To better clarify what I meant by unequal displays of nudity, I don't think there needed to be any of the male side at all
Director Zack Snyder, who did 300, is apparently going to direct (or would like to direct) a film version of The Watchmen, the seminal graphic novel by Alan Moore (the same author that brought us From Hell, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and V for Vendetta).
There is a test shot of Rorschach at the 1:52 mark in the newest extended trailer for 300, which you can see here. You have to pause it and move the indicator to catch it, but if you have trouble, you can see the shot here, and a gigantic gonzo version of the image here.
Billy Crudup may be Dr. Manhattan.
Luigi- lost your email address.happy belated 4th.
Thanks. I'll send it to you.
Carla Gugino is Sally Jupiter.
Director Zack Snyder shows his storyboards in comparison to the original comics.
Fox sues Warners, claiming that they, Fox, have the movie rights.
Interview with Dave Gibbons, the artist on the Watchmen comic book, on what he thinks of the production of the film, and of director Zack Snyder.
AWESOME trailer!
Compare the trailer's images to those from the graphic novel here.
Rotten Tomatoes has a nice little analysis of the trailer here.
Poster Comparisons. Roll over them with your mouse to see the film versions, or flip them all simultaneously by rolling over the Flip All button.
Judge rules FOX has a copyright interest in the film.
A settlement has been reached.
A behind the scenes video on Rorschach, and the sfx used to bring his mask to life.
(There is a shot or two in the video from the filming of the movie that may be NSFW.)
I haven't read the Watchmen graphic novels. Anyone have any idea if this flick is worthwhile for a newbie?
Let's face it, if Luigi can't be bothered writing a review of a graphic novel, I doubt it'll entertain the masses.
having said that, i enjoyed immensly!
What if the Watchmen were a cheesy kid's cartoon? Some fan animator decided to show us. Thank god it's nothing official, that would give Alan Moore a coronary.
Interestingly, the vid depicts the Watchmen as they appear in the comic book (which I'm currently reading), but Silk Spectre II's costume is the one from the movie, albeit with the flowing sleeves from the comic book.
All jokes aside, have you seen the film Luigi? I would really love to know your opinion on it- good or bad.
If you thought the cheesy cartoon was strange, imagine if Moore had been working for peanuts.
See, the Peanuts version is actually cute and sweet. The Saturday-action-type thing, on the other hand, is just sad.
Yeah, sadly hilarious.
Roger Ebert gave the film four out of four stars.
Before I saw this movie I barely even heard about the Watchmen, so I had no knowledge of them nor any expectations. I have to wonder, since DC is a bit behind the curve compared to Marvel when it comes to making movies, is Watchmen a popular enough series? Not that it has to be to make a movie out of, I'm just curious.
Anyway, I liked the movie! I thought it was written well, the effects were fantastic, it had a good flow to it... but one of my critiques is that it felt too long to me. Although I recognize their importance to the story, some of the background clips could've been cut for the theater, and of course returned when its DVD/BR came out. The action and effects kept things interesting but it still seemed to take too long.
The other big gripe I had was, and without giving it away, the ending. For the so-called Smartest Man in the World, is that really the best way to bring peace about the world? Vulcan axioms aside, there has to be other choices out there because in this case the ends do not justify the means IMO.
Speaking as a superficial male, I don't like the fact that there were unequal female versus male displays of nudity, which in my experience is rare so I don't know why TPTB did it here.
I love the line "You people don't get it, I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!"
One more thing I forgot to add, if Dr. Manhattan killed Rorschach so he didn't spill his guts and disturb the peace wouldn't it also make sense to kill the guy who instigated the whole thing as well for putting them in that position? He killed millions of people and made the world think the Doctor did it. Granted they really couldn't retaliate against him, which is I'm sure why he did it, but he also made John kill a former colleague to keep that deception intact.
To better clarify what I meant by unequal displays of nudity, I don't think there needed to be any of the male side at all
Andrew, Watchmen was a 12-issue, 1986-87 miniseries. The characters first appeared in that miniseries, and most of them were pastiches of characters from Charlton Comics, which had been purchased by DC Comics. Writer Alan Moore wanted to use those characters, but because his story was so dark and depicted the characters in ways contrary to how they had been previously depicted, DC Comics refused to let him, so Moore settled for making pastiches. Two of the characters were pastiches of characters from companies other than Charlton.
It's considered to be probably the greatest graphic novel of all time in the American comic book industry, and is one of the reasons why writer Alan Moore is so highly regarded. Both he and artist Dave Gibbons are also highly regarded for the series' visual storytelling, the subtexts, the visual motifs, the themes explored, etc.
The best way for the uninitiated to understand its impact is to look it up on Wikipedia. (It's a featured article, incidentally.) Specifically, the "Art and composition" and "Themes" sections go into detail in analyzing the series, and the "Publication and reception" section details how and why the miniseries was regarded as it was by not only the comic book industry, but even the mainstream press as well, such as Time magazine, which ranks it as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present.
As for the ending, I read that Zack Synder changed the ending from the miniseries. I don't know why (I'm still reading the graphic novel now), but I know that Peter David once opined that the story "fell apart" by the ending.
Watchmen opens with more than $55 million, but still below expectations.
I didn't realize projections for the movie had been so high. I always figured it was a little more cult than that, so I was thrilled just to see it have such a strong opening weekend.
And Snyder does indeed change the ending. SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING
I think it works for the most part. A few of the later changes in the story do ground it slightly more in the reality of the story. They also make it more emotional since, if I remember right, Dan didn't witness nor really had any reaction to Rorschach's death. Though I am somewhat disappointed that they cut Mahattan's last conversation with Ozy, since that was a good hint of the ultimate fate of his new world. Laurie gets the line instead, and I'm not sure I think Dan's final proclamation to Ozy resonates as much as Manhattan's conversation did. But that's just my opinion.
END SPOILER WARNING
Oh, and I forgot to post my one potential nit.
That explosion that Laurie runs from. It conveniently doesn't follow her into the open hatch of Archie. The way it engulfed half of the ship, it seems like a firey inferno should have been roaring through that door and consuming some of those inside as well.
Thank you for the info Luigi, I will definetly check those sites out! I heard from a co-worker who has read the books what that ending was like but if you're still reading I won't say anything.
Josh, what conversation are you referring to that they cut from the doc, the one Laure apparently had instead?
Was the idea of retiring the supers in The Incredibles taken from the Watchmen? It's obvious where he got his name but is it explained how Rorschach's mask moves around like that? Did all the heroes except Dr. Manhatten just have increased strength and agility?
Dr. Manhattan's pnis offends some conservative critics.
Given how influential Watchmen is, Andrew, including to comic book writers (and writers in general), it wouldn't surprise me if the creators of The Incredibles were so influenced. (And btw, it was only one site, Wikipedia. Two different pages, though.)
Hey, I found away to get the word pnis through the censorware! Just use an "e" with an accent!
(Note: This is not license to try to get any and all censored words through. This instance is valid because the word is legitimately used in a discussion.)
A review at Pajiba, whose reviews I liked to read.
Luigi - 'Dr. Manhattan's pnis offends some conservative critics.'
Reminds me of that line from Bill Murray in 'Ghostbusters'; "It's true...this man has no d***!' Geez, all of us guys have one, and to see it on the screen is weird, but to be offended? We're all here because of our father's shlong.
I, too, went into the movie aware of the graphic novel, but hadn't read it, and really didn't know the characters.
I liked it very much, and found Rorschach to be the most fascinating character. The graphic violence, deaths, and sex were also surprising to me, but not unexpected. It wass also enjoyable enough to make me want to see it again, AND check out the comic.
Luigi, we're still waiting to hear your review! For someone that kept this board alive for 2 years, I'm also interested in know what you thought of the movie.
Thanks, but I haven't seen it yet. I'm still reading the graphic novel, and I had to put it down to attend to some other things, including cleaning up in preparation for a May visit from my godparents and cousin, and inking the one-page Slingshot sequence and emailing it to Jay Faerber. I did that this morning, and he said it'll run in issue #22. I just finished posting it in my MySpace blog and on my Facebook.
And please, don't use profanity on Nitcentral. I censored the offending word in your post above.
Adam Bomb (from the Current State of the Economy board in PM): I don't know if this is a sign of the times, but Watchmen took in $55.2 million its opening weekend. That's less than I expected, as the film was enormously hyped. It may be due to the film's long running time (about 2:45) which limits the number of daily runs. Still though, I expected about $80 million. Also, I think the movie was released at the wrong time (they should have held it until the summer) but what do I know.
Luigi Novi: I'm not surprised that it did only moderately well. The Watchmen are not very well-known characters outside of comics (hell, even within comics, they were only used in one twelve-issue miniseries, and were pastiches of other characters only slightly more well-known to comic readers), and unlike Synder's previous film, the trailer and commercials do not give as visually straightforward and arresting concept of what the movie's about.
The reported poor quality of the most recent quasi-all-CGI film, Frank Miller's The Spirit, might also have turned off audiences to this type of film to some degree.
The economy? Possible. But the thing is, the entertainment industry typically does well during economic downturns.
It's obvious where he got his name but is it explained how Rorschach's mask moves around like that? - AWhite
IIRC, in the comic books, Rorschach's alter ego worked in the garment industry and got a hold of some very experimental clothing material - one that constantly changed its pattern. (It was meant for women's dresses, IIRC.) He stole some of it and used it to create his mask.
Did all the heroes except Dr. Manhatten just have increased strength and agility? - AWhite, part II
Again, in the comics, they didn't even have that. They were all pretty much just ordinary humans who were at peak human condition.
"Hurm."
The other super element was the Nightowl's "Archie" & other equipment, I've not read the GN to find their origin.
Yeah, I didn't mention "Archie" and Night Owl's equipment, because I don't necessarily consider that a "super power". Lord knows, Stan Lee, back when he was Marvel's main writer, did. But I reckon it could be added. They are, admittedly, fantastical elements, though.
"Hurm."
Oops! Sorry, I didn't know the D-word wasn't allowed.
Still, the P-word is much more explicit, even with the little thingy you put on the 'e', than my D-word.
And aren't you grouping yourself with the conservative critics by being offended by my D-word? Isn't it a double-standard for you to write the P-word but censure my D-word? Is anybody here reading this offended by such words? Or is it a word strictly forbidden by Nitcentral?
No offense take, just curious.
In any event, Murray was questioning the other guy's courage and manhood, because he didn't want the Ghostbusters to deal with the problems, not his actual lack of male genetalia.
Don't sweat it, Steve. But in answer to your comments, the p-word is the scientific name for that portion of the anatomy. The d-word is a profanity.
Please understand, however, that I am not offended by that word. You can ask people who have spoken to me off-Nitcentral, like Benn, who will tell you that I can sometimes use a salty expletive or two myself. It's that this is Phil's site, and Phil is a devout Christian who has dedicated Nitcentral as a family friendly site, where profanity is not permitted. I'm just following his wishes, Steve.
I also don't think that this sentiment is "conservative". I don't think "liberals" like such language to be used in forums designated as family-friendly either.
Please understand, however, that I am not offended by that word. You can ask people who have spoken to me off-Nitcentral, like Benn, who will tell you that I can sometimes use a salty expletive or two myself. - Luigi
You and me both, brah. You and me, both.
Okay. D-word will not be used by me again.
But it was a funny line from 'Ghostbusters'
Otherwise...still waiting for the Novi Expose on this film.
Got to see the movie today. The only nit I saw occured when Sally and Laurie talk the first time. At one point, you see Sally start to put her drink down. The camera shifts angles and Sally is putting the drink down again.
Overall, this was a damned good comic book adaptation. Several scenes looked exactly as David Lloyd drew them. And every actor inhabited their roles so well... I mean, they were the characters. They were exactly how I envisioned Rorschach, Nite Owl, Dr. Manhattan, etc. Perfect.
On the other hand, as should be obvious, several subplots were dropped from the book. The main one being the newstand one. The newstand owner and the kid reading the comic do make a cameo near the end of the film. But they exist more as a shout out to those of us who've read the comics and are fans of it. Hollis Mason's subplot was also dropped, though he and Daniel share a scene early in the picture.
I was also annoyed with some of the songs picked to play in the movies. Many a times I found the songs, "All Along the Watchtower", "99 Luftballons", etc. to be very distracting.
I was also disappointed that the Comedian's smiley face, a recurring visual symbol throughout the comics, was almost completely missing from the movie. The smiley face would appear sublimally, sometimes even blatantly, throughout the comic. In the movie, it reappears only twice. Once on Mars (one of the most famous moments in the comics, BTW) and on the t-shirt of the Nova Express worker. Beyond that, it was discarded by Zack Snyder.
A few other things missing that was not exactly annoying, but I did notice. Aside from the Comedian, virtually no one smokes in the film. Throughout the comic books, we Silk Spectre, her mom and others smoking cigarettes in what look like a crack pipe. Which is probably why it wasn't used.
Also MIA were the electrical outlets seen throughout the streets of New York in the comics. (All cars in Watchmen were electric.)
Now, I do have to talk about Ozymandias' master plan. And just to warn you all, Ye've been warned.
In the comics, Adrian's plan was have everyone think that aliens were attacking the world. It's very doubtful this plan would work. Or that it would work very long. On the other hand, having the world think Dr. Manhattan is attacking the world is worse. At that point in the film, Russia is set to attack the U.S. The only place we see Dr. Manhattan's "attack" is in New York - the U.S. You think Russia is going to call off their because Manhattan has struck their enemy? I think it's more likely that the USSR would speed up their attack, thinking America has been weakened and will be fighting a two front war.
But even if the "Manhattan attack" really did bring the two countries together, how long do you think it'd last? How long were we, as a nation, united after the 9/11 attack? Seems to me we're back to be fractious again.
And how come the people Adrian turns into "Manhattans" don't develop powers like Jon Osterman (Dr. Manhattan)? Or if that comes later for them, what happens to Ozymandias' plans when they do?
And how is it, that Jon has such powers over molecules, but he can't clear up the static created by the tachyons that prevented him from seeing the future clearly?
Overall, I thought this was a pretty good film. A lot more violent and bloody than I expected. But still, it's probably the best and most faithful of the films that have adapted Alan Moore's works.
"You people don't understand! I'm not locked in here with you! You're locked in here with me!" - Rorschach
Oh, an interesting little subtlety I noticed in the film: Throughout the movie, it's bandied about that Ozymandias is working on an alternate fuel source. Look very carefully at the TV monitors in his Antarctica hideaway. On the left of the screen that shows Rorschach and Nite Owl entering the building, you can see the movie Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior playing. I find it interesting and subtle (and probably unintentionally so) because two of the major plot points of The Road Warriors are the acquisition of gasoline (fuel) and nuclear destruction.
Oh, and one other nit I thought of while watching the film. Whenever you type your password into a computer, it's shows up on your screen as, say, "******". When Daniel tries to figure out what Ozymandias' password is, we see the words he types. Maybe 1985 computers were different than computers of the last ten years or so?
"Give me back my face!"
quote:Benn: In the comics, Adrian's plan was have everyone think that aliens were attacking the world. It's very doubtful this plan would work. Or that it would work very long. On the other hand, having the world think Dr. Manhattan is attacking the world is worse. At that point in the film, Russia is set to attack the U.S. The only place we see Dr. Manhattan's "attack" is in New York - the U.S. You think Russia is going to call off their because Manhattan has struck their enemy? I think it's more likely that the USSR would speed up their attack, thinking America has been weakened and will be fighting a two front war.
Benn, I forgot to thank you for the answers to my questions, and for that I apologize.
Benn: I was also disappointed that the Comedian's smiley face, a recurring visual symbol throughout the comics, was almost completely missing from the movie.
I'm fairly certain every time the Comedian was around he had a smiley face somewhere on his clothes, or face
Richard: The other super element was the Nightowl's "Archie" & other equipment, I've not read the GN to find their origin.
According to the wikipedia article Luigi posted the technical elements of Night Owl was stemmed from the modern Blue Bettle.
Benn: And how come the people Adrian turns into "Manhattans" don't develop powers like Jon Osterman (Dr. Manhattan)?
I wondered that too. Maybe he just killed them to further implicate Jon without expecting them to return, but they were in his lab so that doesn't make much sense.
At first I thought Adrian set up multiple explosions, 15 rings a bell, but talking to others about makes me think it was just NY, so I don't know what to believe. If it was just NY I agree with Benn on how that would play out.
Josh, you may be right about the attack(s). If so, my confusion comes from a couple of sources. For one, the movie concentrates only the New York attack. For another, in the original comic book, the attack was in New York only, IIRC. Also, in the comics, Adrian Veidt uses the multiple TV monitor to take in information so he can keep up with being "the Smartest Man In the World".
Even though, Veidt's plan still is faulty. He couldn't have "Manhattan attacked" every nation on Earth. There's going to be a bunch of smaller nations that are going to eventually think, "Well, we weren't hit by Dr. Manhattan. We still hold a grudge against Country X. Let's pull a minor skirmish and see what happens." Unless Ozymandias Manhattan attacks them, this smaller nation will escalate its aggression, quite probably leading to war. Then when the big boys see the little countries getting by with it... Well, it's kinda obvious what'll happen, doncha think?
Even if that scenario doesn't happen, there's another that will. At some point, somebody's going to notice that Dr. Manhattan hasn't been seen for what, years? Maybe, just maybe, he's not watching us anymore? What if we did this and nothing happens? What if Adrian's dead when this occurs? It means the nations go back to business as usual and all Veidt's done is postpone World War III. He hasn't completely stopped it at all.
National personality conflicts are still going to exist in the Watchmen world. How does Adrian's plan resolve, say, one nation trying to get a better deal in the post Manhattan attack(s) treaties. (And don't tell me that none of the nations will. If they don't at the time of the treaties, they will eventually.) The Smartest Man in the World's plan only works in the short-term. Long term, it falls apart eventually.
I'm fairly certain every time the Comedian was around he had a smiley face somewhere on his clothes, or face - AWhite
Oh yeah. But what I'm talking about is something you'll notice if you've ever read the comic books. Throughout the twelve issues of Watchmen, the blood stained smiley face is a recurring motif. For instance, during a Halloween sequence, we see Hollis Mason carving a Jack-O'-Lantern. Some of the pumpkin's guts splatter over the right eye of the Jack-O'-Lantern recreating the Comedian's bloody smiley. The symbol also appears at one point in the reflection of one of Archie's windows. These are just two instances that pop into my head It's one of those things that makes the comic books so visually compelling. I'm not sure if Zack Snyder felt including them in the movie would be distracting or not and that's why they're not there. But I was kinda looking forward to spotting them, frankly. But they weren't there. 
BTW, another visual symbol that's missing from the flick is the nuclear radiation symbol. (If you're wondering what I'm talking about, you can see some here.) The only one I noticed are the ones created by the reel-to-reel tapes sitting by Adrian in his Antarctica base.
I wondered that too. Maybe he just killed them to further implicate Jon without expecting them to return, but they were in his lab so that doesn't make much sense. - AWhite
It really doesn't make sense, because if Veidt could do that, why not kill Jon, also?
Benn, I forgot to thank you for the answers to my questions, and for that I apologize. - AWhite
No need to apologize and you're welcome. Hope it helped.
"Men go to jail. Dogs get put down." - Rorschach
And this isnt a sarcastic heading.
Cute line: Im not a comic book villain. Ozymandias to Nite Owl and Rorschach at the end of the film, explaining that he implemented his scheme 35 minutes previously, and wouldnt have explained it to them if he had not done so.
In brief: An interesting experience, especially when comparing it to the source material, but not much else. Not an awful film, but not a very good one, either.
Going in to see Watchmen, the film was already at a bit of a disadvantage in that I didnt really care for the source material. I went anyway, not only because I had been looking forward to it for a year or two, but because I had enjoyed Alan Moores other work, as well as Zack Synders previous film, so I figured that perhaps the filmmakers could present the material in a way that Id like. In watching the film, however, Im struck yet again with the observation that how well a film adaptation from another medium, especially comics, depends not only on how well the filmmaker stays true to the source material, but how well he does not.
Up until 2000, only the former was a problem, as most adaptations of comic book properties were marred by serious deviations from the source material that were not merely cosmetic, but violated the essence of those properties. With the advent of X-Men and other films, this problem seemed to me to be corrected. But with 2005s Sin City, it seemed to that some filmmakers were overshooting the mark and ending up on the opposite end of the Adaptation Fidelity Spectrum, and adapting the material too closely. To me, changes from the source material are not inherently bad, any more than theyre inherently good, but are predicated on whether they help to make a good film, and serve to capture the essence of the material, rather than a literal reiteration of it. What I notice about the not-faithful-enough and the too-faithful end of the spectrum is how they both manifest to the same effect: In both cases, the result is corny, campy, obsessed with being referential, and cloistered from naturalistic storytelling. The former because the adapters perceive the source medium to be corny, and assume that the film adaptation must therefore be as well (Ed Begley Jr. discovering Jim Carrey up to no good in Batman Forever), the latter because, well, much of whats in comics works on the page, but is corny and campy on film (Josh Hartnet musing on the sound effect of a gunshot in Sin City, even though this is only done in the comics because comics dont have sound).
The problem I saw with the graphic novel is that Alan Moore seemed more interested in theme than in plot. Usually bad writing is characterized by the opposite problem. But Watchmen was so labyrinthine in its inclusion of copious subtext, backstory, and even what appeared to be filler not pertinent to the main story, that that central narrative seemed hopelessly lost, resembling a story saddled with perpetual exposition. When stripped of all the bells and whistles, the mystery of who killed Blake and why didnt seem very interesting at all, but a trite, color-by-numbers supervillain yarn. Alan Moore structured all the add-ons so that readers could enjoy different interconnected parts of the narrative at their own leisure during a long sitting (which is why he was opposed to most attempts at adapting it for film), but I didnt see the point of the central story if all those detours didnt support it. (Its interesting to note that Roger Ebert also perceived the story to be less focused on plot.) In the same way that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings to showcase his languages at the expense of story, Moore sacrificed story for theme. This wasnt a problem for the LOTR films, because Peter Jackson is at heart a storyteller, and wasnt so blindly attached to the letter of the novels that he was unwilling to structure the material to make an entertaining story from its spirit.
Zack Synder, however, doesnt seem to go that route with Watchmen. While he and fellow screenwriters Kurt Johnstad and Michael Gordon added material to 300, thereby showing that they could add their own artistic vision to interpreting someone elses story, they show no such sentiment with Watchmen. Perhaps their additions to 300 were made more to pad out Frank Millers rather threadbare book and create a sense of multi-setting rhythm, which Watchmens more dense narrative didnt allow, but in any case, they still asserted a sense of style with the filming techniques, music, and other things with which they made Miller's work their own. Watchmen, however, was so slavish in its recreation of the book that it seemed to be suffocating. Dont get me wrong, it was off to a good start. The fight choreography during Eddie Blakes murder was beautiful, and setting it to Nat King Coles Unforgettable was a hauntingly good choice. The subsequent opening titles set to Bob Dylans The Times They Are a-Changin created a wistful sense of nostalgia. These were nice touches, and were a glimpse of what a good storyteller can do when adapting anothers work.
But for the most part, the film treads no new ground. The visuals were obvious, the music lacked any subtlety, and the dialogue was stilted. I wasnt sure if this was the dialogue itself or simply bad acting (Malin Ackermans scenes stood out to me as particularly bad), but either way, it just didnt feel natural. When Nite Owl asks Whats happened to America? Whats happened to the American Dream? in the comic, it may not be that natural, but it can work more easily because the reader can imagine it being delivered rhetorically, in a whisper, etc. (Hell, a lot of comic book monologues can work if the reader imagines them as internal thoughts, even if the creators insist on presenting them as verbal). In the film, scenes like this and others, like the Crimebusters meeting, Lauries heart-to-heart at the end with her mother, etc., just didnt work for me. Instead of choosing that corny music during Dan and Lauries love scene onboard the Archie, and shooting it with actual pelvic thrusts, he mightve been better-served with more subtlety. Instead of such robotic duplication of the comics 1985 setting, complete with a shot framing the World Trade Center that was about as subtle as a lead pipe, imagine what it mightve been like if Synder and company actually decided to be bold, maybe deviated a bit, and see if they couldve recreate the story in a post-9/11 setting, perhaps with Ozymandias engineering the nuke to appear to be the work of Iran or North Korea. Perhaps the story could focus on the nostalgia for the Cold War, and its more simple Good USA vs. Evil Soviet Union conflict. When you consider screenwriter David Hayters comments that the new [post-9/11] global climate has finally caught up with the vision that Alan Moore had in 1986. It is the perfect time to make this movie, one wonders what mightve been if he had tried to bring the story out of its four-color shell. Instead, the only major divergence is in the removal of the giant telepathic squid, which, while a relief, was too little, too late.
Was the film bad? No. But at the same time, it wasnt that great either. At best, I can say that for the $6.50 matinee price, it was interesting to see it, and to see how Synder brought it to live-action form. I say Snyder and not Snyder and Hayter because, well, realistically, what did Hayter bring to the project that wasnt in the book, aside from typing it in the right format? Whereas I made a point of reading V for Vendetta and 300 before seeing the film adaptations, which I think served me well (it caused me to see how a frenetic, too-quickly paced action mess the former was, and allowed me to appreciate how the latter improved on the source material), when I was done seeing Watchmen, I wondered how differently I mightve reacted to it had I not read the book. I dont think I wouldve thought any better of the performances, dialogue and camerawork, but Im curious as to how I mightve articulated it without being able to compare it to the source.
---NITS & NOTES
Edward Blake’s apartment number was 300. Zack Snyder presumably did this as a nod to his previous film, 300. But wouldn’t this be the number to an apartment on the third floor? Blake’s was obviously on a floor way higher than that.
During the assassin’s murder of Eddie Blake, he at one point slams his arm down on a counter, and, IIRC, sticks a utensil through his arm, or through his bathrobe sleeve. Ozymandias actually did this to Rorschach at the end of the story in the book. Since they didn’t use that tactic in the movie, having the assassin use it on Eddie during the opening scene was a nice touch, particularly for those who read the book and remembered that move, because it serves as a reminder to those readers of who the assassin is. However, the assassin is later shown during a flashback, with his face visible, and IIRC, it was not Ozymandias, but the goon who shot at Veidt and Iacocca subsequently.
I didn’t think Andy Warhol’s hairline looked right, but I found his appearance in the film to be cute. I thought it unfortunate, however, that although the film depicted his use of art in relation to super-heroes, that some attempt wasn’t made at making some mention of his Rorschach inkblots, since those are among the works he was known for, and it would’ve been a nice in-joke or nod to the character Rorschach.
As in the book, Rorschach loudly breaks the glass window of a door, and no one hears. It’s even worse than in the book, IIRC, because the scene in the movie actually shows him having just passed by a couple of guards who should’ve heard the glass breaking.
One of the things I feared about the film was that they’d cast perfectly attractive people, and eschew the fact that Dan Dreiberg is overweight, that Kovacs was said to be ugly, that Laurie is said to be in her mid-thirties, etc. I was glad to see that Dan is depicted to have a belly in some shots (though he appears svelte in his nude dream sequence with Laurie—then again, it was a dream), and that Jackie Earle Haley, who isn’t particularly ugly in real life, was made up to be rough-looking in the film. Actress Malin Ackerman isn’t 35, but she’s 30, which is close enough. However, I think they failed in this regard is with Janey Slater and the elder Sally Jupiter. Actress Laura Mennell is just way too-drop dead beautiful throughout her scenes (except for the cancer scene), and the creators didn’t really do much to make her look “older” in the scene in which she accuses Dr. Manhattan of “chasing jailbait” Silk Spectre II because she’s getting older. (Ironically, Malin Ackerman, who plays Laurie, is two years older than Laura Mennell, who plays Janey.) And Carla Gugino really doesn’t look 67 depicting her as the elder Sally. (Then again, thank God they didn’t give her that awful-looking mullet!) I also thought it was cool that they cast Matt Frewer as Moloch. That was a nice touch.
I got the sense that placing the Twin Towers right in the center of that show when Veidt is being interviewed was intended as some type of statement, but I’m not sure what it was. Was it supposed to be a reminder that this was a pre-9/11 story, in order to emphasize its Cold War setting?
When the Soviets invade Pakistan, Nixon orders to the country to be taken to Defcon 2. When did it go to Defcon 4 and 3?
Having an actual Rorschach pattern left where Rorschach stood after Dr. Manhattan murders him was a nice touch. I’m surprised Moore and Gibbons didn’t think of that in the book.
Given that Laurie and Nite Owl expressed a refusal to go along with Ozymandias’ scheme, why doesn’t Dr. Manhattan kill them too? In the book, he killed Rorschach because Rorschach was the only one who refused to do so.
---DIFFERENCES FROM THE BOOK
In the book, Rorschach hides in Moloch’s fridge, and then jumps out to interrogate him. In a later, second interrogation scene, he stuffs Moloch into his own fridge. In the film, these two scenes are condensed into one. Rorschach leaves a note for Moloch in the fridge, and creeps up behind him while Moloch finds it, and then stuffs him in the fridge.
In the book, Veidt’s would-be assassin attacks him in a lobby area of his building, and fatally shoots his secretary, with whom he just descended an escalator. In the movie, the assassin shows up in Veidt’s office, where Vedit is speaking with a group of industry leaders. The secretary is only shot through the lower leg, and Lee Iacocca is fatally shot in the head. This actually made the “who hired the assassin” plot point a bit different, because by attacking him in the building’s lobby, the assassin comes off as a lone nut, whereas different implications and questions are raised by his ability to penetrate Veidt’s office. Sure, he had some type of package, so we can surmise that he passed himself off as a delivery man, but isn’t closer track kept of such deliveries, and where the delivery men take them?
No one leaves a note, ostensibly from Moloch, for Rorschach to come to his apartment, making the obvious setup seem a bit less ominous. Instead, Rorschach just goes there because of “clues”. I know they had to condense the story, but I think it works best when the story is shown instead of told. Having him find the note and act on it presented a scene in which Rorschach interacted with the assassin on a visceral, physical level that would’ve been visually stimulating to the viewer. Having him just mention “clues” made it seem glossed over to me.
I don’t recall any mention of how Kovacs created the Rorschach mask in the film. This is unfortunate, because it was kinda cool, and I’d wonder if moviegoers (and nitpickers) who hadn’t read the book would be left wondering how the mask worked.
Rorschach kills Grice with a meat cleaver, instead of leaving him a hacksaw strong enough to only cut through the handcuffs and setting fire to the place. Why was this? The latter was far more interesting and subtle storywise than the former.
When rescuing the inhabitants of the burning building, Dan puts out the fire by shooting at the water tank atop the building’s roof, causing it to topple over, instead of using Archie’s water cannon. Do buildings really have those tanks?
After Rorschach ties together Larry’s hands through the bars of his prison cell, thus blocking the lock, his comrades slit his throat, which I pointed out does nothing to unblock the lock. The movie fixes this, by having them cut off Larry’s forearms with a chainsaw. Of course, I’d still wonder what was stopping Larry from just pulling his arms out as far as they would go, and then having the chainsaw-wielding con cut the fabric Rorschach used to tie ‘em together.
In the book, Rorschach calmly cracks his prison cell’s toilet to kill the guy with the electrically-powered torch, showing how he deliberately uses what’s available as a weapon. In the movie, the other con accidentally cracks it with his head by falling it, which is merely serendipitous for Rorschach, and robbing the scene of the illustration of that prior character trait.
Rorschach gets his trench coat, fedora and mask from a room in the prison where they’re stored before breaking out, instead of going back to his apartment for him. This was a good idea, and a nice way to condense the narrative.
In the book, Nite Owl guesses Rameses II as Ozymandias’ password because it was the ancient Egyptian name for Ozymandias. In the movie, he simply guesses it because it was the title of a book on his desk. This indicates far less intelligence in the choosing of the password, and in the proper guessing of it.
Ozymandias uses a nuclear explosion whose energy signature is the same as Dr. Manhattan’s implicating him in the disaster. In the book, he uses some type giant, telepathic squid. (Thank God.)
Nite Owl refuses to go along with Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan’s hoax about the nuke, and follows Rorschach outside of Karnak, and is horrified by Dr. Manhattan’s murder of Rorschach. In the book, he agrees to keep it a secret, and instead of going outside, shares a romantic moment with Silk Spectre.
Bubastis is blue instead of red.
The young African-American newsstand customer looks much older.
Luigi Novi: Edward Blake's apartment number was 300. Zack Snyder presumably did this as a nod to his previous film, 300. But wouldn't this be the number to an apartment on the third floor?
It may have been a glare or something but I think Blake's apartment number was 3001.
LN: Do buildings really have those tanks?
I don't know about now but some used to, especially cheaper apartment buildings on the outskirts of large cities. Perhaps they still have them in other parts of the world.
This movie came out for rent/purchase on Tuesday if anybody is interested. Benn, I agree that Oz's scheme to prevent World War III would not last all that long, but that's especially true considering Rorschach's journal
Aside from one or two songs I really liked the soundtrack to this movie.
Josh: That explosion that Laurie runs from. It conveniently doesn't follow her into the open hatch of Archie. The way it engulfed half of the ship, it seems like a firey inferno should have been roaring through that door and consuming some of those inside as well.
I thought this at first as well, but upon second viewing you can see the hatch immediately close behind her when she runs across.
Benn: The newstand owner and the kid reading the comic do make a cameo near the end of the film.
They can also be seen on the street after Dan and Laurie leave the diner, I think that's them anyway.
LN: During the murder of Eddie Blake, he at one point slams his arm down on a counter, and, IIRC, sticks a utensil through his arm, or through his bathrobe sleeve.
I may have missed it but I don't think Oz stuck anything in Eddie's arm or through his bathrobe, just broke it on the table.
LN: The movie fixes this, by having them cut off Larry's forearms with a chainsaw. Of course, I'd still wonder what was stopping Larry from just pulling his arms out as far as they would go, and then having the chainsaw-wielding con cut the fabric Rorschach used to tie them together.
Although he probably could've pulled his arms out a little more, it wouldn't have been enough to reach the fabric with that side-cutter, circular saw.
As Benn was kind enough to point out, aside from John, the others were just very good fighters with no extrodinary abilities. How then did a tall skinny guy like Adrian thrice pick up Blake, who is probably twice his weight, and throw him around? I still think the Doc should've killed Adrian as well at the end.
Benn: The only place we see Dr. Manhattan's "attack" is in New York - the U.S.
Me: At first I thought Adrian set up multiple explosions, 15 rings a bell, but talking to others about [it] makes me think it was just NY, so I don't know what to believe.
Josh was correct, you can cleary see explosions in multiple cities on Oz's monitors, not actual footage but in an animated way. The 15 I spoke of were the casualties in the millions.
Benn: And how come the people Adrian turns into "Manhattans" don't develop powers like Jon Osterman (Dr. Manhattan)?
Me: I wondered that too. Maybe he just killed them to further implicate Jon without expecting them to return, but they were in his lab so that doesn't make much sense.
Perhaps since Adrian poisoned the champagne they toasted with before they were demolecularized they will not return as Manhattanites. The cool-looking tiger-thing, maybe because he was an animal.
I re-watched this movie over the last three nights and that breaks up the movie nicely, and allows me to notice more things since I don't write them down
As for why they didn't develop powers, maybe it's for the same reason that Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Matt Murdock and the Fantastic Four may have developed superhuman abilities instead of dying of cancer or radiation poisoning: they probably each had some type of genetic condition that made them react to radiation by mutating positive adaptive traits, instead of dying.
(With them, though, this was engineered by the Celestials, according to one of those X miniseries by Alex Ross, Jim Kruger and John Paul Leon.)
Not a bad film, and one which manages to be self contained enough to draw you in. There are, naturally, problems with it but then no film is perfect. Pacing seems to me to have been one of the major problems. But I'm not sure if this is really a problem of the film as such. Rather I think that this is a problem with the advertising giving a false impression of more action and comparisons with the run of superhero movies that are purer action films - regardless of any claims made by the actors/directors of those films.
Observations;
Apparently the original cut of the film was around 3 hours long, so a considerable amount of footage had to be removed to get the screened version of the film. According to IMdb and other sources a full directors cut of the film will be released in November with all of these missing scenes (and some plot-lines) restored.
The scientists OZ had at his facility were dead before the machine was started and vaporised them.
As such they would not turn into Doc M's.
Confirmed that New York was not the only City Oz destroyed (or rather attacked). New York was only the last city on the list to be attacked. The displays clearly show that London, Los-Angeles and Moscow (amongst other cities) had already been attacked prior to New York.
The argument that other nations who were not attacked might try and take advantage of their 'weakened' opponents doesn't hold water. While a serious blow the loss of one (or for the US two) major cities would not have any significant affect on their military strength, since military units are not usually assigned inside cities in any strength. Even if they are the number of troops is small, and doesn't include major military assets.
Even economically the nations affected by the attacks may come off better than expected. The cost of reconstructing the cities attacked could help boost the economy's of the countries involved, and those that they would have to buy materials from.
The cities attacked were not totally destroyed - seen both by the damage done to New York and that everyone is (apparently) back in the city at the end of the film.
The fact that the worlds leaders survived the attacks isn't surprising, even if the capitol cities were attacked and destroyed. If there is a strong likely-hood of a major war a countries leaders would be taken away from the capitol to safer locations - Nixon is, apparently, not in Washington but on Air Force one. The same probably holds for his counterparts around the world.
Nits
The first time we see Laurie being teleported by Doc M she appears next to a toilet and proceeds to be sick. She then has diolog with her Mother that explains that being teleported always makes her feel ill, if not being physically sick.
However she is teleported another three times after this, and doesn't show the slightest discomfort after any of these appearances.
The MAD defensive set up would have a nuclear counterstrike being automatically launched if any probable nuclear attacks were detected on your country. As such the attacks should have started the war they were meant to prevent.
Anti-Nit; It is possible that only the USA has such a system in place...which would explain why Nixon was (reasonably) confident that they could take out the Russians before they launched most of their arsenal. This would also explain why New York was one of the last cities attacked - it would give the US time to work out that someone else was responsible for the attacks.
After killing the scientists Oz walks over them, through the middle of the machine and up the stairs to the main area of the complex. The machine starts up to destroy the bodies as he reaches the stairs.
Later Oz has to descend the stairs, walk though the machine, run around the corner, flick several switches and then push a button to activate the machine...so how was the machine started up the first time?
When the Owl and Spectre come out of retirement they hover above the city for some length of time, in full view of the entire population, without anyone calling on the military or police to at least investigate an unknown aircraft hovering over a major population centre in what is basically wartime. That or no one is interested in tracking down fugitives in plane sight any-more....
MORE DIFFERENCES FROM THE BOOK:
In the book Rorschach goes to warn Adrian about the 'mask killer' himself, while in the movie Dan goes.
When Jon gets upset during the press conference he teleports everybody thire into the parking lot; in the movie he teleports himself to Mars.
In the Movie Dr. Manhattan claims Vietnam ended a week after he entered the conflict; in the book I believe it was three months.
The reason Jon goes back into the "intrinsic field" lab in the book was because he forgot Janey's watch that he fixed after it was stepped on at the carnival. In the movie it was his watch he forgot.
The flashback of the formation of the Crimebusters has Adrian presiding over the meeting, implying it was his idea; but the book has Captain Metropolis trying to start the group, then retiring shortly after, perhaps due to that seemingly lost cause and the Comedian insulting him and burning his display.
Cyber: Nixon is, apparently, not in Washington but on Air Force one.
I think that was one of the President's bunkers, or perhaps NORAD.
Cyber: Apparently the original cut of the film was around 3 hours long [...] a full directors cut of the film will be released in November with all of these missing scenes (and some plot-lines) restored.
Unless there's another coming out I think the directors cut (DC) came out the same time as the regular version. After seeing the DC there are indeed scenes restored that fans will enjoy. There's at least one more journal entry, another newspaper stand scene, more of the smiley and radiation symbols, more Crimebusters meeting, Rorschach going to Adrian's assassin's apartment, and a lot more Hollis including him getting beaten to death and Dan loosing it at the bar; et al.
Cyber: The first time we see Laurie being teleported by Doc M she appears next to a toilet and proceeds to be sick... However she is teleported another three times after this, and doesn't show the slightest discomfort after any of these appearances.
The final two times she's teleported she does indeed show discomfort. She doesn't vomit but bends over as if she may. The time on Mars she may not due to being unable to breathe when she first arrives.
One change from the book I mentioned, Jon's press conference, is fixed in the DC. Nixon is indeed in NORAD, and there's more scenes with him too, oh joy. I've read some background on Watchmen and apparently Nixon hired the Comedian to kill Kennedy and the two whistle-blowers on Watergate, amungst others I'm sure.
LN: When the Soviets invade Pakistan, Nixon orders to the country to be taken to Defcon 2. When did it go to Defcon 4 and 3?
I believe it was Afghanistan and it was likely set at Defcon 3 during the whole story.
Why did Adrian need to blow up so many cities? The US and Russia are obvious, and a couple more are semi-understandable, but why Paris, or Tokyo, or some of the others? I think there were 7 or 8 cities on those moniters, when only half probably would've had the same effect
Observations;
Just before Nixon tells the Joint Chiefs to go to Defcon 2 (one step below all out war) a status screen can be seen on the wall. This screen clearly indicates that the then current status was Defcon 3 - above normal readiness.
The cities destroyed were, going off the displays, Los Angeles, Paris, Beijing, Tokyo, London, Moscow and New York.
Apart from Japan, all the cities attacked are in countries that are not only nuclear powers but also form the permanent members of the the United Nations Security council.
Nit; When the Comedian is thrown out of the window he clearly rolls over in the air near the end of the fall, to fall towards the ground face first. (We see this twice, both in the opening and later When Rorschach is recounting his joke in the voice-over).
However somehow the Comedian is seen face up on the sidewalk after he landed. Indicating that he managed to twist around just before hitting the ground somehow.
The badge the Comedian was wearing is clearly seen to have fallen next to the body, then been within the large pool of blood that forms.
However the only blood seen on the badge is the drop of blood that fell off the Comedian's chin before he was thrown out of the window.
Even though it fell some 30 floors the Comedians badge manages to land on the sidewalk without receiving a single dent or scratch.
Likewise, the badge manages to be pulled or fall off the Comedians bathrobe without any signs of the pin having been damaged.
Both the scene in which the Comedian is thrown out of the window, and the later scene where the police are viewing the damaged windows show large jagged shards of glass were produced - as would be in keeping with the glass being plate glass. However the glass falling next to the Comedians body is smaller and not in keeping with the shards that were and should have been produced.
Watchmen premieres on HBO this Saturday, Jan. 9, at 8 p.m. With more runs over the next month or so. More information is here.
One minor nit that occurs during the titles, is that Miss Jupiter, the B-29 that bombs Nagasaki during the pre title sequence, has a full compliment of gun barbettes...
Although a nice CGI model, apparently nobody had a look at photos of Enola Gay, when rendering said model, as bombers allocated to the 509th Bombardment Group, were custom built for the role at the factory, & were never fitted with the barbette system, that standard B-29's had...
The reason for such omission, was it added weight (reportedly over 1 ton), & reduced the bombers speed
A Watchmen series, with Jeremy Irons, premieres on HBO this October 20.
Dang, I won't be able to see it anytime soon then. Regardless, I hope it's good!