First look at characters from the Watchmen movie - Page 2

fantom1979 · 03-06-2009, 07:48 AM

They have been advertising the heck out of this movie this week, so I would expect at least a good opening weekend. I never saw the comic and didn't really think 300 was awesome, so I might hold off on this one until some of my friends see it.

ISiddiqui · 03-07-2009, 05:47 PM

Never read the book (actually just got it yesterday from Amazon), but just saw the movie. Very, very well done! I was skeptical about the length, but it didn't seem that long at all and they needed all that time to tell the story full, with the flashbacks and what not to build up the world.

SackAttack · 03-07-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Just got back .. Personally I loved it, but I am not sure people will like it if they haven't read the graphic novel because I read it two weeks ago, and I am still confused. There is just way too much going on at times. Only a few things are slightly different (some deaths basically) but beyond that its true to the story minus the ending, which makes sense. If they used the original ending a lot of people would be even more confused.

Basically if you liked the book + 300's action sequences, you'll love the movie.

If you liked 300, you probably like the movie.

If you didn't like 300 and didn't read the book, I might wait for DVD.

A lot of people applauded at the end. Like 300 people in the theater, so I assume it went over well. There is just SO much to it, it's hard to grasp it all at once.

I enjoyed it, but there were definitely some dropped hooks. "Here's stuff the book had that set up this way, and we included it to be true to the book...but here's the direction we went instead."

Nothing that really detracts from the movie, but enough to make you wonder what the 'uncut' version is like.

ISiddiqui · 03-07-2009, 10:26 PM

DeTox... that's a strange review. Like I said, I didn't read the graphic novel, but I followed it fairly easily.

And I despised 300. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Not even comparable.

Peregrine · 03-08-2009, 09:14 AM

Saw the movie yesterday, definitely liked it a lot. They have a ton on their plate to try to film the movie at all, but I think they came out with a very good result.

Travis · 03-08-2009, 01:54 PM

Loved the movie, absolutely can't wait to see the extended version (assuming that'll be on the disc releases).

cubboyroy1826 · 03-08-2009, 02:24 PM

The movie i thought was very good and i agree that if they come out with an extended version it will be even better.

Chief Rum · 03-08-2009, 03:30 PM

It has been 36 hours or so since I saw this, and I am still not certain how to grade it. Probably the hardest one for me to pin down in a long time.

I know I liked a lot of it. I know I didn't feel as strong an emotional connection to it as I think was intended. I know I enjoyed the amazing effect and the action sequences. I know the plot and pacing was abit of a mess at times, and I know that was because of being true to the novel. And I know I am still thinking about it and its message and meaning now.

So what does that mean? Hell if I know.

ISiddiqui · 03-08-2009, 04:56 PM

If you are still thinking on its message and meaning after 36 hours, I think that's a mark of a good story.

Pyser · 03-08-2009, 05:18 PM

uh, this movie wouldnt have been any different if night owl and that chick werent even in it at all, basically.

ISiddiqui · 03-08-2009, 05:47 PM

Yeah, but they are how we see this world. We can't really identify with Rorshack or Dr. Manhatten or Ozzymandius. And the Silk Specter woman convinced Dr. Manhatten to come back (then again, I guess him coming back doesn't change anything... except getting Rorshack killed... but I think Ozzy could have done that anyway).

Honolulu_Blue · 03-08-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, but they are how we see this world. We can't really identify with Rorshack or Dr. Manhatten or Ozzymandius. And the Silk Specter woman convinced Dr. Manhatten to come back (then again, I guess him coming back doesn't change anything... except getting Rorshack killed... but I think Ozzy could have done that anyway).

Dan and Laurie are the human element to the story. They are definitely more passengers than drivers, but they are critical nonetheless.

I wont be able to see this until next weekend.

Calis · 03-08-2009, 07:06 PM

Just got a chance to see this.

Not really sure what I think yet either. I enjoyed it to an extent, and think Snyder once again stuck to the source material pretty well, and I think the changes he made make sense for the film. I can't really fault that.

It seemed off though. I guess it's one of those cases were a direct translation just doesn't work. I can't put a finger on it, but something just didn't click. I still enjoyed seeing it put to film and am not sure what needed to be done differently. I think a little more of Rorschach would have helped, fleshing out his character a bit more. I think the over the top action sequences that we knew Snyder would use detract from the movie a bit. The gruesome violence while "cool" to see sort of blurred what should be a pretty solid line between how Dan/Laurie operate and how Rorschach does.

The girl that played Laurie while quite attractive was absolutely terrible.

Sounds overly negative but I did like it overall. I'm not the hugest fan of the original comic either. I enjoyed it and it was the first non-traditional superhero comic I read so it has a certain appeal, but I had issues with it as well.

Surtt · 03-09-2009, 10:56 AM

Just went to see this last night.

First off, I think they would have been "truer" to the original by setting it in the present (or near future); Bush in his 5th term, Dr. Manhattan wins in Iraq, We are having a cold war with China over oil... The comic was written in 85 about 85, but that was a long time ago now and a lot of the audience did not lived through the cold war or Watergate. It felt more nostalgic then shocking.

Second, I am confused about changing the the ending. Why go through the effort of reproducing the comic (sometimes frame for frame) and then shit the bed by changing the whole ending? If you are going to do that, just make a movie "based" on The Watchmen (which I think would have been a better movie)

Also, I thought the sound track wasn't very well done. Sounds of Silence in for a funeral in 85? Playing a 60s song for an 80s scene? The sound track didn't add much to the movie, where as the Smashing Pumpkins song on the trailer really set the tone.

Finally, going back to the new ending, why change it? The comic was very nihilistic; even our new god (Dr. Manhattan) could not save use from our destructive urges. But the movie tried to humanize Dr. Manhattan and turn him into some sort of Christ figure. (sacrificing his reputation, if not himself, to save the world). I guess every directer thinks he can improve the original with just a few minor, to them, changes. (see LOTR)

Anyway, I liked the movie, it is well worth going to see.
Yet a day later I am ponder the changed ending more the anything else, I don't think that is what they wanted.
Maybe the "Director's Cut" will fill in the gaps.

lordscarlet · 03-09-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surtt

Finally, going back to the new ending, why change it? The comic was very nihilistic; even our new god (Dr. Manhattan) could not save use from our destructive urges. But the movie tried to humanize Dr. Manhattan and turn him into some sort of Christ figure. (sacrificing his reputation, if not himself, to save the world). I guess every directer thinks he can improve the original with just a few minor, to them, changes. (see LOTR)

Anyway, I liked the movie, it is well worth going to see.
Yet a day later I am ponder the changed ending more the anything else, I don't think that is what they wanted.
Maybe the "Director's Cut" will fill in the gaps.

Spoiler

Honolulu_Blue · 03-09-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Spoiler

Surtt · 03-09-2009, 01:35 PM

Spoiler

Honolulu_Blue · 03-23-2009, 09:17 AM

This decline in box office and the "middling" opening is really not at all surprising. I never really saw how it was going to be a huge commercial success.

It's long.

It's rated R.

It's confusing.

It's about a bunch of superheroes no one has ever heard about.

It has no star power. (I had never heard of any of the actors who played Ozymandias, Silke Spectre, or the Comedian. I had to look Nite Owl up on IMDB and only then did I realize he was in "Hard Candy". I only really know Billy Cudrup as the guy who did a voice in "Princess Mononoke" and from some independent film about drug addiction, the name of which I don't remember. I remember Jackie Earl Haley from his "Bad News Bears" and "Breaking Away" days and from his hillarious appearance as Chris Elliot's cousin, Donald, in one episode of "Get A Life". I think my brother and I are probably the only two people in America who watched that episode. That was in 1991.)

It's beloved by a rabid core that would freak out at almost any change, modification or deletion, but were dealing with a story that's impossible to film and totally inacessible to anyone unfamiliar with the work without some changes/deletions. That led to divisive reviews. Most of those unfamiliar with the comics hated it and those who were familiar with the work were split.

Given all of that $55 million for an opening weekend and $18 million on the second weekend and it looking to break $100 million domestically isn't that bad. I guess it's all a matter of expectations.

At the end of the day, with DVD sales and all, I think the film will manage to scrape back its production costs. It's certainly not what Warner Bros was expecting, but I think they didn't have a realistic view of its box office potential. Allen Moore's work, even when done well, like "Watchmen" and "V For Vendetta", just isn't all that accessible.

I think people's perception of the popularity of the graphic novel got all skewed as well. Yes, many people love it. Yes, many people think it's the best graphic novel ever. But it doesn't have anywhere near the popularity of almost any mainstream Marvel or DC title.

Think about it this way. Let's say someone makes a new film based on "The Great Gatsby" or "The Grapes of Wrath", widely considered to be two of the best modern novels (well, according to my 30 second internet search. THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA). The movies are near perfect adaptations, but there are no famous actors in either film. Then you have the "DaVinci Code" starring Tom Hanks, Gandalf, Amelie, and others. Which of these films is going to make more money?

I would have liked to have seen the film do better commercially, simply because there are a lot of other great, non-mainstream, mature (not in a porny type of way) comics out there.

The success of "Watchmen" would have gone a long way to helping them get the proper treatment they deserve in film. I would have also liked to see it do well because, obviously, people like Hayter and others who really loved the material and did their best feel that it's commercial success would have been some sort of affirmation or vindication or something.

I finally saw it over the weekend in iMax glory. While there are a few things I would have tweaked and few things that didn't quite work, overall I thought it was great. I can't really imagine there being a better film adaptation of the comics. In particular, Rorshach, Dr. Manhattan, the Comedian, and Nite Owl were spot on perfect.

Strutt, as for some of your comments, I agree with some, but I think you need to re-read the comics, since almost all of the "changes" you claim were made in the film's ending, were almost entirely taken from the comics.

Spoiler

Surtt · 03-23-2009, 11:21 AM

Spoiler

Quote:

-- Upon a closer reading, I think the ending of the movie, for the most part, is much more in line with the ending of the comic than you think.

Yeah, I need to re-read the comic.
(I probably missed and/or forgot a lot of this)

My main complaint is they changed the "look and feel" of the ending.
The book ended very bleak and Nilistic, whereas the movie had more of up beat ending.
If you end the book depressed, but leave the theater happy, you can't say it was very good adaptation. (doesn't mean it was a bad movie, though)
I guess it all depends on how you interpreted the book.
As always YMMV

Honolulu_Blue · 03-23-2009, 11:54 AM

I wonder if they end up doing a cut of the movie, as has been speculated, that includes the "Tales of The Black Freighter" 'comic', if they change a bit of the ending.

There's really no reason at all to have the comic in there without Veidt's single line about the dream he had where he was swimming towards a ship. That line, and that line alone, really, is what ties the pirate comic to the rest of the story.

03-07-2009, 05:47 PM	#52
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Never read the book (actually just got it yesterday from Amazon), but just saw the movie. Very, very well done! I was skeptical about the length, but it didn't seem that long at all and they needed all that time to tell the story full, with the flashbacks and what not to build up the world. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

03-07-2009, 10:26 PM	#54
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	DeTox... that's a strange review. Like I said, I didn't read the graphic novel, but I followed it fairly easily. And I despised 300. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Not even comparable. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

03-08-2009, 01:54 PM	#56
Travis Pro Rookie Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Canada eh	Loved the movie, absolutely can't wait to see the extended version (assuming that'll be on the disc releases). __________________ "I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it." - Rogers Hornsby

03-08-2009, 03:30 PM	#58
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	It has been 36 hours or so since I saw this, and I am still not certain how to grade it. Probably the hardest one for me to pin down in a long time. I know I liked a lot of it. I know I didn't feel as strong an emotional connection to it as I think was intended. I know I enjoyed the amazing effect and the action sequences. I know the plot and pacing was abit of a mess at times, and I know that was because of being true to the novel. And I know I am still thinking about it and its message and meaning now. So what does that mean? Hell if I know. __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

03-08-2009, 04:56 PM	#59
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	If you are still thinking on its message and meaning after 36 hours, I think that's a mark of a good story. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

03-08-2009, 09:14 AM	#55
Peregrine Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Cary, NC	Saw the movie yesterday, definitely liked it a lot. They have a ton on their plate to try to film the movie at all, but I think they came out with a very good result.

03-08-2009, 02:24 PM	#57
cubboyroy1826 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jun 2002	The movie i thought was very good and i agree that if they come out with an extended version it will be even better.

03-08-2009, 05:18 PM	#60
Pyser Pro Rookie Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Los Angeles	uh, this movie wouldnt have been any different if night owl and that chick werent even in it at all, basically.

03-08-2009, 05:47 PM	#61
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Yeah, but they are how we see this world. We can't really identify with Rorshack or Dr. Manhatten or Ozzymandius. And the Silk Specter woman convinced Dr. Manhatten to come back (then again, I guess him coming back doesn't change anything... except getting Rorshack killed... but I think Ozzy could have done that anyway). __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

03-08-2009, 07:06 PM	#63
Calis College Starter Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Kansas	Just got a chance to see this. Not really sure what I think yet either. I enjoyed it to an extent, and think Snyder once again stuck to the source material pretty well, and I think the changes he made make sense for the film. I can't really fault that. It seemed off though. I guess it's one of those cases were a direct translation just doesn't work. I can't put a finger on it, but something just didn't click. I still enjoyed seeing it put to film and am not sure what needed to be done differently. I think a little more of Rorschach would have helped, fleshing out his character a bit more. I think the over the top action sequences that we knew Snyder would use detract from the movie a bit. The gruesome violence while "cool" to see sort of blurred what should be a pretty solid line between how Dan/Laurie operate and how Rorschach does. The girl that played Laurie while quite attractive was absolutely terrible. Sounds overly negative but I did like it overall. I'm not the hugest fan of the original comic either. I enjoyed it and it was the first non-traditional superhero comic I read so it has a certain appeal, but I had issues with it as well.

03-09-2009, 10:56 AM	#64
Surtt College Benchwarmer Join Date: Nov 2003	Just went to see this last night. First off, I think they would have been "truer" to the original by setting it in the present (or near future); Bush in his 5th term, Dr. Manhattan wins in Iraq, We are having a cold war with China over oil... The comic was written in 85 about 85, but that was a long time ago now and a lot of the audience did not lived through the cold war or Watergate. It felt more nostalgic then shocking. Second, I am confused about changing the the ending. Why go through the effort of reproducing the comic (sometimes frame for frame) and then shit the bed by changing the whole ending? If you are going to do that, just make a movie "based" on The Watchmen (which I think would have been a better movie) Also, I thought the sound track wasn't very well done. Sounds of Silence in for a funeral in 85? Playing a 60s song for an 80s scene? The sound track didn't add much to the movie, where as the Smashing Pumpkins song on the trailer really set the tone. Finally, going back to the new ending, why change it? The comic was very nihilistic; even our new god (Dr. Manhattan) could not save use from our destructive urges. But the movie tried to humanize Dr. Manhattan and turn him into some sort of Christ figure. (sacrificing his reputation, if not himself, to save the world). I guess every directer thinks he can improve the original with just a few minor, to them, changes. (see LOTR) Anyway, I liked the movie, it is well worth going to see. Yet a day later I am ponder the changed ending more the anything else, I don't think that is what they wanted. Maybe the "Director's Cut" will fill in the gaps. __________________ “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

03-09-2009, 01:35 PM	#67
Surtt College Benchwarmer Join Date: Nov 2003	Spoiler I don't care too much about the giant squid (yeah it was cheesy) But they did not just change the details, they made a major plot change. And then claimed they didn't.... The book explicitly states: god/super man/Dr. Manhattan is real and he is American god did not do this to use, we did it to ourselves. god does not care about us In the movie: Dr. Manhattan's still cares deeply for us, but only Veidt can see it. He is even willing to leave the galaxy so we can have a better future. Not just the framing Dr. Manhattan, having Silk Spectre & Nite Owl go bake to being super heroes instead of having to go into hiding, The shot of Veidt standing alone and dejected instead of happily going off to meditate, the book ended very darkly. It would be like remaking Casablanca and having Ilsa and Rick run off together. Changing the ending changes the whole movie. YMMV __________________ “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

03-23-2009, 09:17 AM	#68
Honolulu_Blue Hockey Boy Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Royal Oak, MI	This decline in box office and the "middling" opening is really not at all surprising. I never really saw how it was going to be a huge commercial success. It's long. It's rated R. It's confusing. It's about a bunch of superheroes no one has ever heard about. It has no star power. (I had never heard of any of the actors who played Ozymandias, Silke Spectre, or the Comedian. I had to look Nite Owl up on IMDB and only then did I realize he was in "Hard Candy". I only really know Billy Cudrup as the guy who did a voice in "Princess Mononoke" and from some independent film about drug addiction, the name of which I don't remember. I remember Jackie Earl Haley from his "Bad News Bears" and "Breaking Away" days and from his hillarious appearance as Chris Elliot's cousin, Donald, in one episode of "Get A Life". I think my brother and I are probably the only two people in America who watched that episode. That was in 1991.) It's beloved by a rabid core that would freak out at almost any change, modification or deletion, but were dealing with a story that's impossible to film and totally inacessible to anyone unfamiliar with the work without some changes/deletions. That led to divisive reviews. Most of those unfamiliar with the comics hated it and those who were familiar with the work were split. Given all of that $55 million for an opening weekend and $18 million on the second weekend and it looking to break $100 million domestically isn't that bad. I guess it's all a matter of expectations. At the end of the day, with DVD sales and all, I think the film will manage to scrape back its production costs. It's certainly not what Warner Bros was expecting, but I think they didn't have a realistic view of its box office potential. Allen Moore's work, even when done well, like "Watchmen" and "V For Vendetta", just isn't all that accessible. I think people's perception of the popularity of the graphic novel got all skewed as well. Yes, many people love it. Yes, many people think it's the best graphic novel ever. But it doesn't have anywhere near the popularity of almost any mainstream Marvel or DC title. Think about it this way. Let's say someone makes a new film based on "The Great Gatsby" or "The Grapes of Wrath", widely considered to be two of the best modern novels (well, according to my 30 second internet search. THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA). The movies are near perfect adaptations, but there are no famous actors in either film. Then you have the "DaVinci Code" starring Tom Hanks, Gandalf, Amelie, and others. Which of these films is going to make more money? I would have liked to have seen the film do better commercially, simply because there are a lot of other great, non-mainstream, mature (not in a porny type of way) comics out there. The success of "Watchmen" would have gone a long way to helping them get the proper treatment they deserve in film. I would have also liked to see it do well because, obviously, people like Hayter and others who really loved the material and did their best feel that it's commercial success would have been some sort of affirmation or vindication or something. I finally saw it over the weekend in iMax glory. While there are a few things I would have tweaked and few things that didn't quite work, overall I thought it was great. I can't really imagine there being a better film adaptation of the comics. In particular, Rorshach, Dr. Manhattan, the Comedian, and Nite Owl were spot on perfect. Strutt, as for some of your comments, I agree with some, but I think you need to re-read the comics, since almost all of the "changes" you claim were made in the film's ending, were almost entirely taken from the comics. Spoiler The book explicitly states: god/super man/Dr. Manhattan is real and he is American god did not do this to use, we did it to ourselves. god does not care about us In the movie: Dr. Manhattan's still cares deeply for us, but only Veidt can see it. He is even willing to leave the galaxy so we can have a better future. -- This is incorrect. There's no place in the movie where it's implied that Dr. Manhattan "cares deeply for us." In both sources, Veidt learns that he's becoming detached, but still has some ties, and the whole cancer thing is designed to break those ties. Also, in both the comic and movie, his reason for returning to earth is exactly the same. Sure, there's definitely a more christlike act of giving himself up for humanity in the movie, but that's only one way to see it. He leaves the earth in the comic because he understands the revealing Veidt's plan will only lead to more death - he returned because of the miracle of life - same with the movie. Not just the framing Dr. Manhattan, having Silk Spectre & Nite Owl go bake to being super heroes instead of having to go into hiding, The shot of Veidt standing alone and dejected instead of happily going off to meditate, the book ended very darkly. -- I didn't remember this until just re-reading the comics over the weekend. Yes, Dan and Laurie go into hiding, but they also go back to being super heroes. Read their last line, it's definitely implied that they plan on going back to being heroes. Laurie just wants a new outfit and possibly a gun. -- I am not sure your point about Veidt. That said, I feel that's the one sequence Snyder really should have kept: The final interaction between Dr. Manhattan and Veidt, the whole, "nothing ever ends" discussion. That was pitch perfect in the comic and would have come out nicely. It would be like remaking Casablanca and having Ilsa and Rick run off together. Changing the ending changes the whole movie. -- Upon a closer reading, I think the ending of the movie, for the most part, is much more in line with the ending of the comic than you think. __________________ *Steve Yzerman*: 1,755 points in 1,514 regular season games. 185 points in 196 postseason games. A First-Team All-Star, Conn Smythe Trophy winner, Selke Trophy winner, Masterton Trophy winner, member of the Hockey Hall of Fame, Olympic gold medallist, and a three-time Stanley Cup Champion. Longest serving captain of one team in the history of the NHL (19 seasons).

03-23-2009, 11:54 AM	#70
Honolulu_Blue Hockey Boy Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Royal Oak, MI	I wonder if they end up doing a cut of the movie, as has been speculated, that includes the "Tales of The Black Freighter" 'comic', if they change a bit of the ending. There's really no reason at all to have the comic in there without Veidt's single line about the dream he had where he was swimming towards a ship. That line, and that line alone, really, is what ties the pirate comic to the rest of the story. __________________ *Steve Yzerman*: 1,755 points in 1,514 regular season games. 185 points in 196 postseason games. A First-Team All-Star, Conn Smythe Trophy winner, Selke Trophy winner, Masterton Trophy winner, member of the Hockey Hall of Fame, Olympic gold medallist, and a three-time Stanley Cup Champion. Longest serving captain of one team in the history of the NHL (19 seasons).

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)