re: The Watchmen Sucked

I loved the graphic novel. But maybe Moore was right, it just isn't translatable. Everyone seems to be filling in the plot holes from the movies with explanations from the comic (and doing a mighty good job I might add). But that is exactly what Moore predicted when he heard they wanted to greenlight it for a movie. That watchman was made specifically to highlight what a graphic novel can do that no other medium can.

I hope that this movie will get some more people to read the novel, but it may do the exact opposite and turn some people off so much they will dismiss a hugo award winning novel, like some posters on this topic.

quote:

---

You dismiss an entire art form, which is beyond arrogant

---

naw. i dismiss this movie. i've tried to keep it strictly on those grounds

if this, however, is the best graphic novel, then yeah i would likely dismiss the genre

quote:

---

He's playing off the conventions of comic books, you dolt.

---

oh i understand that

it doesn't make them interesting. at all.

and the take on these characters has been done many, many times over, so he didn't even expand on the caricatures

quote:

---

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.

---

i'll say it again...batman?

and even forgetting the batman rip off, the analysis gets as deep as, "do you miss it? naw"

they didn't CHOOSE to give it up (other than rorsharch, who's crazy), a law made it illegal and they quit. this limits the ability to examine their motives from a narrative perspective

quote:

---

Moore also clearly comes down that costumed heroes are a form of fascism. That might makes right.

---

except for night owl (pussy) and the chick (worthless). neither really act as moral foils to the others anyway, which is the problem

quote:

---

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.

---

i understand why it's in the film

it still doesn't add much to the film, because otherwise he is a complete pussy of a character anyway and he's more a symbol interjected into the storyline than a real character of any worth giving something TO the storyline

quote:

---

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."

---

this would have added a lot more to the ending than what we were left with

the fact that this discussion didn't even begin until the last 20 minutes (when it should have been the discussion after the introduction) truly makes the story itself shite on itself

when you look at it, this is nothing more than a formulaic antihero attempt. i expected something new, which is why i was so let down. and on top of it, the story was disjointed and too long. since they stripped the movie of any real discussion about anything, they literally could have told the same story in 90 minutes

Ummm.. what we think of as Batman is RIPPING OFF WATCHMEN. In fact, Heath Ledger based his performance off of Killing Joke, written by Alan Moore, the same guy who did Watchmen. Watchmen's take on the antihero predates the modern reimagining of Batman as he is now known.

The original Batman from the 1940s could be described as gritty, but it did not cross the line into Bruce Wayne is actually just as insane as the villains until post-Watchmen comics. Strangely enough, thanks to the same author (Alan Moore).

And I love how you describe Nite Owl simply as a pussy. Was there not a bunch of kick arse fight scenes for you? He is a fat, middle aged guy who used to put on a suit. He's perhaps the only decent person of the main characters. The book is study not only of course of sex and violence, fascism, and persepctive; but it is a study of moral codes. Dr. Manhattan is completely amoral, Rorshahch has a rigid absolutist moral code (jaywalking is as bad as murder - both are crimes), Veidt has a systemic mroal code (kill five million to save one billion is moral), Comedian is immoral, and Dan is probably the most "normal" moral code. He knows what is right and wrong but also is capable of seeing shades of grey, he also knows there is little he can do about the world. Hence the impotence.

I have my problems with the movie as well. But I think you were composing this screed halfway through in your head. And I repeat, if you think about it, nothing is really original.

quote:

---

Ummm.. what we think of as Batman is RIPPING OFF WATCHMEN. In fact, Heath Ledger based his performance off of Killing Joke, written by Alan Moore, the same guy who did Watchmen. Watchmen's take on the antihero predates the modern reimagining of Batman as he is now known.

The original Batman from the 1940s could be described as gritty, but it did not cross the line into Bruce Wayne is actually just as insane as the villains until post-Watchmen comics. Strangely enough, thanks to the same author (Alan Moore).

And I love how you describe Nite Owl simply as a pussy. Was there not a bunch of kick arse fight scenes for you? He is a fat, middle aged guy who used to put on a suit. He's perhaps the only decent person of the main characters. The book is study not only of course of sex and violence, fascism, and persepctive; but it is a study of moral codes. Dr. Manhattan is completely amoral, Rorshahch has a rigid absolutist moral code (jaywalking is as bad as murder - both are crimes), Veidt has a systemic mroal code (kill five million to save one billion is moral), Comedian is immoral, and Dan is probably the most "normal" moral code. He knows what is right and wrong but also is capable of seeing shades of grey, he also knows there is little he can do about the world. Hence the impotence.

I have my problems with the movie as well. But I think you were composing this screed halfway through in your head. And I repeat, if you think about it, nothing is really original.

---

+1

This was one of the worst movies I have seen in years. It was all over the place. Now I was never a comicbook nerd. So I never touched this story but this was def a bait and switch movie with the previews.

That's because of the number of drooling retards that get pissed off if any movie goes more than 5 minutes without blowing something up.

quote:

---

And I love how you describe Nite Owl simply as a pussy.

---

well his character pretty much was

quote:

---

Was there not a bunch of kick arse fight scenes for you?

---

the one thing done well was the hand-to-hand combat

but he beat up some thugs in an alley (utterly pointless) and some prisoners. otherwise he got worked

quote:

---

But I think you were composing this screed halfway through in your head.

---

yeah i was after it crossed the point in real time when the movie should be ending

i went into this movie with a lot of expectations. why would i want to trash it unless it sucked?

quote:

---

I'm not criticizing you because you don't like a bad movie, you just don't really get it

---

see that's not true

i get it

i get what it was going for

it just failed at accomplishing the goals, especially the goal of being entertaining

playing the "you don't get it" card is for people attempting to sound elite

You know, other than dissing the the story, you are actually right about a lot of the stuff done in the movie. I can't completely trash your thread. They picked a director whose last film was about 50% action and 50% nearly naked dudes to direct a very thought provoking, intense novel. One which has limited violence and a lot of backstory. And instead of changing the plot to be more screen-friendly, Snyder shoots it almost page for page, leading to a very boring and awkward compilation of scenes.

snyder is not a good director

i had to laugh when i saw people say, "not one of his best movies"

what is his best movie? dawn of the dead?