn off some of the shots of Dr. Manhattan's lower east side...).
That was already liked to once in this very thread.

As for the movie, I would definitely want to see it, though will likely be unable to...

The threads were merged, and I posted in the other thread.

IMAGE(http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7837/gurrendanavatar80x80gi6.png)
-Joni
The threads were merged, and I posted in the other thread.

Yes, although why the mods chose to merge it with the thread with the most god-awful subject line I've ever seen, instead of the thread with the simple and direct subject is beyond me.

I mean, no offense to whoever made the Sed thread, but I at least don't get it. I'm guessing its some obscure Watchman line from the graphic novel, but I would never have thought it was a Watchman thread by reading it.

Even if the Sed thread was older than the Watchman thread, it should have been the Watchman thread that got to be primary.
Yes, although why the mods chose to merge it with the thread with the most god-awful subject line I've ever seen, instead of the thread with the simple and direct subject is beyond me.

I mean, no offense to whoever made the Sed thread, but I at least don't get it. I'm guessing its some obscure Watchman line from the graphic novel, but I would never have thought it was a Watchman thread by reading it.

Even if the Sed thread was older than the Watchman thread, it should have been the Watchman thread that got to be primary.

It means "who watches the watchmen". It's a pretty central phrase the to the comic book. I haven't seen the movie so I don't know if its in there. In fact, that's the phrase from which the title of the work (well, both of them, now) is derived.
Yes, although why the mods chose to merge it with the thread with the most god-awful subject line I've ever seen, instead of the thread with the simple and direct subject is beyond me.

:embarrass that was my doing,I recommended to the vcl that the thread with the least amount of replies get put into the one with the most replies...

ThorvaldHafgrimsson wrote:
Life is full of choices. Sometimes you make the good ones, and sometimes you have to kill all the witnesses.
NastasiaLorn; wrote:
But then you have to pay the liability insurance.
A note about character and world creation
Show
Character and world creation are a form of expression. The point is that some people don't have much to say...
57949688 wrote:
Why doesnt anyone ever sig my qoutes!?
On the subject of who post in the Off-Topic Tavern:
57131438 wrote:
most of them are bored, immature adults.
Offical troller of the House of Trolls
I mean, no offense to whoever made the Sed thread, but I at least don't get it. I'm guessing its some obscure Watchman line from the graphic novel, but I would never have thought it was a Watchman thread by reading it.

It's referenced in the graphic novel, and the translation of the phrase is where the title comes from. But here, let Wikipedia enlighten the ignorant.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
If you think Alan Moore's Oxymandias was a nice guy then you missed the point of the character and need to reread the graphic novel.

I was using 'nice guy' somewhat facetiously. Don't fret, I will reread it though (I am a horrible nerd and have read watchmen every year since I was about 9, and still get more out of it each time(16 now)).

I guess I didn't make myself clear, though. I was trying to say that he had lost his humanity. Goode took Ozy's devotion to his goal and made it the character's only thought, his only motivation, he had blind faith in what he did. Moore's Ozymandias was far more human, he doubted himself, he felt more visible remorse, and more visible success. IMO, he was too cold and calculating in the film, he missed out on the emotional side.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, the comic and the movie need to be different (otherwise what's the point), but it was a discrepancy I perceived between the two works.
Yes, although why the mods chose to merge it with the thread with the most god-awful subject line I've ever seen, instead of the thread with the simple and direct subject is beyond me.

I mean, no offense to whoever made the Sed thread, but I at least don't get it. I'm guessing its some obscure Watchman line from the graphic novel, but I would never have thought it was a Watchman thread by reading it.

Even if the Sed thread was older than the Watchman thread, it should have been the Watchman thread that got to be primary.

It's Latin. It means 'Who watches the watchmen?' (alternately, Green Arrow translated it as 'Who guards the guardians?' when Batman used this line in the season four finale of Justice League). It's a moderately well known quote, and the full name of the original graphic novel (the English translation is, to be precise).
It's Latin. It means 'Who watches the watchmen?' (alternately, Green Arrow translated it as 'Who guards the guardians?' when Batman used this line in the season four finale of Justice League).

and GA answer is "I think we got it covered"...

ThorvaldHafgrimsson wrote:
Life is full of choices. Sometimes you make the good ones, and sometimes you have to kill all the witnesses.
NastasiaLorn; wrote:
But then you have to pay the liability insurance.
A note about character and world creation
Show
Character and world creation are a form of expression. The point is that some people don't have much to say...
57949688 wrote:
Why doesnt anyone ever sig my qoutes!?
On the subject of who post in the Off-Topic Tavern:
57131438 wrote:
most of them are bored, immature adults.
Offical troller of the House of Trolls
I saw it and... I really didn't like it.

My first problem is Ozymandias. In the book, he is portrayed as a sympathetic guy, not necessarily a nice guy but not an evil guy, which makes what he does all the more shocking and dense. But in this movie? Every appearance he has just screams 'bond villain evil', all subtlety has been sapped away from his character, even the actor who plays him makes him sound evil. And for god sakes, his costume has got to be one of the ugliest adaptions of a costume I've ever seen...

I hated the scenes with Nixon, along with Snyder's tendancy to focus to heavily on fluff and action scenes while ignoring one of the most important aspects of Watchmen, what was happening to the society.

And then there was the ending, which really didn't make any sense and made Ozymandias go from unwilling villain-hero territory to plain-out psychopath.
The translation of the quote should be "But, who watches the watchmen?"
I just finished reading the graphic novel, and I'm quite interested in the movie. Everyone seems to have a different opinion on it. I'll try to see it soon.