Community Forums => General Chat => Topic started by: Stogi on March 01, 2009, 03:03:50 PM
Title: WATCHMEN
Post by: Stogi on March 01, 2009, 03:03:50 PM
I've been hyped for this movie for a long time,, a long long time. I loved the first trailer so much that I even downloaded the theme song (which is much better than the original).
Now since it's so close, every time I see a trailer on TV it leaves me half stiffy. It's frustrating. It's only a week away.....so I can at least console (how do you spell that word) myself with that fact.
EDIT: ****. Just read the Comic Book thread. Is that the official watchmen thread?
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NWR_Lindy on March 01, 2009, 03:39:42 PM
I have no idea, but I'm psyched for this too. You know, because I'm old as dirt, I actually remember when the original graphic novel was released (1985)? I was big into comics at that time, but I never bothered to read it because I was more into Japanese manga/Robotech stuff. I wish I would have. I picked up Akira, but not Watchmen...which amuses me now, because I probably would have enjoyed Watchmen more than Akira. I'm sure it makes more sense than Akira, at least.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: IceCold on March 01, 2009, 04:02:48 PM
What's ironic is that the theme song of the first trailer (The Beginning is the End is the Beginning - Smashing Pumpkins) is the B-Side to the theme song of Batman & Robin (The End is the Beginning is the End). And we all know how awful that movie is.
Anyway, I read this a couple of years back and I loved it. It's the only comic book I've read other than "The Dark Knight Returns". I'm curious to see how they implemented everything from the book - the overlapping timelines, the flashbacks, the letters and all inbetween chapters etc. And most of all the themes. This isn't a regular action-oriented comic book - it's much more of a character study. I don't know if Zack Snyder can pull that off judging from his other movies.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 01, 2009, 04:05:41 PM
Watchmen was above 80% on Rotten Tomatoes. I hope that helps you wait a little longer knowing that its atleast getting good ratings.
I myself am hoping for a day1 IMAX viewing, but I'm not gonna get my hopes up.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on March 01, 2009, 04:11:21 PM
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Stogi on March 01, 2009, 05:43:47 PM
I haven't read the comic so I'm not going to read that review. Thanks though.
I don't know if I should read the comic first. Almost every time I read the inspiration or the book in which a movie is based upon, I always feel like the movie doesn't do it justice. There hasn't been a single moment where I was happy with how a movie turned out after reading the book. While the movies maybe incredibly entertaining and well made, the fact that I know what could have been always makes the movie slightly worse.
I think I may wait to read the graphic novel till after the movie.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NWR_Neal on March 01, 2009, 07:51:34 PM
Can't wait. Going to see it on IMAX at midnight.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: bustin98 on March 01, 2009, 08:52:48 PM
I assume its awesome because the writer thinks Watchmen was written by Neil Gaiman?
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Stogi on March 01, 2009, 09:16:48 PM
What?
Wait..........duh...of course SUPER's post was sarcasm. He even put the little dude with the shades!
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Spinnzilla on March 01, 2009, 09:18:42 PM
Watchmen wishes it was written by Neil Gaiman.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: bustin98 on March 01, 2009, 09:31:16 PM
ALAN MOORE SHALL SPITE YOU... FROM HELL!!!
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NovaQ on March 01, 2009, 10:05:34 PM
I read the comic recently in anticipation for the movie and I enjoyed it. After reading it and seeing the movie's trailers, I have a feeling there's going to be a lot left out (with two and-a-half hours, how couldn't there be?). That said, I'm still looking forward to seeing how it transitions to film. So far, the casting sans Ozymandias seems solid. If nothing else, it'll at least be visually interesting.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Spinnzilla on March 02, 2009, 12:02:30 AM
Just sayin'...
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: bustin98 on March 02, 2009, 01:58:03 AM
La la la la la can't hear you.
I love what Neil Gaiman has done with comics and for comics. I have even sat and had a drink with him in a bar in Detroit. But I don't think Watchmen would have benefited in any way from Neil's touch. If any thing, Neil would have added a bit of mystical 'huh, what?' to it all, while Alan keeps it dirty and gritty.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 02, 2009, 02:49:54 AM
I hear this is Rated ARRRUH. Thank goodness, hollywood.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 02, 2009, 10:37:08 PM
Watchmen is such a hot topic it deserves its own thread in the comic thread i have a breakdown on what its going to take in order for it to get converted to a movie. From the trailer it looks like its going to be pretty true to the novel. If anything this is going to be a pretty color show.
in scriptwriting a general rule is 1 page = 1 minute of airtime, but of course that isn't totally accurate so minus the blood pages, the clock pages, the letter pages, the cover pages then there is about 336 pages to the watchmen. Minus the Dark Freighter which put together would be like 2 of its own comics thats 276 minutes. The last comic is much pictures so that one cabe be cut in half, and the coic thatfocuses on dr manhattan's backround is also all pictures.
So, at 163 minutes considering there are quicker ways to do storytelling through cinema..i bet it covers most of the important stuff. For comparison The Dark Knight was 152 minutes, Forrest Gump is 142 minutes, Interview with a vampire was 123 mins, and Benjamin button was 166 minutes, and Return of the King was 201 mins(in theaters)
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on March 03, 2009, 07:11:16 PM
Yes R rating I can't get enough of Dr. Manhattan's scrotum
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Armak88 on March 03, 2009, 07:17:54 PM
Blue balls
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 03, 2009, 07:24:45 PM
i should have watched the trailers mroe before i read the comics, Dr Manhattan had a deep voice in my head
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 03, 2009, 07:40:51 PM
LAWRENCE FISHBURN?????
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on March 03, 2009, 07:46:29 PM
I hear the bluray version will be even longer...?
I am special and privileged and may get to see it tomorrow night; will post a trip report if I feel like it
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 03, 2009, 07:58:25 PM
longer? Dr. Manhattans blueberries?
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 03, 2009, 08:22:00 PM
not like Lawrence Fishburn, more like Schwarzenegger if he didn't have an accent..and if he did a very mild one. With a name like Osterman you'd expect like that. Lawrence Fishburn's voice is close though. Close to TAS Mr. Freeze, but still not. For some reason I think Dr. Manhaten fits the description of a psychopath better than Rorschach , he just seems cold and emotionless. He seems to have a lack of empathy for people as if they were just as lifeless as other objects. Also, i don't think the accident caused this.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Adrock on March 03, 2009, 08:52:40 PM
The film changes the comic's ending.
I read that the Director's Cut DVD will include "Tales of the Black Freighter" which also being release by itself on DVD. Anyone know if that's true?
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 03, 2009, 10:27:12 PM
not like Lawrence Fishburn, more like Schwarzenegger if he didn't have an accent..and if he did a very mild one. With a name like Osterman you'd expect like that. Lawrence Fishburn's voice is close though. Close to TAS Mr. Freeze, but still not. For some reason I think Dr. Manhaten fits the description of a psychopath better than Rorschach , he just seems cold and emotionless. He seems to have a lack of empathy for people as if they were just as lifeless as other objects. Also, i don't think the accident caused this.
Well, get with the times, you dig me?
Blue Man Group Silver Surfer is what i see.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 04, 2009, 02:02:54 AM
well i had a couple of issues of infinity gauntlet with silver surfer, and then there was the new movie...which i didn't see. So, i don't really know too much about silver surfer other than he looks cool.
I imagine the Director's cut is going to be as true as it gets. I wish i still had all my cg tools that i had in school + had read the comic before the movie. I'd have my own version ready.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Stogi on March 04, 2009, 02:19:25 PM
I'm seeing this tomorrow in IMAX; it's already a done deal!
It would crazy if this movie was 3D.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 04, 2009, 05:53:29 PM
im debating whether to watch it in imax or not, from what i gather the closest IMAX in phoenix is something you have to reserve to watch. You can't just walk in and get your ticket. I'll probably watch it at Harkins, its less populated so i probably won't have to worry about ticket sell outs
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on March 05, 2009, 05:27:52 AM
Just got back from my people-on-the-inside early showing. It's one of the best movies I've seen like ever
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 05, 2009, 11:41:32 AM
Nobody handles on-screen abs and scrotums like 300's director, am i rite
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 05, 2009, 01:59:39 PM
i think this is the first time he's tried scrotum, what an innovator!
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Dasmos on March 05, 2009, 11:08:41 PM
no squid no character development batman was the narrator
it sucked
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 05, 2009, 11:59:33 PM
I see another agrees with Ty.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 06, 2009, 01:03:46 AM
We'll see. I do remember in Dawn of the Dead he had cut out a bunch of scenes that would have made it a better movie. They were in the deleted scenes section, and i have no idea why Snyder cut them out.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Plugabugz on March 06, 2009, 04:33:49 AM
I will see this on wednesday. I have been "coerced" into taking a friend for free next week.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 07, 2009, 10:25:59 PM
I was pretty hyped over the movie. It starts off reall really good, but towards the middle they start speeding things up and leaving out the details, for as long as a movie as it is it all seems to speed the hell up every second. One thing i don't like in movies is where characters make actions and there is really no reason for them. Now i know why they ddi things because i read the book, but i can imagine this screws up people who haven't read the book. I brought my buddy leroy who hadn't read the book and he had an "Eh" opinion on the movie. Normally when i watch movies like Harry Potter i haven't read the book, so it was interesting be someone who had this time. Also, the ending...what happened..did they run out of cg budget/time? The squid monster would have been appreciated. I'm not going to pass total judgment on this movie until i see the unrated director's cut version.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: IceCold on March 08, 2009, 03:07:34 AM
I watched it. To me, it felt like whatever the movie did well wasn't really vital to the impact of the book. And it messed up what was actually important.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: nickmitch on March 08, 2009, 04:10:04 AM
The squid ending would've had to involve the scenes that mentioned scientists opening another dimension and the island of artists and scientists. That would've confused the **** out of a regular audience. The ending the film went with worked, and they even tossed a bone to the fans with the whole "S.Q.U.I.D." thing on the monitors.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: bustin98 on March 08, 2009, 04:14:58 AM
Hush, dammit!
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 08, 2009, 04:51:09 AM
all he had to say was that he was making the world think aliens were attacking, one of my favorite part in the comics is when he has his hands up in the air and is like "i did it!" I think with maybe 3 minutes more footage the theatrical version could have been better. Its hard to say, but Zack Snyder as much as i like his work is not the greatest editor. As i said earlier he cut some stuff out of Dawn which would have made it a better movie. Critics mostly are mixed on this movie, some say its great, some say its bad. I'm somewhere in the middle. I say go see it, its not going to hurt you. Its a 50/50 chance you'll like it or not. Another thing. There were a few complaints I heard that I have my own opinion on. The first complaint is the raspiness of Rorschach voice, first he didn't narrate but a couple of scenes he was in. On the website he sounds really raspy, but in theaters the rasp sounded much more subdued. I thought Rorschach was great.
Ozymandias was pretty good, but they needed to not rush his story like they did. When his pet shows up theres no explanation, and i bet the audience just thinks its weird. I liked the actor, but someone like Nicholas Cage or Collin Farrel would have been better. His suit was lame, and even if there were nipples on the suit they were never in frame. I would have preferred him dressed like an actual roman, eqyptian, or greek soldier/king in real armor. That would have been good. Nite Owl's costume was batman forever parody enough. Comedian was well cast, some people complained he looked just like robert downy jr, the character looks like Tom Selick, and would have looked the part, but the guy who did play him was good. Silk Specters story was altered and rushed. They cut out Hollis Mason's death which i knew they did beforei watched the movie, but they cut out the part where Nite Owl II freaks out upon hearing his death and starts acting like Rorschach. They cut out things like Nostalgia, the bottle itself isn't important, but what it does to move the plotline is. Janie threw the bottle at Dr. Manhatten's castle and destroys it. This is the action that ultimately moves Osterman to believe that life can be significant. He says this spiel about how its amazing how it took generations to get her, but he is actually impressed by her destructive power(my interpretation, at least by that action). They also cut the street scenes, which basically without them Rorschach's unveiling isn't so shocking. If i were to do the movie i would have turned New Frontiersman into a conservative tv show rather than a paper. They cut out that Silk Spectre smokes, which makes more sense than her just pressing buttons. The scene where Nite Owl and Rorschach are in a little argument but then talk about how great friends they are felt weird. I had watched that scene on IGN before the movie came out, and it was weird then. It just wasn't a good take.
There were some nice additions though, while unimportant to the plot line i really liked the intro..that fight with Comedian and his attacker was awesome, and so were the credits which filled people in on what would have been details in the back pages, i laughed when mothman got taken away, when they found captain metropolis dead, or when comedian assassinated JFK, each one of those scenes had something to laugh at if you read the book. One of the things i was wondering about was the action, the graphic novel is so story driven that action is very little. The action was a lot better, although when my friend came out of the movie he complained that there hadn't been a lot, which I ultimately expected. Thats all i can think of to nitpick for right now
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Snipper64 on March 08, 2009, 10:35:14 AM
I haven't read the graphic novel, but I did watch the movie. While I do believe it followed the novel close enough, to the normal viewers, they would be confused as hell. Also, I was expecting what I went to see, as a friend told me about the basic plot before hand, but the commercials were misleading horrifically. This is all I can think about...
Kid goes watch a TV show, or movie, kid See's an advertisement with cool super hero's, explosions and action and is called watchman, they BEG their parents to see the movie, even though it is rated R how possibly bad could it be? Well this is what the kid See's in order from start to finish....
I don't know the language you can use on this website, so I'll make it "user friendly"
Start- Old guy getting beat to a bloody pulp, gore, gore, gore, gore, gore, rape, gore, dick, gore, gore, gore, dick, dick, dick, more rape, gore, gore, gore, sex, gore , gore, much more dick, much more sex, gore, action, gore, dick, they get to antartic, gore, gore, action, gore. Finish.
Now, the reason I say this, while I was ok to watch this and enjoyed the movie greatly, and understood it, through out the movie, a total of 4 families, with 9 kids had walked out in the first 10 min of the show, the rest were basically blind folded throughout it.
I feel bad for both the misleaded parants and kids of the world who were all misleaded by comercials of cool "heros" doing alot of action...
Besides that, I did like the movie.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 08, 2009, 03:14:19 PM
the movie is rated R, what do they expect? Thats what you should expect in an R rated movie. Still wasn't at X rated levels like a Clockwork Orange, definitely not as graphic as Short Bus. There were kids in my theater too, either they don't care, or they're stupid. If something was bad going on my mom usually just told me cover my eyes. But as I said you can't be mislead unless you ignore the rating and the descriptors that accompany.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: nickmitch on March 08, 2009, 06:53:21 PM
Yeah, if you take your kid to see Watchmen, you either aren't too concerned with what your child is exposed to, or you're a bad parent. You can't take a kid to a R-rated movie without looking in to why it's R-rated. I saw some kids when I went and was just wondering what the hell is wrong with those parents. There is literally nothing for kids in this movie, the violence, the themes, the rape, nothing.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 09, 2009, 02:33:12 AM
i don't think your a bad parent if you bring your kids to an R rated movie. I think I grew up just fine. I think there's a level of violence that they have to be exposed to. You can be the type of parent that takes your kids to see whatever movies, but then never go hunting. Or you can be the type of person that takes their kids to go hunting, and then they never get to see scary movies. Maybe its not a good idea to do both. Definitely have control of your kids access to dangerous things like knives and guns. Its hard to say how people are going to develop based on what they're exposed to. Those kids that kill their neighbors dogs and then go killing people when their older are just sociopaths. Than again better safe than sorry. They probably shouldn't watch Watchmen.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: bustin98 on March 09, 2009, 03:18:11 PM
Some rated R movies are probably ok for some kids, as it depends on how the kids relate to what they see and their level of maturity. I think of movies like Commando, where its just some language and people getting shot in an unrealistic manner. Its an easy film to relate to on a lower level. Then there are other movies that have a sophistication that you just won't get without some frame of reference, one that most kids just don't have. Watchmen is not for kids. Even if they have read the comic, I wouldn't recommend kids to see the film. Its one thing to see pictures of a rape. Its another to watch it in action.
I saw the film last night. I liked it. I would buy it on dvd. Maybe too much penis, too much eye makeup on Dr M, but enjoyable. What I like is that its the comic scenes coming to life. I thought it played better than Sin City, though I don't have as much of a reverance of Sin City compared to Watchmen.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 09, 2009, 07:18:44 PM
lol, its funny when people talk about Dr. Manhattan's penis, it was there but i didn't focus on it. That's what happens after going to art school i suppose. You see so much dick you become desensitized to it.
Its also true, if a movie has rape don't let your kids watch. I really didn't see rape in any movies till i got in my 20s when i watched Clockwork orange, last house on the left, house at the edge of the park, The Hills have Eyes(original). The most extreme that i saw was The House at the Edge of the Park..there are closeups its disturbing as hell. There were sex scenes in the Jason movies, but they were usually softcore before Jason stabs them through the tent canvas.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Snipper64 on March 09, 2009, 08:05:18 PM
Yah, remember, not everyone are as smart as you may expect, they may not even relise it is r-rated. Some good movies are rated r, but I watched them. Sometimes they are rated r for stupid stuf, like one swear, a guy bleeding, or just a in-nude sceane.
It was very possible for people to mistake for one of those movies that really don't deserve an R rating. Even if you take away, the gore, fighting, nudity, rape, swears, watchman is over all a REAL dark movie, even if kids don't know their history, they would still worry about the over all story. I don't know what else I can say about it. If you red the book, or you know what you are walking into, you will like it.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 09, 2009, 08:21:58 PM
aslo the mpaa is overly intolerant on homosexual content, a movie with no sex or violence may get an nc 17 rating for a lesbian kiss.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: nickmitch on March 09, 2009, 08:55:50 PM
True, but no kid should see Watchmen, not without showing some extreme signs of maturity.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 13, 2009, 04:47:16 PM
lol Watchmen if it were a saturday morning cartoon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
just one lame episode please! With lame fake commercials too
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: bustin98 on March 13, 2009, 05:10:58 PM
That was awesome. So much time was put into it, just to be a joke. I hope he works for an animation studio and did this in his spare time.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 13, 2009, 05:13:06 PM
What parent would take their kid to ANY R rated movie without checking on why the movie was R? That seems silly to me.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 13, 2009, 06:34:03 PM
Take kids to to see Pulp Fiction, everyone. Show them the wonders of your suggested "parental guidance."
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: mantidor on March 14, 2009, 08:49:21 PM
haha I seriously thought that saturday morning cartoon was real.
I've never read the comic and I liked it. It had flaws but the movie was completely watchable. The misogyny was off-putting, but it appears that is a staple of comics, because I felt the same with Sin City. Overall the opening credits are pretty much the best opening credits I've ever seen, they actually can work as a standalone piece and make worth watching the movie even if you hate the rest.
Also, there were a lot of kids in the theater.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: nickmitch on March 14, 2009, 10:50:32 PM
And when they left that theatre, they were men, even the girls.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 14, 2009, 11:21:33 PM
i dont get it. Any time there is a combination of a slutty character, and a mean whore character a work is called misogynistic.
I wrote a script for a short film in German Class, one of the girls in the group got all pissed off at it and called it mysogynistic..i didn't see it at all. When we got someone to play the mean character she was re-interpreted in a good light.
lol actually here was her e-mail
" Hey guys,
I feel like such an irresponsible person. I'm so sorry for not participating this week in our group project. I wasn't in class all week because I had a lot of personal scheiße to deal with, but everything is alright now.
Back to the project, these are my ideas:
First off, I read through Patrick's script, and I just have to say ? when did we decide to write a German soap opera that is completely degrading towards women? And how does this story remotely relate to the story of Pinocchio?
Also, I have questions concerning our setting ? I know that we want to write a modern day fairy-tale, but having the main character work in a graphic design firm isn't what I consider modern. I thought the modernity in our fairy tale would be established from our main character wanting to be a girl.
My ideas: Pinocchio character = the young boy who wishes you could be a boy Jiminy Cricket character = Pinocchio?s ?conscience? Geppetto character = Pinocchio?s father, who wants to raise a masculine son, and encourages him to play sports?.etc. The Blue Fairy character - instead we could do an Absinthe green fairy who in the end changes Pinocchio into a young girl.
And then to make it interesting and different - when Pinocchio runs away and embarks on his journey ? he could encounter a tranny, a homosexual?..etc., (other people dealing with gender issues) who in turn help him to understand his identity.
Well, I hope that my ideas are helpful. I will see you guys in class tomorrow.
Kimberlee"
lol, i'll post the video someday..its 13 minutes long and is high quality, so is too big for youtube, i need to cut it in half and change is codec
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: mantidor on March 14, 2009, 11:49:50 PM
It really has nothing to do with how slutty slik spectre was, but it shocked me the portrayal of women who went through attempted rape as needy weak women who go back their attacker. We also get a very explicit end of Silhouethe and her nurse lover's murder, but reading some background I found out about Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice, and we don't get anything about their end, it just smelled me as veiled misoginy.
It's not really such obvious stereotypes. The possibility that we humans, boys and girls equally, are attracted to abuse is an incredibly interesting topic worth exploring, but the movie hardly tried such topic. It only tried really hard (and failed miserably in my eyes) to make the comedian character likeable. I'm interested to see if the comic was successful in that regard since my comic-geek friend claims thats the case, but I honestly doubt it. The movie seemed really faithful to the comic about that.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 15, 2009, 01:01:47 AM
its weird though. I've heard cases on Dr. Drew's Love Line where some women want to pretend like they're getting raped..which is crazy, especially for the guy who is going to think that is definitely weird "you want me to do what?!!" . What would happen if someone walked in on some sort of weird Sadomasochism thing, it would just look bad. In the comic however there is definitely tension between Silk Spectre I and the Comedian. Maybe aside from her weird fetishes, and him being a bastard they had other reasons to not get along. Then there are those guys that molest their daughters, which usually leads to their daughters promiscuity. It usually turns around and backfires when the girl falls for a guy just like her father. Its a crazy cyclical thing that happens and its unfortunate. What is Nite Owl going to be like in the future? He is probably going to be a good guy, but he is a costumed hero.. just like her dad. Not to mention her last boyfriend is a guy who has total moral ambiguity, and at the same time an unusual understanding of the world.
oh and the german video, is of course in german. So, only kdr will understand, and of course it will be laughable because i dont think any of us are speaking very good german
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Kairon on March 15, 2009, 01:05:42 AM
It really has nothing to do with how slutty slik spectre was, but it shocked me the portrayal of women who went through attempted rape as needy weak women who go back their attacker.
I thought that the casting of this event as a "miracle" would counteract any suggestion that this is supposed to be representative of a larger population?
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 15, 2009, 01:29:37 AM
it pretty much does, but a lot of things are just not there because of the editing. Zach Snyder screws things up in editing. I remember reading in an interview he really hated cutting the thing. I would too. If he wants a 201 minute movie he should get it.
in a week it should recoup the budget, which is good
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Kairon on March 15, 2009, 02:49:33 AM
I liked the movie, but I'm definitely not in love with it. I walked out going "good movie" and thinking that it was actually too slow and intellectual to be "visceral' in the way movies can be. I do dig the ending, even if it was more intellectual than exciting. Then again, I loved the ending of A.I.
Haven't read the source material, but my dad has and I prob will when I visit home again.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 15, 2009, 04:32:39 AM
i read the first couple of chapters in borders books store, then i got a hold of the book by other means
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: SirSniffy on March 15, 2009, 08:53:10 AM
I just saw the movie last night. I thought it was pretty good. I give the producers and director credit though for cramming all this content into a movie format. And I also see why Alan Moore distanced himself from the project. The music was great, but I actually was more impressed with the music I heard from the different periods than with the actual soundtrack composed for the film. I really liked the cast though. When I saw The Comedian, I was like...Robert Downey Jr is in this?! Malin Ackerman(Silk Spectre)looked uncannily like Xena, Warrior Princess...which was not a bad thing at all.
The film had much more sex and nudity than I thought it would have, and nothing could have prepared me for all the gratuitous butt shots, nipple shots, and the "destined to be rewound on the DVD"wee wee flash of doom toward the end. Also, the film was violent y'all. I was shocked that ZS had the cojones to depict it, given that this was supposed to be a "superhero" film. But the Watchmen are not really superheroes so...
I speed read the book in like 4 days so I would not be totally lost in the film. I can't wait for the DVD release, cause a LOT of things have been cut it seems. I have become an instant Silk Spectre fan.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: mantidor on March 15, 2009, 12:10:28 PM
It really has nothing to do with how slutty slik spectre was, but it shocked me the portrayal of women who went through attempted rape as needy weak women who go back their attacker.
I thought that the casting of this event as a "miracle" would counteract any suggestion that this is supposed to be representative of a larger population?
Oh of course, but it was just an example, the vietnamese pregnant woman being killed is another example, but thats more racism and honestly also a product of its time, Rambo killed hundreds of people and as long as they weren't american it was ok.
I mean the individual bits are explainable, but the sum of the parts had a greater effect. I guess I just can't stand at all violence against women.
Also, the movie is actually too long as it is, and that is it's biggest flaw, a longer time would have been terrible. Books and comics have the advantage that they are not meant to be consumed in one sitting, so trying to be literal when translating such source material to a film is a huge mistake. Maybe a mini-series would work much better if you want more content.
The only medium when sitting longer than 2 hours is tolerable is games, but thats a whole other topic :P
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: SirSniffy on March 15, 2009, 01:12:19 PM
I mean the individual bits are explainable, but the sum of the parts had a greater effect. I guess I just can't stand at all violence against women.
Same here. It was pretty tough to watch such graphic depictions of violence against women in the film, but I had to keep reminding myself afterward that these were done to put things in perspective.
One message I got from Silk Spectre's affair with the man who tried to brutally rape her, is that sometimes feelings, emotions, thoughts are conflicting and irrational, but we still have them. And even after someone you love or loved hurts you so terribly, you can still manage to find parts of them that you loved, or that you are still vulnerable too. Imagine falling in love with a person you feel has harmed you or violated you...it happens alot actually. Sometimes you can't dismiss someone as just good or just evil, you have to take the sum of them, and what you get out of it that justifies that kind of love.
Please don't think I condone violence of any kind, but I do see the context of the violence towards women in this movie.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: EasyCure on March 15, 2009, 06:31:36 PM
i saw it, never read the comic, thought the film was really good but i didn't leave thinking "HOLY **** I GOTTA SEE THAT AGAIN!"
i heard there was plenty of penis in it, but when i noticed the giant penis statue in the opening scene to the left of The Comedians tv i thought to myself "this is just too much"
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: bustin98 on March 15, 2009, 06:54:10 PM
Is that the Washington Monument you are refering to? Actually, I don't remember anything from that apartment other than the fight.
My mom had a coniption when I referenced the Monument as a phalic symbol. Hey, if Egyptians can have them, so can we.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: EasyCure on March 15, 2009, 07:22:17 PM
Is that the Washington Monument you are refering to? Actually, I don't remember anything from that apartment other than the fight.
My mom had a coniption when I referenced the Monument as a phalic symbol. Hey, if Egyptians can have them, so can we.
hm... no i dont think so, the first shot i saw it in looked like a giant penis, with the distinct shape of the head and everything. when i pointed it out to my girlfriend, it was shown only briefly in the next few shots and not as detailed.
an obelelisk is a pretty phalic symbol, but trust me.. the shape i saw was not a pointy top lol
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 15, 2009, 08:16:03 PM
lol now you've just made the case to watch the movie multiple times. The question is would i have liked Fight club as much as i do if i read the book first?
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Ian Sane on March 16, 2009, 03:20:24 PM
I just saw this on the weekend. I read the book a few months ago for the first time. I had always heard so much about it I figured I should buy it before the movie came out. I figured watching the movie first or just hearing a lot about it would spoil the book for me.
I saw the film with my brother and a friend who had no clue beforehand what he was getting into at all. As I watched the film I wondered if he would understand the plot without reading the book beforehand. He admitted that he was a little confused at times. Some stuff like Ozy's cat really shouldn't even be in the film since there's no explanation for it and seeing some weird ass cat mutant out of nowhere makes no sense without context.
I think I liked the film. As I was watching it I was really enjoying it. I thought 300 was stupid and the director is kind of a hack that relies way to much on slow motion and gore. But I was able to deal with it. I understand that the action scenes needed to be spiced up a bit more than they were in the book. I didn't mind most of the changes. Some of them seem to be "just because" which you always see but some are a requirement for the film medium. Sometimes you have to streamline a written story for it to have the correct pacing in a movie form.
One change I liked? How Rorschach kills the child killer. In the book it's a complete rip-off of Mad Max which the film going public would likely pick up on immediately. It had to be changed and I like the change.
But I can't help feel like the film was going along so well and was doing pretty much the best job one could ever expect of an adaptation of Watchmen until the last five minutes. I don't mind how they ditched the squid. I was concerned about it going in but I felt the new plan actually made a lot of sense and was done quite well. I know the exact point the filmmakers revealed to me that they truly didn't get it.
I was talking with my brother a few days ago about the film and I mentioned that if I was making the film the scene I would put the most attention to would be Rorschach's death because for me that was the most emotional moment in the book. Doc stops him and he looks, removes his mask while crying and shouts "DO IT!" and without hesitation Doc blasts him to bits. That just hit me like a truck when I read that. I didn't see it coming, it was so fast. And it was so final. Rorschach's dead. Ozy won. In the movie they had to go and completely kill the emotional impact. You can see it happening a mile away because Rorschach stands there talking with his mask off for so long. And then you get Nite Owl doing the cliche "NOOOO!" That just killed it for me and I don't know if I can really say I like the movie.
After that it was just so exposed to me that the director didn't know what he was doing. And sure enough Nite Owl and Silk Spectre's reaction is completely different and makes no sense. So are they going to blab? Part of the depression of the ending is that it seems like the only person who would reveal the truth was killed... until the little twist. And then Doc doesn't say "It never ends" to Ozy. It's just a throwaway line by a different character. That was a big part of the whole POINT. Ozy thinks he's the smartest person in the world, but he still is in awe of Doc and Doc alone. He shows uncertainty only to him by asking if he did the right thing in the end and Doc doesn't give him the answer he wants to hear. He "won" but because he will forever be uncertain if the innocent deaths he caused will truly make a difference, he loses.
I did however think the acting was overall really well done. All of the actors played the parts pretty much exactly like I imagined. Or if they didn't they played them in a way where I now see that's how I SHOULD have imagined the character as (I expected Dr. Manhattan to have a spaceman kind of voice but the gentle voice he has in the movie fits him perfectly). My one complaint with the acting is that the chick who plays Laurie CAN'T ACT! Holy **** does she absolutely suck and that role probably required some of the BEST acting. She's just a pretty face and a body you would love to ****. That's probably how she got the role in the first place.
Though I think it's kind of sad that while Watchmen is considered this great work of art with geeks, the mainstream is likely going to remember it as that blue penis movie.
But the film does have MICKEY FROM SEINFELD IN IT! Go see it for that! ;)
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 16, 2009, 04:33:00 PM
thats a pretty spot on assessment
When Rorschach got killed in the comic, it happened in a blink of an eye, i didn't expect it. If one thing was taken out of the movie it was definitely shock. All the shock moments became things you could predict(of course i did read the book) but still the way they did things was less shocking. Also, that damn cat...i think i mentioned it early, but the whole reason for the cat is to explain the genetic engineering for the readers so that when the squid comes theres some precedent. No squid, then no cat!
for a good example how they could have done a few things better watch Robocop or StarShip Troopers
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 16, 2009, 04:45:57 PM
I actually assumed that cat was some genetic hybrid that he created because of his obsession with Egyptian Culture and that it was supposed to resemble a creature from the myths, it didn't bother me at all. Also I was still impacted hard when Rorschach died even if it was leading up to it.
I actually read about half of the Graphic Novel so it still gave me a few surprises. It was easily one of my favorite movies, period.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Ian Sane on March 16, 2009, 05:52:25 PM
Perm, what you said about the lack of shock I chalk it up to the director. He loves his slow motion. And while in the action scenes I'm glad I could see what was going on instead of the Batman Begins "shake the camera around so no one can tell what's going on and I don't have choreograph anything" method it's not effective for shocking anyone. When you slow stuff down you let everyone see what's going on and thus they can predict what is going to happen. There are times and places to use it but sometimes you want something to just happen at full speed. We've all had those moments in our lives where we think "no way that just happened" and you couldn't prevent it and there's nothing you can do about it now. If you want the audience to feel that way you need to do at full speed.
I mean even the attempted rape is done in a cartoony fight scene way. Where's the intensity? But if he just punches her in the face and grabs her down and starts upbuckling his pants in the span of like five seconds it catches the audience off guard. It's scary, as an attempted rape should be seen as. If you were making a drama film and you had a scene where a guy just loses it and hits his wife would you do it in slow motion? Would you have a long pause with him holding his hand in the air waiting to strike? Would you telegraph it? Or would just have him do it without warning the audience so that the audience is as shocked as she is?
So much of film making is getting the appropriate reaction out of the audience. Aside from "that is so cool" I think Zack Snyder sucks at that.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 16, 2009, 06:54:27 PM
as far as deaths go, Rachel vs Rorschach.
Rachel dies..were not sure its going to happen..it proabably won't batman always saves the day..BOOM, oh i guess he doesn't.
Rachel: Don't worry Harvey everything will be O...khBOOOOOM
In Watchmen novel Rorschach "even in the face of armegeddon... Never comprimise!" a couple of scenes pass with Laurie and Dreiberg Dr. Manhatten - where are you going? Rorscach Rorschach - back to the owlship, back to america, evil must be punished, people must be told Dr. Manhatten - you know i can't let you do that (straight out of 2001) Rorscach- huh, of course Must Protect Veidt's new utopia, one more body against foundations makes little difference, what are you waiting for do it Dr. Manhatten - Rorschach.. Rorschach - Do it! BOOM - blood everywhere, smoke billowing i'm like WTF
instead in Watchmen movie
Rorschach "even in the face of Armageddon Never compromise!" Dr. Manhattan - where are you going? Rorschach - i have to keep ozymandias's perfect world safe (an obious lie) Dr. Manhattan - Sure Rorschach - kill me now I've got nothing left to live for, you've won Dr. Manhattan (thinking)Maybe i shouldn't? Rorschach- Dooooooo iiiiit! Dr Manhatten - ok you asked for it BOOM Nite Owl and Darth Vader - Nooooooooooooooooo! a blood splatter in the snow(a nice touch..not in the comic, an improvement) Well he asked for it Then we get those scenes from laurie and dreiberg
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: nickmitch on March 16, 2009, 08:58:28 PM
I agree with you guys on both of those scenes. I feel that if they were shorter, there would've been at least a few extra seconds to show more of Walter with his "The end is nigh" sign, so that his reveal has more impact.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: mantidor on March 16, 2009, 10:14:03 PM
Maybe your bias for the comic is howing, because that scene was a bit shocking.
I honestly did expect it to go that way but not because of the long exposure and dialog beforehand, but because it was exactly what I expected from the characters. Its funny, these are probably one of the most complex comic book characters ever written, but they still were somewhat one dimensional.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 17, 2009, 03:24:57 AM
yeah, maybe it is. I think I did come out pretty comic biased, but i know i wouldn't have read the comic if i saw the movie first.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Arbok on March 17, 2009, 07:06:53 PM
That's what happens after going to art school i suppose. You see so much dick you become desensitized to it.
Decades from now, when the internet is an old relic and people are dissecting NWR to see why people posted here, I think this is the quote that will be used to sum ThePerm up.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 17, 2009, 11:47:28 PM
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Stogi on March 18, 2009, 07:52:41 PM
So I watched the movie day one and my first reaction was: meh.
The first fight scene was by far my favorite part of the movie. It didn't get any better afterward. It was disappointing, especially after watching the phenomenal trailer over and over again.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: mantidor on March 18, 2009, 10:04:45 PM
I don't remember the first fight scene, was it rorschach vs someone?
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: IceCold on March 19, 2009, 01:59:47 AM
I think he's talking about the Comedian's murder.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: mantidor on March 19, 2009, 11:18:33 AM
haha oh right, that just shows for me it wasn't really memorable.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 19, 2009, 03:40:36 PM
i loved that scene, it was cool because it's not in the book really. How can you forget that scene when the theme song is "unforgettable". I thought the beginning couple of scenes were the best part...
I really can't accurately judge the movie. My friend who i went with me compared it to the fantastic four movie, which should pale in comparison to watchmen. Its just sort of hard to separate it from the source material, which i love so much.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 19, 2009, 03:43:26 PM
Well all I have to say is that I LOVED the movie and read half of the graphic novel. The visuals were stunning then again I also enjoyed (though not as much) 300. I'll see about any movie this director does.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Stogi on March 19, 2009, 04:20:35 PM
Yes I was referring to the comedian. That scene was amazing.
My other beef with the movie was that it was half porno. While I thought that chick was really hot (was she in Entourage?), I still wondered to myself "Is this really necessary? Is this the reason that it's almost 3 hours long?"
I like subtlety when it comes to sex scenes. For instance, I just watched a movie where the main character in one scene became infatuated with a ice skater. They locked eyes and they both smiled. The next scene started out with his buddies walking in his building then waiting for the elevator; the door opens and a women holding a pair of ice skates walks out.
You see the difference?
Still, the more I think about the movie, the more I like it. It has alot of fat to chew on, especially when you consider that it's a comic book movie. I like how everything worked out.
Also the scene where Rorcharch dies. I thought it was built up really well. I especially like the line "What's one more body among a foundation?" I think it was well done. Still, I can see what you mean Ian, Perm; though I think it was the entire movie that was slow.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: mantidor on March 19, 2009, 11:11:17 PM
Long sex scenes might work out in very limited scenarios in films, but not only it requires very special stories and situations, it requires really great actors, and those two simply aren't.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 19, 2009, 11:34:06 PM
yeah that sex scene was not unlike the sex scene on matrix 3...just no drama to it, gratuitous. I just watch Top Gun for the first time about 2 weeks before Watchmen, there's a sex scene, then as far as shocked..Goose died! I didn't think Patrick Wilson was a bad actor at all, compared to his role in lakeview terrace he was a perfect daniel dreiberg. Malin Ackerman was just eye candy, i remember in the theater i went to piss, and came back just in time for them to start their sex scene. You know who would have been better? Jennifer Carpenter..i think she could have pulled it off. or maybe a young Kathleen Turner or Faye Dunaway, but of course thats not possible.
speaking of Faye Dunaway, for anyone who has seen watchmen not read the comic, and seen the movie Network..watchmen the book is at that level of intelligence. It also reminds me of Citizen Kane.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: D_Average on March 20, 2009, 08:01:00 PM
I thought this movie was fantastic. Its rare to see such moral ambiguity in such a big movie. One of the best super hero movies I've ever see, easily.
While most of the critics have panned it, at least MovieBob (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-presents/622-MovieBob-Reviews-Watchmen) agrees with me.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: SirSniffy on March 21, 2009, 11:00:31 AM
Its rare to see such moral ambiguity in such a big movie.
This is probably what made me like the movie...the idea that humans are not entirely good or evil and that life is about choices...we make them, for whatever reason, and then we have to deal with the consequences. People always fault DC characters for being one dimensional or overpowered, but those critics should consider the Watchmen.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Kairon on March 21, 2009, 05:54:43 PM
I like subtlety when it comes to sex scenes. For instance, I just watched a movie where the main character in one scene became infatuated with a ice skater. They locked eyes and they both smiled. The next scene started out with his buddies walking in his building then waiting for the elevator; the door opens and a women holding a pair of ice skates walks out.
Dude! I just watched that movie! It made me overcome my irrational dislike of Sean Penn!
Actually, while subtlety works, if you're going to actually have a sex scene at least have it mean something. I got the sense there wasn't a lot of thought put into the Watchman's scenes, and I actually discussed this with my younger brother after the movie. One of my friends later told me wished there wasn't so much soft-core porn in it.
Maybe I haven't given the film enough credit, but I felt the sex scenes were gratuitous in Watchmen, ESPECIALLY since it was the second time that night it had happened! I've actually got nothing against explicit, but it has to at least have some significance. Cold Mountain I also really didn't like the love-making scene, just totally disjointed.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Kairon on March 21, 2009, 05:59:04 PM
Its rare to see such moral ambiguity in such a big movie.
This is probably what made me like the movie...the idea that humans are not entirely good or evil and that life is about choices...we make them, for whatever reason, and then we have to deal with the consequences. People always fault DC characters for being one dimensional or overpowered, but those critics should consider the Watchmen.
Haha, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with Ozy, and the more I know I have a friend who would totally be on the side of Rorschach.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 21, 2009, 07:13:16 PM
in the book it has significance. Nite Owl is an impotent wuss, after they fight some crime he doesn't feel so powerless, and then he can get it up. That part was not so much in the movie i think(im not totally sure, i went to go pee)
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Kairon on March 21, 2009, 07:29:55 PM
Huh, makes more sense now, but in the movie, I sorta missed their very tiny hints about that.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Plugabugz on March 21, 2009, 09:17:18 PM
If you muted the volume and watched it, it veered interestingly close to being porn.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 21, 2009, 09:22:11 PM
The gratuitous sex scenes were the only parts I felt were unnecessary in the film. Like others said they didn't really seem to fit.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 21, 2009, 09:40:42 PM
lol, so i looked back at the comic..and its funny because they just sort of make out the first time which ends in Nite Owl having to quit cause he can't get it up. The second time when their in Archimedes after rescuing those people thats when they totally bang. In the comic though its really subtle instead of full blown sex scenes. In the make out scene you see maybe a tit, but this is intercut with Ozymandias TV commercials. The movie could have less of the sex and more cold war news casts or a nostalgia commercial to help build the story.
zack snyder must have a porno scene in every movie Dawn of the Dead - Rich guy bangs chick and films it while Richard Cheese's cover of "down with the sickness" plays 300- itty bitty titty love scene, but i can't complain WATCHMEN- downright softcore porn scene, might as well be watching Cinemax. Tape your dick up Pat!
they also cut out most of the detective scenes, where a detective is on to Dreiberg, which makes all the reason for Dreiberg to free kovacs in a hurry. Plus they cut out the newsstand scenes. You should feel total cold war tension. If i were doing it i'd have included a closeup of a clock every couple scenes as a tension device(just like the book).
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: nickmitch on March 21, 2009, 11:55:30 PM
I feel like they freed him on a whim. It's like, they were already out, might as well pick up ol' Rorschach.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 22, 2009, 01:13:19 AM
yeah, not what happened in the book. They were setting a plan up so they could free him and it would interchange between escalation of Kovacs (non problem, the movie does pretty much establish he'd take care of himself either way) at the prison. Its about 15 pages between the banging and the breaking. they bang on pg 27 and 28 of chapter 7 and they arrive at the prison to free him on pg 15 of chapter 8. In between dreiberg is hounded by the detective because he was at Blakes funeral, which pretty much outed him as a former masked hero. In the movie Kovak gets his costume in the prison, but he has to find one of his spares in an alley in the book. Hollis mason dies in between this. Nite Owl finds out in the bar where the investigating and goes "Rorschach" apeshit himself. other things they cut out which help the story. Silk Spectre Smokes, thats why she pressed the fire button, she thought it was a cigarette lighter. When her mom catches her with the Comedian, they're smoking together and laughing with each other. Throughout the book she is trying to quit smoking. Dr. Manhatten didn't tell silk spectre that she was comedian's daughter, Comedian said it out loud blatently and she blocked the memory and changed it. She told herself he said "christ, we were just talking, can't a guy talk to his y'know old friend's daughter? What do you think I am?" what he really said was "christ, we were just talking, can't a guy talk to his y'know daughter? What do you think I am?", plus theres this Nostalgia bottle of perfume that shows up everywhere in the book, not in the movie. Also, theres a snowglass that is in the book that resembles Dr. Manhatten's silicon castle that is also left out.
despite its flaws, as the days go by im starting to like the movie more, its nice having a moving version of the comic in your head. Something to base your imagination off of y'know
i just hope the dvd is vastly extened. Return of the King was 201 minutes. I could watch this for that long.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: nickmitch on March 22, 2009, 03:13:04 AM
I feel the same, especially with the "Tales of the Black Freighter" added in. This way, you get a handful of characters to see in NY when the Ozy kills all those people. Plus, not having the news guy was really a waste. His interactions with Walter is what established Walter as the crazy guy with the sign and completely separate from Rorschach. Side note: that guy sounded like John Goodman in my head.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ShyGuy on March 22, 2009, 04:16:56 AM
Watched it, didn't really like it. Rorschach was right.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: mantidor on March 22, 2009, 04:06:18 PM
in the book it has significance. Nite Owl is an impotent wuss, after they fight some crime he doesn't feel so powerless, and then he can get it up. That part was not so much in the movie i think(im not totally sure, i went to go pee)
Yes, the scene was there when he couldn't get it up. It seems to me the comic deals with the issue of playing costumes as a sexual fetish in some way, but the movie really didn't try to do that, or did it poorly.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Stogi on March 22, 2009, 05:10:28 PM
Its rare to see such moral ambiguity in such a big movie.
This is probably what made me like the movie...the idea that humans are not entirely good or evil and that life is about choices...we make them, for whatever reason, and then we have to deal with the consequences. People always fault DC characters for being one dimensional or overpowered, but those critics should consider the Watchmen.
Haha, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with Ozy, and the more I know I have a friend who would totally be on the side of Rorschach.
Like you, I identify most with Ozy. However, if the situation actually existed, I would follow in Rorschach's footsteps.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: nickmitch on March 22, 2009, 05:15:03 PM
in the book it has significance. Nite Owl is an impotent wuss, after they fight some crime he doesn't feel so powerless, and then he can get it up. That part was not so much in the movie i think(im not totally sure, i went to go pee)
Yes, the scene was there when he couldn't get it up. It seems to me the comic deals with the issue of playing costumes as a sexual fetish in some way, but the movie really didn't try to do that, or did it poorly.
The movie didn't have Laurie saying, "Did the costumes make it good?" So, the fetish thing was completely missed. That was one of my favorite lines from the novel, and I think that the gratuitous sex scene took the line and any impact it would've had from the film.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: D_Average on March 22, 2009, 05:43:13 PM
Its rare to see such moral ambiguity in such a big movie.
This is probably what made me like the movie...the idea that humans are not entirely good or evil and that life is about choices...we make them, for whatever reason, and then we have to deal with the consequences. People always fault DC characters for being one dimensional or overpowered, but those critics should consider the Watchmen.
Haha, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with Ozy, and the more I know I have a friend who would totally be on the side of Rorschach.
Like you, I identify most with Ozy. However, if the situation actually existed, I would follow in Rorschach's footsteps.
Not me, I would have gone the way of Night Owl. Getting the girl without the hassle of exterminating millions to save billions. 8)
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Stogi on March 22, 2009, 06:22:32 PM
You think the smartest man couldn't get some?
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 22, 2009, 10:45:55 PM
Its rare to see such moral ambiguity in such a big movie.
This is probably what made me like the movie...the idea that humans are not entirely good or evil and that life is about choices...we make them, for whatever reason, and then we have to deal with the consequences. People always fault DC characters for being one dimensional or overpowered, but those critics should consider the Watchmen.
Haha, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with Ozy, and the more I know I have a friend who would totally be on the side of Rorschach.
Like you, I identify most with Ozy. However, if the situation actually existed, I would follow in Rorschach's footsteps.
I would lie about it in that exact situation, then go through with it later on!
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: D_Average on March 22, 2009, 11:15:01 PM
Its rare to see such moral ambiguity in such a big movie.
This is probably what made me like the movie...the idea that humans are not entirely good or evil and that life is about choices...we make them, for whatever reason, and then we have to deal with the consequences. People always fault DC characters for being one dimensional or overpowered, but those critics should consider the Watchmen.
Haha, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with Ozy, and the more I know I have a friend who would totally be on the side of Rorschach.
Like you, I identify most with Ozy. However, if the situation actually existed, I would follow in Rorschach's footsteps.
I would lie about it in that exact situation, then go through with it later on!
And bring the world back into utter Armageddon? For shame GP, for shame....
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ShyGuy on March 22, 2009, 11:15:22 PM
Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: DAaaMan64 on March 23, 2009, 04:38:07 PM
Its rare to see such moral ambiguity in such a big movie.
This is probably what made me like the movie...the idea that humans are not entirely good or evil and that life is about choices...we make them, for whatever reason, and then we have to deal with the consequences. People always fault DC characters for being one dimensional or overpowered, but those critics should consider the Watchmen.
Haha, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with Ozy, and the more I know I have a friend who would totally be on the side of Rorschach.
Like you, I identify most with Ozy. However, if the situation actually existed, I would follow in Rorschach's footsteps.
Not me, I would have gone the way of Night Owl. Getting the girl without the hassle of exterminating millions to save billions. 8)
Night Owl was a pussy
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Adrock on March 23, 2009, 06:32:05 PM
a blood splatter in the snow(a nice touch..not in the comic, an improvement)
Yes it is.
I thought the movie was okay, but then again, I thought the graphic novel was just okay. The movie ending was better; made more sense. Matthew Goode as Ozymandias was odd. He's really lanky and I didn't really believe that he could beat up anyone, particularly Jeffrey Dean Morgan who was a dead on Comedian. Dr. Manhattan was still just as lame in the film though perfectly portrayed. I wish they kept more of Rorschach's chapter in prison, particularly the parts with Dr. Malcolm Long. It was severely abbreviated in the movie.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: D_Average on March 23, 2009, 06:37:48 PM
Its rare to see such moral ambiguity in such a big movie.
This is probably what made me like the movie...the idea that humans are not entirely good or evil and that life is about choices...we make them, for whatever reason, and then we have to deal with the consequences. People always fault DC characters for being one dimensional or overpowered, but those critics should consider the Watchmen.
Haha, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with Ozy, and the more I know I have a friend who would totally be on the side of Rorschach.
Like you, I identify most with Ozy. However, if the situation actually existed, I would follow in Rorschach's footsteps.
Not me, I would have gone the way of Night Owl. Getting the girl without the hassle of exterminating millions to save billions. 8)
Night Owl was a pussy
True. A bit bland as well.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 24, 2009, 08:21:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAiJBr-lOM0
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: nickmitch on March 24, 2009, 10:41:37 PM
Win.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Kairon on March 25, 2009, 12:46:11 AM
I'm happy the actor who played him got to be something other than despicable, as his characters were in Hard Candy and Angels in America, for instance.
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: Stogi on March 25, 2009, 10:37:29 AM
God. Hard Candy. Why'd you have to mention that? I finally forgot about it!
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: bosshogx on March 26, 2009, 12:01:33 AM
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: decoyman on March 26, 2009, 10:27:52 AM
Heh, nice one. :P
I picked up the book a few nights ago, and have been reading it. Interesting so far... Actually, interesting enough that I stayed up way late last night cuz I didn't want to put it down. :(
Title: Re: WATCHMEN
Post by: ThePerm on March 26, 2009, 05:52:35 PM
