re: The Watchmen Sucked

I know Slo, I know.

quote:

---

phantom menace wasn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be (it was the best of the prequels) and i thought it could only get better.

---

No way - if I had force powers, I would've strangled both Jar Jar and Anakin. Darth Maul was pretty lame, too. Revenge of the Sith wasn't perfect, but man, it was head and shoulders above that one.

quote:

---

AOTC was one of the worst movies ever made

---

I don't like sand...

quote:

---

Preacher would probably fall into similar territory

---

Definitely. There was some work on a miniseries for HBO, but that fell through. There was some preliminary work done, like the Arseface mask, but didn't get that far

quote:

---

Rorschach...boring.

---

very

grumble grumble macho grumble i hate immoral people grumble punch grumble

FASCINATING! never seen that before either!

quote:

---

Kids watch their mother prostitute, snap on bullies to the point of biting off their cheek, and butcher a guy after finding body parts of a six year old everyday.

---

just generic backstory for "crazies"

quote:

---

Manhattan?! Don't get me started. Basically God walking around able to do anything he wants...come on, so overdone.

---

generally anytime a person becomes god they become detached from humanity. he spent the entire movie detached except for a silly, small turn at the end when he's still ok with 15M people dying...then lying about it to save humanity

as a god-like figure, he's an a-hole and a bad problem solver

quote:

---

Fortunately, not everyone is future-seeing geniuses like yourself. The assassination attempt throws almost anyone off the scent of Ozymandias.

---

no it didn't



if you saw what teh killer looked like (which every moviegoer does), you know it's him by neck/shoulders

and of course they'd try and throw in a stupid turn with an assassin. when does something like this NOT happen?

quote:

---

Then tell everyone scenes you'd cut, while still developing characters and showing their origins and their interactions with each other in the past.

---

the sex scene in the transporter thing

the whole story with the girl's dad being the comedian was fricking. pointless.

i don't think the first scene with max hardcore said anything, could have joined that with the 2nd "trap" scene for rorsharch and it would have been just as effective. the company he discovered could have been nameless until they get the password and use the computer. the only thing the first scene did was create a vehicle to tell the audience that the comedian cried b/c of something. rorsharch could have just read this in a journal or something before finding the dead body.

that's about 20 minutes right there without even thinking.

the scene where the comedian kills the girl he knocked up in vietnam was pointless

frick, the entire part about rorsharch going to jail added nothing. all it did was allow rorsharch to tell his story. rorsharch's backstory was pretty pointless and utterly formulaic, so it was uncessary.

that's at least 40 minutes of unnecessary shite trimmed

quote:

---

And every movie that's popular, you bitch about fanboys.

---

not true

i talk about fanboys with movies that breed fanboys

quote:

---

You're the exact same thing, just on the opposite side of the fence.

---

naw, if a movie i like sucks, i say it sucks

if a movie isn't good, and i want it to be good, i don't lie about it

i'll sum up my opinion on fanboys like this. i was talking to a good friend (who liked this movie) about the previews before it. we were talking about star trek, and how it looks like it will be good. i commented that it looks to be very actiony for star trek, which doesn't affect me but it should affect the fanboys. however fanboys will lie and say they like it anyway. that's a fanboy

quote:

---

probably my 3rd biggest let down of all time behind

1. matrix 2
2. attack of the clones

---

My three biggest let-downs:
1. Matrix
2. 1941 (yeah, I said it)
3. Watchmen

quote:

---

characters: sucked. the only one worth a shite was the comedian, and even he was flat as hell

---

I think Rorshach, while maybe not a great character, was portrayed by one of the greatest actors in the world, and I believe that Watchmen is beneath him. Jackie Earle Haley kicks arse.

quote:

---

story: unoriginal and uncreative. it was also boringly predictable. you knew who the bad guy was the first time he was announced on screen openly. very disjointed also.

---

+1

quote:

---

it was also long with a lot of unecessary shite. i don't care if it was in the graphic novel: it still wasn't necessary. this movie could have shed about 45-60 minutes and lost nothing (and gained a lot of fluidity)

---

Killing the pregnant chick was stupid, Rorshach's scene finding the dogs eating the little girl had nothing to do with the rest of the story, the chick finding out that the comedian was her father just came out of nowhere and didn't contribute to the story...ok, I'm sick of talking about this shitty movie.

And why was it snowing in Antarctica? It snows more in Louisiana than it does in Antarctica!

And why didn't the comedian ever say anything humorous? Ever? He was just like, "Bah, it's all just a goddamn joke!" Well tell us a fricking joke, a-hole!

frick this movie in the dickhole. I have been robbed of time and money I'll never see again. It's Mystery Science Theater 3000 material for a future generation (Tom Servo will have plenty of zingers about the Mars scenes, all of which sucked my balls). I will never forgive this movie.

quote:

---

And why didn't the comedian ever say anything humorous? Ever? He was just like, "Bah, it's all just a goddamn joke!" Well tell us a fricking joke, a-hole!

---

???????

The comedian isn't supposed to be funny.

quote:

---

It's Mystery Science Theater 3000 material for a future generation (Tom Servo will have plenty of zingers about the Mars scenes, all of which sucked my balls). I will never forgive this movie.

---

:rotflmao:

quote:

---

just generic backstory for "crazies"

---

Yeah, definitely. Nothing fricked up about it at all.

quote:

---

generally anytime a person becomes god they become detached from humanity. he spent the entire movie detached except for a silly, small turn at the end when he's still ok with 15M people dying...then lying about it to save humanity

as a god-like figure, he's an a-hole and a bad problem solver

---

Humanity is more than 15 million people, which is why he chose to not go public with it, which was explained in the movie. It ended a war which could have exterminated human life.

He's an a-hole cause he's detached from humans, as you just said. And a bad problem solver? In whose eyes? Not his. He does what he believes is right, which is what most people do. The press basically tells him he gave several people cancer, and he doesn't understand the only person he cared about on earth left him, so he went to Mars.

quote:

---

if you saw what teh killer looked like (which every moviegoer does), you know it's him by neck/shoulders

and of course they'd try and throw in a stupid turn with an assassin. when does something like this NOT happen?

---

I knew Ozymandias was the killer and tried to see if I could tell from the opening scene. There's nothing that gives it away. A tall person...OK, could be Ozymandias, sure, but most the people in the movie are well-built and it could be an assassin hired by someone. One of the people I was with said he thought it was Ozy when they first showed him, but the assassination attempt threw him off. So obviously, it wasn't overlooked by everyone. If you just watch a movie instead of trying to figure out the ending ASAP to tell everyone you did, it makes it a lot more enjoyable.

quote:

---

the sex scene in the transporter thing

---

Maybe the only somewhat pointless scene you listed. It's a pretty big scene in the comic, coming at the end of the return of Nite Owl and Silk Spectre, which is probably why it's in the movie. Snyder always overdoes the sex scenes, as I think he did here.

quote:

---

the whole story with the girl's dad being the comedian was fricking. pointless.

---

Not really. A man she hated for trying to rape her mother ended up being her father. If anything the scene from the comic, where the younger Silk Spectre throws her drink on the Comedian after she sees him in public for the first time since learning of the attempted rape, should have been put in. It would've shown how much it crushed her more effectively.

quote:

---

i don't think the first scene with max hardcore said anything, could have joined that with the 2nd "trap" scene for rorsharch and it would have been just as effective. the company he discovered could have been nameless until they get the password and use the computer. the only thing the first scene did was create a vehicle to tell the audience that the comedian cried b/c of something. rorsharch could have just read this in a journal or something before finding the dead body.

---

Rorschach was investigating someone he saw at the funeral who he did not recognize. Rorschach was the guy throughout the movie holding the sign in various scenes. And yeah, the first visit to Moloch was to show the Comedian's visit which later was revealed that he knew Ozy's plan. And combining those two scenes would've been worthless. The majority of the first visit was the story of the Comedian crying to his archenemy, so it would've cut maybe two or three minutes and not been true to the comic.

quote:

---

the scene where the comedian kills the girl he knocked up in vietnam was pointless

---

It showed how both he and Dr. Manhattan viewed the world. He thought the world was a great big practical joke and it made him sadistic. And as the Comedian stated, Manhattan could have easily stopped him, but was beginning to not care for human life, which later develops into his complete detachment from humanity.

quote:

---

frick, the entire part about rorsharch going to jail added nothing. all it did was allow rorsharch to tell his story. rorsharch's backstory was pretty pointless and utterly formulaic, so it was uncessary.

---

It showed how he came to be Rorschach. From childhood to the night he went from Walter Kovacs to Rorschach for good. Without his background, you'd think he was just a guy walking around the entire movie going "grumble grumble macho grumble i hate immoral people grumble punch grumble." ....oh wait.



So out of all those scenes, most of which added something to the movie and the story of the characters, if you cut down the sex scene some and merge the visits of Rorschach to Moloch (which is still a worthless idea), you successfully cut 4-6 minutes out of the movie. This is why the movie was so long, professionals couldn't cut it down, yet you think you can by taking out scenes you don't like but that add something to the story.

It was definitely created for the comic book readers and not the general public. I read the comic last week before going to see the movie, and I found myself subconsciously filling in the gaps that the movie left and the comic filled in. I probably would have enjoyed it much less had I not read the comic.

For the characters, Rorschach, Night Owl, and the Comedian were cast and acted perfectly. You can not like the characters all you want, but those actors did an amazing job of bringing those characters to life on screen. The rest of the cast I thought was ok, but not great, with Silk Spectre coming in last place.

And I agree that Ozymandias was clearly the bad guy from the beginning in the film, where as in the comic he's much more likable and less sinister from the get go.

I also felt that changing the ending the way they did was a good idea. The comic book ending would just not have translated well at all to film. I also never got the feeling of imminent doom from nuclear war that you get from reading the book.

All in all, I thought it was well put together and a very good translation from comic to movie. That doesn't necessarily translate into great movie, especially for the general viewing public. If you liked the comic, you'll probably enjoy the film.

Ths is a pretty typical SFP thread in which he takes an outlandish position for the sole purpose of trying to enrage people. At this point, I shoulod know better than to actually try to engage him, but what the hell...

First off, I don't care if you don't like it. People like what they like. You didn't like it. This isn't an attempt to make you like it. I just want to addres some of your criticisms which I feel are flat-out wrong.

GRAPHIC NOVELS
You dismiss an entire art form, which is beyond arrogant. And look, I've cornered the market on arrogant. Dismissing all graphic novels, and let's be honest, they are comic books, is like seeing a bad movie and saying film is a poor media. Graphic novels are as a varied as X-Men (God Loves Man Kills, Nightmares of Futures Past), Batman (The Dark Knight, The Killing Joke), and The Death of Captain Marvel. But it's not just superheroes, it's books which play off the superhero mythos like Watchmen, The Crow, Sandman, Cerebus, and Mystery Men. Or it's personal stories like Ghost World, History of Violence, American Splendor, and Maus (which won a Pulitzer Prize). Terrific authors work in comics likie Crumb, Pekar, Moore, and Gaiman. Don't dismiss an entire medium. Especially since a lot of those books have very little in common.

ORIGINALITY
Ummm... the characters (except Dr. Manhattan) are actually taken DIRECTLY from pulp comics. He's playing off the conventions of comic books, you dolt. It wouldn't make sense to have done it with characters we couldn't recognize the archetypes of (and I challenge you to find ANY original character in any form of art now, EVERYTHING is based in something else, that doesn't mean it sucks).

The book is a commentary on the mental disfunction it requires to actually dress up in tights and fight crime, something never addressed in comic books. Being a costumed hero ruins these people's lives, either physically or mentally. Moore also clearly comes down that costumed heroes are a form of fascism. That might makes right. It was a direct attack on the comic buying and now movie going public. Which I think is funny. He is criticizing the very people consuming his art.

GRATUITOUS SEX
In now, way shape, or form is the sex scene gratuitous. It's just that you didn't understand the movie because you were too busy composing this post in your head to assault the fanboys. Let's recap the scene. Nite Owl attempts to have sex but cannot because he is impotent (btw - how many movies does the hero suffer from impotence?). Which is a metaphor as well for his powerlessness. In fact, all of the heroes are impotent in the face of Dr. Manhattan and nuclear armaggeddon. They are ants to him plus they lack the power to stop the true threat to the people, nuclear war.

Anyway, unable to get it up, the two go out and do some crime fighting. It is only after he puts on his costume and fights crime successfully that he can then have sex. Because violence is sex. Also, he's dependent on his alter ego. His vigilantism is a manifestation of sexual frustration. It's also important that he bumps into Dr. Manhattan immediately thereafter, who in the book I admit, it is clear he is absolutely terrified of.

OZYMANDIAS
He's not a villain. Well, not really. the movie does a poor job of this, I admit, but Veidt is a heroic chracter throughout the book, but he loses focus of his heroism and launches his plot to save the world in the face of his own limitations again. Dr. Manhattan once again has made a hero irrelevent, and Veidt refuses to be irrlevent. It's not just about saving the world from nuclear war, it's about Veidt doing the saving. Also, its telling he gives his explanatory speech AFTER he's done the deed, which violates pulp comic/movie principles. The villain is supposed to tell his plan and the hero then foils it. Here, Veidt tells his plan after its completion, and the heroes grudgingly go along with it. They even kill the one person who refuses to go along with it for the greater good. And the plan fails anyway because of some moron pulling a letter from the crank file, which details the plan and fingers Veidt as the one who killed everyone. Which is why I was irritated we lost Veidt and Dr. Manhattan's discussion on the morality of his actions which ends with Veidt basically asking for absolution:

"I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end."
"In the end? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."

And then he disappears. Veidt may have the sudden relaization that he's killed millions of people for no purpose. And then he truly feels guilt.

Yeah, I'm ticked the movie dropped out the money quote. It's not the same when spoken by Laurie to Dan.