The Watchmen (film and graphic novel)

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Royal_Devil

So in other words the 300 movie is the way it is because of the source material. If so, I don't see how Synder can be faulted except maybe for too much slow mo and that who story with the queen

I think most people fault Synder for his artistic choices, aka slow-motion and CG on steroids.

[Royal_Devil]

Originally Posted by Sokar

I think most people fault Synder for his artistic choices, aka slow-motion and CG on steroids.

No, I've heard plenty of people complain about 300's shallow characters, racist overtones, and general political incorrectness and worry about Watchmen being dumbed down as much. I can't help but ask, did you expect him to add stuff to 300 to not make it shallow like the comic?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Hunter

... What? ಠ_ಠ

Since you are so adamant . The character story arcs are still the same (the people that live, will still live, and the people who die will still die). Rather, Synder will have different circumstances that lead up to the character ending. So, possibly instead of a

Spoiler for big giganormous spoiler don't read:

fake Alien invasion that kills millions

something else is supposed to happen, just no one is sure what exactly.

Here is an article that deals with the inconclusive nature of the ending: [edit : don't read this either if you don't want to be accidentally spoiled] The Never Ending Story.

edit: lol, Hunter edited my post. I think that the edited portions were not that spoilerish, since they represent the events that make up the ending, but not the actual ending. But, if Hunter feels that these events are too spolierific, then I will abide by his descion.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Royal_Devil

No, I've heard plenty of people complain about 300's shallow characters, racist overtones, and general political incorrectness and worry about Watchmen being dumbed down as much. I can't help but ask, did you expect him to add stuff to 300 to not make it shallow like the comic?

Then the people you heard haven't read the comics. In the comic book fandom most of the complaints about shallow characters and racist overtones fall squarely on Frank Miller, and it's been discussed for years. The only complaints I've heard on Synder regarding the material is the rape of the queen storyline, which was not in the source material. Synder definitely could have added stuff to 300 to give it more depth, but instead he added stuff to make it even more misogynstic, so yeah, he could be faulted for that. In the comic book fandom, aka people who actually read the comic book, most of the fault falls on Frank Miller. Alan Moore even called out Miller on the pedophile line.

[Papaya]

Originally Posted by Sokar

Then the people you heard haven't read the comics. In the comic book fandom most of the complaints about shallow characters and racist overtones fall squarely on Frank Miller, and it's been discussed for years. The only complaints I've heard on Synder regarding the material is the rape of the queen storyline, which was not in the source material. Synder definitely could have added stuff to 300 to give it more depth, but instead he added stuff to make it even more misogynstic, so yeah, he could be faulted for that. In the comic book fandom, aka people who actually read the comic book, most of the fault falls on Frank Miller. Alan Moore even called out Miller on the pedophile line.

I hated that little side story he added. It really detracted from the rest of the movie, though I suppose the original plot was a bit too straightforwards. My girlfriend actually liked it, so... uh, yay for strong female characters?

Anyways, I have a feeling that the reason for the plot change has a lot to do with 9/11.

Spoiler:

It's pretty taboo to destroy NYC nowadays. Cloverfield got a ton of shit for it.

[Anh_Minh]

Spoiler for ending:

So they pick another city instead?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Spoiler for ending:

So they pick another city instead?

Spoiler for ending:

That is certainly one possibility. They could also pick a variety of cities (Paris, Moscow, London, etc). It is unknown right now. Just so long as they keep the Squid carcass, I will be content .

[Anh_Minh]

Spoiler for ending:

Tokyo.

Except not, because if a squid carcass appears in the middle of Tokyo, killing thousands, people will just go "Ah. This must be Thursday."

[Quzor]

So I'm re-reading the graphic novel, because dammit I felt like I had to, and I had a thought; How do you think this story is going to be woven together?

Spoiler for Just in case...:

Each chapter has it's own story within the story; how do you think Snyder is going to tackle that aspect of it. Concurrently, I wonder about how he's going to interweave The Tail of the Black Freighter into the movie. My guess would be to have someone voice-over those parts from the original story, but I just can't see that having good flow with the movie, in the end. And it's not like that's a part of the story you can just omit; it has a huge underlying importance in the grand scheme.

To be perfectly honest, I'm starting to get a little concerned about how this is all going to work out. I have faith that Snyder can do a good job (or, at least an adequate job), I just wonder if good will be good enough, or if he's maybe bitten off a little more than he can chew with this one.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Quzor

So I'm re-reading the graphic novel, because dammit I felt like I had to, and I had a thought; How do you think this story is going to be woven together?

Spoiler for Just in case...:

Each chapter has it's own story within the story; how do you think Snyder is going to tackle that aspect of it. Concurrently, I wonder about how he's going to interweave The Tail of the Black Freighter into the movie. My guess would be to have someone voice-over those parts from the original story, but I just can't see that having good flow with the movie, in the end. And it's not like that's a part of the story you can just omit; it has a huge underlying importance in the grand scheme.

To be perfectly honest, I'm starting to get a little concerned about how this is all going to work out. I have faith that Snyder can do a good job (or, at least an adequate job), I just wonder if good will be good enough, or if he's maybe bitten off a little more than he can chew with this one.

Spoiler for some spoilers I guess:

Due to the sheer size of the graphic novel, many side stories have already been edited out of the movie (but they do not disappear entirely). Specifically The Tail of the Black Freighter has been removed from the theatrical movie entirely (though the side story that represents the full story will be released at the time of the film as a half-hour animated direct to DVD movie, and then later in the Special Editions of the movie, the animated portions will be inserted back into the film). Also, much of the news clipping back-stories/autobiography has also been trimmed down only to be later reinserted with the Special Edition DVD. So, the story that remains will be the core story of the graphic novel (i.e. Rorschach's investigation into the death of the Comedian, and the growing conspiracy surrounding his death) without the symbolic trimmings.

[TinyRedLeaf]

You know, I've never been much of a fan of Alan Moore's writing. They are definitely very engaging, cerebral stuff, but when it comes to comics and graphic novels, I much prefer Neil Gaiman's The Sandman. The reason I'm admitting this is because I had only just finished reading The Watchmen graphic novel about a week ago, prior to watching the movie today.

I enjoyed the comic. I can see why it stands out as a landmark in the medium. I hated its ending, though. I felt it was stupid and overly outlandish (but ironically, it befits the superhero genre, which is all about over-the-top hype). I was also very underwhelmed by Dr Manhattan's "leap of logic" with regard to thermodynamic miracles. But, as Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons had explained elsewhere, their original intention was not so much to create a great story, as it was to highlight the strengths of the graphic novel as a platform for complex storytelling.

If that's the case, then they very clearly succeeded. Heck, they practically invented the medium, going by what I've read.

Which brings me to the movie. It's a movie that fans of the comic would love, because it stays largely faithful to its source material, even if it does take major liberties with its original ending (for the better, in my opinion, but others would no doubt disagree).

It's also a film that demonstrates how staying faithful to a literary source material is a sure way to make a bad movie. On its own, The Watchmen fails to lift its audience the same way that The Dark Knight did, for example. The raw energy present in the comic-book panels has not been translated with the same intensity onto the silver screen, because what works on paper doesn't quite work so well on celluloid.

I'm afraid Alan Moore was right: The Watchmen, as it was originally conceived, is a story that could have been told only in graphic-novel form. In the comic, Moore made clever use of speech-and-panel juxtapositions to create deliciously diabolical satire. He intertwined the comic with prose essays and fictitious interviews to fill in the characters' background stories, and thus added impressive heft to the story.

None of that depth is present in the film. Overall, it just felt so dry, whereas the comic electrified my mind with possibilities. Worse, the movie had several gaps which only those who have read the graphic novel would notice and thus fill in automatically — viewers with no such experience would simply be left clueless.

The Watchmen is a fanboy movie made for fellow fanboys. For the rest of the audience, however, it's just another film about looney people who like to wear their underwear on the outside.

[james0246]

Just got back from a party after watching the film last night. My main reaction...the film is very similar to the OVAs made in Japan whose sole function is to encourage the watcher to go buy the Manga (which is some what similar to what Tiny above me said).

I'll post more later, but for now, I am going to bed .

[JubeiYamazaki]

I own 2 paperback copies (I wore one out reading it so much over the years) and two ABSOLUTE WATCHMEN hardcovers one to read and the other to be kept as a collectors item. I first read the Watchmen back in the early 90s during the 2nd comic book crash when the medium really sucked ass due to reccomendation of the owner whom at the time was losing his shop so he gave me all his issues for free. And it literally blew my mind and has been since then.

With that said, the movie was cool, some scenes I thought would of worked way better linked together as the book had them instead of all jumbled around. And I did hate how some of the film was force fed to you.

I would of enjoyed it immensely despite the few nitpicks and "why'd they changed THAT?" if the ending wasn't a complete and utter disappointment. The awe, the badassiness, and the nagging moral question at the end were pretty much.. non-existent. In the comics the main "villian" was pretty much borderline a Bond villian, but the end was what made you question their motives and removed that Bond villian motif. While in the movie...... total Bond villian from start to finish.

Supposedly the "true" comic ending is intact on the DVD release and I will buy it ONLY if that's true.

Also wanted to add they kept referring themselves in the movie as the group "The Watchmen" rather then the idea and that changed the context of the film greatly for me.

Bottomline, The Watchmen would of worked better as a mini-series then a standalone movie. Our atleast 2 standalone movies, rather then 1.

[anti-random]

Lets not go on comparing the awesomeness of Sandman and Watchmen. But i am going to see the movie so i'll tell you how good it is in about 3 hours

[Icehellion]

went to midnight showing; for ending/twist

Spoiler for difference:

Ozymandias replicated Dr Manhattan's power for nuking several capitals. US & USSR think Dr Manhattan has gone rogue or something. So instead of the bloodbath/body pile you get to see ppl incinerated in New york

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by anti-random

Lets not go on comparing the awesomeness of Sandman and Watchmen. But i am going to see the movie so i'll tell you how good it is in about 3 hours

If David Snyder had more guts, and chose to adapt the comic into a completely original movie, then I wouldn't bother comparing the movie with its graphic-novel source.

But as it turned out, he chose to use the comic as his storyboard and changed only a few details, for better or worse. As I've said, that's a sure recipe for making a bad movie.

As for the changed ending:

Spoiler:

I like it. It makes more sense to unite the world against a man-made god, rather than an alien squid, especially since the whole story hinges on the theme of depraved humanity in a godless world.

[Throne Invader]

I don't know much about this but all I know is that I didn't like the trailer.

[Oneiros]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Spoiler:

I like it. It makes more sense to unite the world against a man-made god, rather than an alien squid, especially since the whole story hinges on the theme of depraved humanity in a godless world.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks the movie ending is neater (in a conceptual sense).

Spoiler for ending:

I also thought the giant mind-melting squid of the graphic novel was a bit too far out of the left field. The movie ending meshes better with the themes exploring Manhattan's alienation from humanity (explored mostly with Laurie) and the public's general perception (and fear) of his god-likeness. God-like only because while he might have powers almost similar to God, he is all too human inside (as evidenced by his outburst in the press conference and subsequent self-exile to Mars) so humanity can only guess as to how much good (or evil, as illustrated by the cities supposedly destroyed by him) this rogue man-god is capable of. At least the Judaeo-Christian God assures us that He is all-good and all-loving. Doctor Manhattan on the other hand doesn't even leave a convenient manual (e.g. the Bible) regarding his actions or as to what he even wants from humanity (unless you count Manhattan's psych profile, then again Veidt presumably has the only copy of that). So people once again literally has the fear of God thrown into them.

On a somehat different note, a friend (who hasn't read the GN) mentioned the similarity of the ending to Code Geass R2 where Manhattan, like Lelouch, concentrates all the hatred of the world on himself to unite humanity. I would have thought Lelouch was more like Ozymandias, the puppet master who was willing to sacrifice so much for his ideals. Ozymandias however, doesn't sacrifice himself and thus gets to oversee his utopia (dystopia?) unlike our poor little buddy Lelouch.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Oneiros

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks the movie ending is neater (in a conceptual sense).

Spoiler for ending:

I also thought the giant mind-melting squid of the graphic novel was a bit too far out of the left field. The movie ending meshes better with the themes exploring Manhattan's alienation from humanity (explored mostly with Laurie) and the public's general perception (and fear) of his god-likeness. God-like only because while he might have powers almost similar to God, he is all too human inside (as evidenced by his outburst in the press conference and subsequent self-exile to Mars) so humanity can only guess as to how much good (or evil, as illustrated by the cities supposedly destroyed by him) this rogue man-god is capable of. At least the Judaeo-Christian God assures us that He is all-good and all-loving. Doctor Manhattan on the other hand doesn't even leave a convenient manual (e.g. the Bible) regarding his actions or as to what he even wants from humanity (unless you count Manhattan's psych profile, then again Veidt presumably has the only copy of that). So people once again literally has the fear of God thrown into them.

I agree that the new ending is fairly organic to the movie's story, and consequently should be discussed as a separate ending (and ultimately a separate story) not simply a reimagining of the original ending. That being said, here is a brief defense of the original ending:

Spoiler for Spoilers Ahoy!:

1.) The giant squid was a subversion of the nefarious deeds of pre-existing super villains. Specifically, only a true comic book super villain could have come up with something so brilliant yet extraordinarily stupid as the Giant Fake Squid/Alien. This was a classic, completely over-the-top, type of finale that a true super villain would attempt. So, its place within the larger story (which is itself a subversion of the very notion of a superhero), was to recreate the cliche, only to have it work for the villain. So, the squid was a joke within a joke; the feather within the cap of Moore's retelling of the "Comic Book".

2.) Blaming God is a bit of a coop out. Specifically, in the original story, God was never present. True some claimed that Manhattan was a god, but his lack of saving New York was a way of showing that either there is no God, or at least God does not have to help you. Consequently, the world after the experience, was devoid of God, considering that Manhattan had left and there was no miracle to save the day.

To put it another way, which is scarier: A world without God? or A World that could be destroyed by God?

That being said, and to reiterate my initial point, both ending are interesting and both are acceptable, and, realistically, they cannot be fully compared against each other without first taking the time to compare the basic stories that both versions are trying to tell. The Squid ending would not have worked for the movie, but the Manhattan ending would not have worked for comic.

[Clarste]

Spoiler for ending:

There's also a pretty big difference between the world uniting in fear of an unknown enemy that could attack at any time (the aliens implied by the squid in the comic) and the world "playing nice" in fear of the retaliation of a living god who they know they have no chance against. There's a difference between "cooperation" and "not fighting," which indeed makes Adrian's peace look even more artificial than it did in the comic. It's not a deal-breaking change, but its a change nonetheless. I completely, 100% understand how adding the squid would have required a whole host of new scenes and explanations when the movie was alreday pressed for time, so I have no real complaints about it.

That said, I didn't like how they handled Adrian Veidt in the movie. In the comic, he was the true superhero in a way that made the audience uncomfortable. He really had humanity's best interests at heart the entire time, and despite being a big corporate figure it was clear that he earned it through talent and hard work. He spent his entire life saving the world in a way that the other masks could only dream of, by attacking the problems rather than the symptoms. Not to mention his dedication to mental and physical perfection. He's the embodiment of the idealistic American dream.

The movie cuts most of that out or leaves it unspoken, so what remains is an arrogant sellout figure who seems sinister from his first appearance. The bit about him donating his entire fortune to charity when his parents died before earning it back from nothing was powerful character development that they could've left in as one line, but didn't. Also, they cast him as a rather thin person, which was certainly an odd choice. Overall though I think they should've spent just a bit more time developing him.