Shorty Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 The alien had its flaws as an idea but it made more sense than the film's choice.
Mundi Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 I love the internet http://watchmex.wikia.com/wiki/WatchmeX This thing is like an onion, the more you peel trough the more you just want to cry your eyes out.
Daft Posted March 9, 2009 Author Posted March 9, 2009 You said 'primarily' the comic, surely someone could answer your original question without reading the book? The problem is the film changes a lot. If someone wants to talk about the film then they can go ahead. I just think it's going to complicate things. Maybe I worded the first post wrong.
killthenet Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Well, I haven't seen the film yet as I only got around to reading the book this weekend, and seeing as the film is bound to be mostly incomprehensible without prior knowledge of the story, I thought it best to finally get off my arse and read the bloody thing. Thought it was a fantastic read, Rorshach was suitably insane, Nite Owl was suitably boring and Dr Manhatten was suitably badass. Veidt was definately a character I found no connection with but his decision to kill so many is certainly one of the moral centers of the story. As someone said earlier it's exactly like Hiroshima and it's very convulted in its morality, both right and wrong in so many ways. But the important thing in this discussion is not whether it was right or wrong of Veidt to do something so monumental, it is in his intentions in doing so, which in my eyes are clearly selfish. He says himself that he wanted to walk the same path as Alexander The Great, before casting off Alexander's achievments and following the knowledge of the Egyptians. The book implicates that he wants to be revered as some kind of God, and although he won't be so revered through such an act, it could feasibly lay the groundwork for something later in his life, who would stop him? He got rid of Dr. Manhattan and Rorshach, there's no one else powerful or deranged enough to do anything about it anymore. Oh, and RE: The Film... I think it's pointless to attempt an adaptation, especially a cinematic one. Gilliam had the right idea, they should have listened to him and let him make a miniseries. Snyder is a fanboy so undoubtedly the film will be faithful, but it will look outdated in only a couple of years and from the trailers the dialogue seems weak, it appears to have much more gravity coming directly from the page. I will still go and see the film, but I have low expectations (mainly because of Snyders previous work - Dawn was okay, the 300 was utter drivel) and the inclusion of an energy source subplot to 'make the film more topical' is ridiculous and pointless, Dr Manhattan can do anything with atoms, clearly fusion power would be no problem for him.
Shorty Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 I will still go and see the film, but I have low expectations (mainly because of Snyders previous work - Dawn was okay, the 300 was utter drivel) and the inclusion of an energy source subplot to 'make the film more topical' is ridiculous and pointless, Dr Manhattan can do anything with atoms, clearly fusion power would be no problem for him.I think you might be pleasantly surprised, even if not blown away. It's far beyond 300, at any rate.
Paj! Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Yeah, the film successfully makes the story accessible for attentive filmgoers. My friend who knew nothing about it beforehand loved it and understood it.
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 I think you might be pleasantly surprised, even if not blown away. It's far beyond 300, at any rate. I'd say they're at the same spot, personally.
Dan_Dare Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Watchmen is beyond 300 as literature, so the translation holds that up. They're both extremely faithful adaptations though so I guess they're on par as films.
nightwolf Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 I'd say the film definately does a better job than 300, although personally I thought 300 was a decent enough film, not outstanding, but I still loved it never the less.
Dan_Dare Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 300 is actually a really good adaptation. I have the book and it's nearly perfect. I like whole kind of mythical representation to the Spartans and so on.
killthenet Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 I've seen it and it is certainly better than the 300, but the source material is infinitely better than the 300 so Snyder would have had to fail stupendously to fuck this up entirely. I didn't really like it, I just don't like Snyder's style of filmmaking. There is far too much slow motion, he seems to think it a shortcut to creating tension but it just wastes time. And although for the most part it looks like Watchmen, it doesn't sound like Watchmen. It reminded me a lot of Southland Tales, there was a lot of meandering about, a lot of looking into the minor details of these characters lives. Snyder seemed to care much more about staying faithful to the book than trying to turn it into an actual work of cinema. And many of the performances were flat, Billy Crudup didn't know what the hell to do as Dr Manhattan and Patrick Wilson and Malin Akerman seemed completely lost as Dan and Laurie. Rorshach was okay, apart from the scene at the end, why does he cry? The guy is a complete badass with a death wish, he'd love to die. And what was it with Nixon's nose? Oh yes, and the rape scene. As I think someone previously said in this thread, it completely fetishises and glamourises rape it goes on for too long but not in an uncomfortable-something-bad-is-happening way, but in a look-at-this-it's-going-to-give-you-a-boner sort of way. I don't see why Snyder had to linger on it for so long. In many ways, although faithful, Snyder turned it into a laughable, sleepy, moronic film. The fight scenes went on for far too long and he never really gets to the heart of the story. It was a poor attempt on the whole, though i'm sure if someone talented had directed Hayter's original script we might have had something decent to look at in years to come.
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 I've seen it and it is certainly better than the 300, but the source material is infinitely better than the 300 so Snyder would have had to fail stupendously to fuck this up entirely. I didn't really like it, I just don't like Snyder's style of filmmaking. There is far too much slow motion, he seems to think it a shortcut to creating tension but it just wastes time. And although for the most part it looks like Watchmen, it doesn't sound like Watchmen. It reminded me a lot of Southland Tales, there was a lot of meandering about, a lot of looking into the minor details of these characters lives. Snyder seemed to care much more about staying faithful to the book than trying to turn it into an actual work of cinema. And many of the performances were flat, Billy Crudup didn't know what the hell to do as Dr Manhattan and Patrick Wilson and Malin Akerman seemed completely lost as Dan and Laurie. Rorshach was okay, apart from the scene at the end, why does he cry? The guy is a complete badass with a death wish, he'd love to die. And what was it with Nixon's nose? Oh yes, and the rape scene. As I think someone previously said in this thread, it completely fetishises and glamourises rape it goes on for too long but not in an uncomfortable-something-bad-is-happening way, but in a look-at-this-it's-going-to-give-you-a-boner sort of way. I don't see why Snyder had to linger on it for so long. In many ways, although faithful, Snyder turned it into a laughable, sleepy, moronic film. The fight scenes went on for far too long and he never really gets to the heart of the story. It was a poor attempt on the whole, though i'm sure if someone talented had directed Hayter's original script we might have had something decent to look at in years to come. Attack the sex scene, please!!!! PLEASE!!!! btw, what did you think of the opening credits?
E3wannabe Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Rorschach was okay, apart from the scene at the end, why does he cry? The guy is a complete badass with a death wish, he'd love to die. Rorschach cries in the comic/novel at the end, not at his own death, his is something as you say he does not care about as he puts in his journal. He is crying for several reasons i believe, for starters his friends have abandoned him, his beliefs in moral justice and in a way they have given up on the world and given in to a terrorist. Lastly he's appalled that the state of the world has come down to this. Despite his cold hard, insane exterior Rorschach cares about the world and the good people in it, there is only good and evil no grey areas.
Daft Posted March 11, 2009 Author Posted March 11, 2009 "NEVER COMPROMISE. NOT EVEN IN THE FACE OF ARMAGEDDON." I agree with E3wannabe. I thought is was a great moment in the comic. Not bad in the film, either.
McPhee Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 Rorshach was okay, apart from the scene at the end, why does he cry? The guy is a complete badass with a death wish, he'd love to die. Read the journal entry at the start of the book. Rorschach wanted the same thing as Vedit, a new, uncorrupt world. The difference is in their methods, their morals and their expected outcomes. Rorschach lost, and from his point of view Vedit is damning the world (along with the fact that under his view Vedit should be dead for what he has done). He probably did want to die at the end of the book, there's no way he'd want to live in that world. He was crying for the souls of the Billions who, in his view, Vedit is condemning.
nightwolf Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 Just watched it again, funnily enough just placed the same line as Daft mentioned in his post. A strong line me thinks. Rorshach was only a badass to people who in his eyes deserved it, in every sense he was a complete goodie and didn't want to see the world live a lie, even if in my view its better than the world becoming ugly and living with crack whores and sex offenders. I think I liked his character the most, passionate about the world, to me Veidt seemed to be out for personal game as a sideline, earning profits from the deaths of millions..seems alittle odd for a masked hero.
jayseven Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 but the police officers didn't really deserve it, did they? He was badass and merciless because he believed he was right. therein the similarity lies.
ReZourceman Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 in every sense he was a complete goodie Massively flawed sentence. [/Paj] but the police officers didn't really deserve it, did they? He was badass and merciless because he believed he was right. therein the similarity lies. Word.
nightwolf Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 In his views he was, but in his actions he wasn't. ..But then who was right?
jayseven Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Yeah, that's the real dilemma :P I still think Viedt, as the smartest man in the world knew better than anyone the equations going into/coming out of what he did. As I said before, the book's only "buuut..." moment is really teh clock, but as I also said, that could represent what happened in a couple of ways. Viedt sacrificed himself for humanity while Rorshach sacrificed others (and in a way his own humanity) as part of a plan that had no ending. Rorshach had the right intention but his methods would never get him there. I think Viedt was right. I wouldn't do it myself, but I do.
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 In his views he was, but in his actions he wasn't. ..But then who was right? Jon. Uncorrupted by morals, always objective and imparcial. He's the one who was right. God damned, Alan Moore is the king... in a single graphic novel he created 3 of the best characters ever!! (I'm talking about Jon, Walter and Adrian).
DomJcg Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Jon. Uncorrupted by morals, always objective and imparcial. He's the one who was right. God damned, Alan Moore is the king... in a single graphic novel he created 3 of the best characters ever!! (I'm talking about Jon, Walter and Adrian). But jon was only right because of the situation that adrian created, he saw that the way out of it was to follow the plan like everyone else, but if adrian was to have not created this alien entity, and people turned to jon for advice, you could hardly predict what he was going to say. Logicallythey did the right thing, morally they failed.
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 But jon was only right because of the situation that adrian created, he saw that the way out of it was to follow the plan like everyone else, but if adrian was to have not created this alien entity, and people turned to jon for advice, you could hardly predict what he was going to say. Logicallythey did the right thing, morally they failed. I wasn't refering to that particular part of the story, I mean all the way through, Jon is the voice of reason.
Daft Posted March 12, 2009 Author Posted March 12, 2009 I wasn't refering to that particular part of the story, I mean all the way through, Jon is the voice of reason. Even though he took part, and basically single handedly won, the Vietnam war in the process upsetting the balance of power and putting the world on course for nuclear Armageddon? I wouldn't call that being objective or impartial. "The Superman exists...and he's American."
Recommended Posts