BONUS: Watchmen - the Saturday Morning Cartoon: View here!
Uh, the populace at large doesn't know Manhattan is going to another galaxy; only Laurie and Veidt (and probably Dan) know that.
Yes, but if they know he was on Mars before, aren't they going to be a little suspicious of why he isn't there now?
Gotta disagree with you about Watchmen.Okay, fine. The ending doesn't make sense. But Alan Moore's alien squid ending made even LESS sense. First of all, what happens when the countries of the world unite together against a coming alien invasion...and the alien invasion inexplicably fails to occur? People don't stay united against an outside threat forever. Even you yourself said that Ozymandias' plan was doomed "due to common-sense about international politics".Also, they never said they couldn't have made a genetically-engineered squid-monster. In fact I'm pretty sure they specifically mentioned genetic engineering as a technology invented by Veidt's company at one point (I think it was the interview scene in his office). The reason they took out the squid was because IT WAS TOTALLY NONSENSICAL. For one thing, they created it from HUMAN DNA! Are you seriously trying to tell me that not one scientist would have looked at the thing's genes and realized "Hey, this thing isn't an alien at all!"? Besides, the squid-alien is just a Macguffin. For the purposes of the story it doesn't matter what outside threat the nations of the world united against as long as they unite against something. Dave Gibbons himself said so in an MTV interview:"What did I think about the squid-less ending? Well, I'm very relaxed about it. Alfred Hitchcock used to call things like the squid a MacGuffin — they're the thing, the device, that drives it, the gimmick. But they could be anything, in a way. ... The ending [Zack Snyder] put on is a different MacGuffin, but what I particularly like is it tied back into the story — it's not like, "Take that out, and slice something else in." It actually brings together threads that are in [either version of] the story."(link here: www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1606427/story.jhtml)And making Dr. Manhattan the outside threat makes a lot more sense from both a logical and a narrative standpoint. The world isn't going to stay afraid of an alien invasion that never materializes. But they're much more likely (though still not guaranteed) to stay afraid of an omnipotent god-being that can scorch entire continents or even planets with a wave of his hand. And in the narrative sense swapping out Dr. Manhattan for the squid-alien is much more elegant. As another reviewer said, "X trying to pin this on Y rather than on suddenly-introduced Z, is a good edit, limiting, as it does, the amount of craziness the viewer has to buy into to the craziness he's already bought into; that is, Y is already in the script, whereas Z is not". In other words, blaming Dr. Manhattan for everything makes more sense than having a giant psychic alien squid suddenly appear out of nowhere to destroy New York City.
So, the reason you were disipointed by it was the ending? Fair enough. I've done that a few times myself. (prefered the manga versions of .Hack//Twilight and Kashimashi over anime versions) I guess the fact that I haven't actually read the comic myself is why I liked it.
While I of course agree the peace couldn't last, having Dr. Manhattan as the Macguffin makes even less sense for enduring peace. The book does admit that it seems likely the alien's appearance was an accident and not a full-scale invasion, but the sympathy alone was enough to drive them closer to peace. Now I admit having it across the world made even more sense than just New York, since then they have a unifying event than just the pity, but the thing is, Dr. Manhattan, even if he did recently leave the planet, is STILL AN AMERICAN ICON IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD. It's like in Superman IV, the ridiculousness of him stepping in front of the UN assembly and saying, "Hi, I'm taking away all your nukes and there's nothing you can do to stop me." They wouldn't necessarily see him as an alien threat first, they'd see him for his symbolism for America, i.e. the ENEMY. And as many protests as the US government may make, the rest of the world can then say, "Well why the hell weren't you working on ways to stop him or keep him on a shorter leash? For all we know, you're so despicable that you tried to make it look like he's the one to fear when it was you who's STILL controlling him!"I really don't get why people have such a hard time buying the giant squid when they can easily accept the giant naked blue man who can teleport to Mars and build glass structures with his mind.
Some other things:- This is just my opinion, but Leonard Nimoy as Spock is actually a perfect example of why a robotic, totally unemotional character stinks. I never liked Spock. Ever. He's a dull, boring, Gary Stu character and always has been. Making Dr. Manhattan into Dr. Spock would have absolutely killed this movie for me. (yes I know his name isn't actually "Dr. Spock" but the joke wouldn't have worked otherwise)- From an economic standpoint, removing the renewable resource (not actual free energy, that's something different) was a much better explanation, IMO. In the graphic novel Dr. Manhattan basically supplies most of the world's energy and resources. If Dr. Manhattan were to suddenly *leave* a world that has become so dependent on him, the results would be devastating. I'm talking world-wide economic collapse. Ozymandias' plan for world peace would be totally useless then, wouldn't it? But changing it to Dr. Manhattan just making a bunch of scientific breakthroughs that yielded advanced technology makes a lot more sense. If the human race still produces most of its own energy and resources, the loss of Dr. Manhattan would not have such a devastating effect.- I disagree that the ending removes the moral ambiguity. Niteowl attacking Ozymandias and ranting at him doesn't remove the ambiguity, it *balances* the moral ambiguity. In the book the viewpoint of Ozymandias is CLEARLY given the most weight. All the characters except Rorschach agree that Ozymandias' plan is hard to swallow but necessary for world peace. ONLY Rorschach dissents. Having Niteowl witness Rorschach's death and then rant about how Ozymandias' plan is morally corrupt creates a more balanced moral message, with both viewpoints weighted relatively equally. And speaking of ambiguity, the final scene (in both the movie and the book) with Rorschach's journal in the "crank file" did have an ambiguous message, but it was separate and apart from the moral message. The ambiguity there was only concerning whether or not the world would find out, not whether Ozymandias did the morally right thing or not.- What on Earth is everyone's problem with Zack Snyder's action scenes? For that matter, what was your problem with 300?- Why no complaints about all the extended shots of Dr. Manhattan's junk? They didn't need half of those shots. A view brief glimpses to establish that, yes, he does prefer to run around in his baby-blue birthday suit, would have been just fine. That seems like a much more worthwhile thing to complain about than the Silk Specter's somewhat wooden acting.
My problem with 300 is that it's an historically inaccurate, racist, machismo-laden, nationalistic pile of garbage that further illustrates why Frank Miller shouldn't be writing anything. The slow-down, speed-up gag is just dull. I want actual action, not what looks like someone's hitting pause and then fast-forward on a video.As for Dr. Manhattan's wang, I'm confident enough in my sexuality to not be disturbed by male genitalea. Tell me, did you have the same reaction to Silk Spectre's breasts or her ass? Or perhaps we should censor Michaelangelo's David, as well, since that's just right there in our face. The inclusion of his nudity is something I'm glad for - showed that Snyder DID actually try to preserve the tone of the book, which DID include nude shots of Manhattan.
"The book does admit that it seems likely the alien's appearance was an accident and not a full-scale invasion, but the sympathy alone was enough to drive them closer to peace."Sympathy alone would never have driven the world to peace. Not in a million years. Sympathy over international terrorism hasn't driven the world to peace. It hasn't caused the nations of the world to come together in a grand alliance against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. And Dr. Manhattan may have been an American icon of sorts, but the fact that the world thinks he's wiped out several major American cities (not to mention the fact that the US government would have pretty much declared war on him) would kill that perception pretty quick.It really depends more on how the diplomats handle things. I find the idea that the US government managed to convince the other nations of the world that this wasn't America's fault much more plausible than the idea that anyone could literally build a giant psychic squid-alien on a secret island that wouldn't be instantly revealed as a fake upon closer inspection."I really don't get why people have such a hard time buying the giant squid when they can easily accept the giant naked blue man who can teleport to Mars and build glass structures with his mind."I could probably make some sort of quasi-profound comment on religion right here, but this post is getting long enough as it is.The reason people have trouble buying the giant psychic squid is that it seems to come right the frack out of nowhere. It's not so much a question of it making no logical or scientific sense (although that is a concern) it's a question of it making no narrative sense. It's like what you said in your Batman #147 review. In some comics, an invasion by an alien monster makes sense and fits with the story. In others it just seems out of place. And in Watchmen it definitely seems out of place. Nothing about aliens (whether of the outer space or extra-dimensional variety) is ever mentioned until the moment the giant psychic squid appears in New York. Maybe if Alan Moore had sprinkled the story with speculations about life on other planets or realities it would have fit a little better, but all we get is a few very brief mentions of "inter-dimensional studies" or somesuch by some sub-company owned by Ozymandias.
I have to agree with Might Samurai on the moral ambiguity of the ending, and the Squid making less sense than Dr. Manhattan being a red herring for the world governments. But, my take on that, as well as multiple cities being destroyed instead of just New York, is (and I'll get yelled at for this) an allegory for the search for bin Laden. While the general public was aware that Manhattan was on Mars, whose to say he didn't come back for a short period of time to do this (as little sense as that makes)? And the fact that they can't find find him, much like the US can't seem to find bin Laden, makes the threat seem to stay, especially given the god-like ability Dr. Manhattan has. But, on the other hand, I can see your argument as well. I think they didn't do the squid because it would look ridiculous in a movie (i.e. "Dreamcatcher's" ending was changed from the book and ruined the movie). Personally, I liked the movie, ending and all. They did over use the slow-mo, and I found Silk Specter's wooden acting more distracting than Dr. Manhattan being naked (which I was glad to see that they were willing to go that far to match the comic). I will say this though, I was kind of upset that they left out Hollis Mason's death. Maybe it'll be on the DVD (which is supposed to be over three hours long with more scenes from the comic), but to me, with the ending being changed, it seems like Hollis' death could have been an added motivation to attack Ozymandias in the end of the movie.On a last note, about changing certain things from the source material. My opinion is that if its too far from the source, a movie would fail, because it'll alienate the fans. But, if its too close to the source, the director risks losing other people. I feel that while the did stay pretty close to the comic, the needed to change certain things (i.e. the ending) in order to keep the movie inviting to new comers. If anything, it'll get people to read the book to find the differences, or even to enjoy it. Again, that's just my opinion.Oh, yes, Rorschach and Knight Owl were very well acted out.
"Tell me, did you have the same reaction to Silk Spectre's breasts or her ass?"Her naked breasts and ass? Yeah, I did. As a general rule I'm not a fan of nudity for the sake of nudity, which is what I think the filmmakers did here (they did it in 300 too, for that matter).And comparing this to Michelangelo's David is comparing apples and oranges. If I go to the Academy of Fine Arts in Florence, I don't have to see Michelangelo's David if I don't want to. I don't get David's wang forcibly shoved in front of my face.I don't mind that they included Dr. Manhattan's nudity (in fact like you I'm glad they didn't shy away from it), I'm just saying they kept his genitals on screen just a bit too long.
No hints? We have the island itself, where we saw a picture and a painting of the damn thing, we have the growing mystery of the missing scientists, artists, and etc. The problem is that the thing was hinted at in subtle ways that no one caught onto it. It comes out of nowhere because no one's looking for it.And you know what? I laughed at the alien suddenly appearing, but by your own admission the squid ISN'T really an alien. It's the culmination of a subplot that affects the main narrative. Sure, it's ludicrous, it's colorful, but that's comic books. Our lot loves the lavishly ludicrous. And despite Ozymandias' protests to the contrary, he IS a republic serial villain. His motives are irrelevant - he planned to take over the world his own way, even if he didn't think that's what he was really doing. And if he wasn't the kind of villian he thought he wasn't, he'd have just shot the two of them, shrugged it off, and went back to making sure his plan worked.That was another thing that bugged me - Ozymandias in the movie is also rather wooden. I kept expecting him to have his exclamation of "I DID IT!" like in the book, but instead he never smiles, never reacts, just has a blank look on his face. The only times he genuinely reacted were the fake assassination attempt and when Manhattan reached down through the glass (SO glad they kept that in, too, by the by, particularly with the dialogue).
I think you're really just nit-picking at the ending. It's just as convoluted as the novel's. I forget how they knew he was on Mars, maybe the giant clockwork structure was a hint. Then again if he's Dr.M is essentially a god if he really didn't want people to find him they probably wouldn't.Overall it could have been allot worse. They could have modernized it and basically changed the entire plot to revolve around the war on terror, which would have been horrid (you're probably reading into the cowboy president line a littler too much). They were smart enough to have Ozy destroy several cities instead of just New York in this ending. Honestly if aliens or Dr.M are just attacking New York wouldn't the Soviets have used it as an opportunity to attack. They could have not killed Rorschach, and completely screwed over the ending.Biggest thing I was surprised by was that it paced itself very well. I went in expecting it to feel rushed.
Huh. I expected to totally disagree with you on Watchmen, but I do think the ending was disappointing.Though it's kind of hard to agree with you on the point that the giant squid-psychic-manufactured-alien created by an island of Artists was less random than a machine that uses an omnipotent being that already generally feared by half the world as a cover-up by generating bombs out of his energy.I mean, sure, they're both pretty random, but the movie's ending would make more sense to the general public.Still, I'd love me a good 3d alien-squid.Also agree on the point about "WATCHMEN" never mentioned in the novel. It does ruin the point of the title and quote from Juvenal at the end.PS- Good to hear the new episode's coming along smoothly.;-)
We can agree to disagree on this one. Like I said, there are good parts and bad parts, I was just disappointed on one particular part.
In the book, they were referred to as "Crimebusters." I have a feeling that someone who had never read the comic would get confused as to why they're being called "Crimebusters" instead of "Watchmen," which is why, I think, they just called them "Watchmen" in the movie.As for the "Cowboy President" line, it could be about Bush, or it could be the actor/writer forgot one word in the line. I don't think one word in the line affects it too much though.
Maybe, maybe not. For purportedly trying to be accurate to the book they altered several lines of dialogue, including Ozymandias' "I'm not a republic serial villain" to "I'm not a comic book supervillain."
That's true too. Honestly, I though changing that line to "comic book villain" was a little cheesy.
"you're probably reading into the cowboy president line a littler too much"No, I have to agree with him. They were trying to sneakily reference George W. Bush. Ben suggested the actor may have flubbed the line, but even so the filmmakers had to know that people would think they were referencing George W. Bush. (Seriously, can anyone here honestly say they didn't immediately think of Bush the moment they heard the phrase "cowboy president"?) So if they didn't intend it to sound that way, why didn't they re-shoot the scene (or at least re-dub the line)?
I thought Watchman was okay, It's not my fave book, nor am I into Superheroes much. I prob. seen better anti-cold war works, in short just a minority. Now, if there was just an adaption of Cerebus!
I watched it with a group of friends, and none of us even thought that the "cowboy president" line referred to Bush. But, it may also be that we know a little about Reagan's movies as well.Again, people will take the line to mean different things. And as for leaving it the way it is, either it was about Bush, or they liked the line the way it was. It could be both. But to me, it doesn't matter because it was just one word.I will say this, though. I wasn't expecting the movie to be exactly like the comic, and I was pleased by it. Otherwise, I think I would be upset about the changes.
All i know is that the Nite Owl attacking Ozymandias made me think "Heroic Spaz Attack".
By the way, regarding the squid ending, this might explain the change, if IMDB is to be trusted:SPOILER: The original novel ends with Veidt teleporting a giant, genetically-engineered squid creature into the middle of Manhattan, which releases a telepathic burst that kills half the city's inhabitants. Veidt's goal was to convince the world that the squid creature was part of an alien or inter-dimensional invasion, believing that the nations of Earth would unite against the common threat. The director decided that the idea required too much backstory (the comic devotes a subplot to the creature's unwitting creators) and so altered Veidt's plan. Instead, he uses energy bombs based on Dr. Manhattan's powers to destroy cities around the world, framing the already-alienated superhero and uniting the world against him.
Couldn't agree more...this movie was so bad I left halfway throughtalk about a borefestI didn't even see the ending...glad i didn't.I wrote little thing on what I thought...could I get your opinion? http://napsblog.blogspot.com/
Hey, about Dr. Manhattan being the threat : you said it doesn't make sense since they can track him. If they knew he was on Mars, they must also know he's no longer on Earth, so the threat is removed and they can resume fighting.About that, in the comic they don't really know he's on Mars. They just assume he is, because that's what he told the janitor in issue 3, just before he left : you know, "I'm leaving, for Arizona first, then Mars."But anyway, I agree that this plan with Dr. Manhattan being the threat doesn't make much sense. The ending with the squid also seemed weird and over the top, but it worked for me at the time, mainly because I don't think Ozymandias' plot is the focus of the novel : as Gibbons says, it's a MacGuffin.But I can understand Snyder's choice not to include the squid and the whole backstory. I think the squid wouldn't have fitted the more slick, modern look of the movie ; when you look at it, Gibbons' art is much more gritty and dirty. And besides, it was the eighties, I believe that lavishly ludicrous perhaps isn't for the 21st century.Anyway, I didn't expect that much from Watchmen ; adapting an already visual work to another visual novel, especially if you're going to be ultra-faithful...what's the point ? If the movie doesn't have sth good and original in its own right, what the point ? Not to mention Zack Snyder adaptating Alan Moore...I don't know. Honestly, I doubt it presents that much of an interest.
The ending doesn't make sense but for me and my group it's a Fridge-Logic thing. Even then we all know now that a major threat on the USA does not result in world peace... Seeing how Dr M was their big weapon in Vietnam I'd think a lot of places would be feeling the schadenfreude...I have no problem with anyone taking pot shots at Bush... But I'm rather bitter about things like the global gag rule.Dr Manhattan reminded me a lot not of Spock but of Data... now that I think about it Data also spoke in the same tones... it made me want to pat him on the head and comfort himThat tiger came out of nowhere in the movie... as soon as I saw it I said 'I want one' but it still came out of no where and left me thinking wtf was that?My friends and I went to the movie without having read the comics precisely to avoid being disappointed though.
See now, I enjoyed most of this movie, but there were one or two things that really bugged me about it. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the horrifyingly awkward music choices. To be fair there were a couple tracks used to good effect, namely "All Along the Watchtower" and the music for the fight scene in the prison (the slow mo fighting worked there imo) and "Unforgettable". Those all fit fairly well and didn't take me out of the movie.However! Simon & Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence"? Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah"? Janis Joplin's "Me and Bobby McGee"? These three songs had me writhing in awkwardness in my theater seat. Even "Ride of the Valkyries" seemed out of place for me.Now granted, I know what they were trying to do with some of these: The music at the time was supposed to give you a sense of the time period it was inhabiting. Interesting choice, but period music does not excuse the jarring nature of the scores. Those three songs just didn't work at all.Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that musical scores are supposed to accentuate what's going on on the screen, not draw attention away from it.When these scenes were playing out, I could barely concentrate on them. All I could think about was "Jesus, are they really playing a Simon and Garfunkle tune?"The only time the music is supposed to take center stage is in the opening when it can be effectively used to set the tone for the whole movie, which was done well with the Bob Dylan tune.Anyway, I'm sorry I'm going on. Sufficed to say I'll be watching the DVD with my finger on the mute button as those songs approach.I think I'll enjoy the movie a whole lot more.P.S. I'd love to see Paw do a review of movie soundtracks. Could you suggest that to him Lewis?
just replying to mightysamurai I disagree that Dr M's nudity was anything to complain about. It's not like the camera lovingly panned over any part of his blue flesh. He was there and just happened to be naked, they did very well in not making a big deal out of it. In fact if they had danced around trying to hide it it only would have drawn more attention to it. It's just a naked man, there was nothing sexual about the presentation of his nakedness so I don't see a problem.
I always interpreted the Graphic Novel ending as if Veidt intended to keep maintenance of sorts on his plan, making other squids appear in deserted areas and alike, he also made some people hallucinate on alien stuff, so I always thought, weren't for Rorchach's journal, his plan made a fair ammount of sense in the long run.
Also, for anyone who hasn't checked out that Saturday Morning Cartoon yet, (there's a link right under the video) it's absolutely brilliant.The guy who made it ("Happy Harry" on Newgrounds) is a surprisingly great singer, which is helpful because it's entirely a theme song.He's also a great artist, and I'm sure he's done other great videoson the site.But, Anonymous, what does this have to do with the conversation?Watch and find out!"Strong together, united forever, they're the Best of frieeeeends!!""I'm nutty!!"
Psht, yeah, "V for Vendetta" is totally different from the GN, but I liked both of them. Admittedly, that's partly because I saw the movie first, but I watched it with two anarchists (I am not making that up, it's a long story and involves me being nice and sharing a blanket) who had already read the book and enjoyed the movie as something completely different.(I will guiltily admit I enjoyed "300" even though it was awful... maybe /because/ it was awful.)When I see the movie (and I will, even if it sucks, simply because I'm sure it'll lose a lot on the transfer to small-screen), I'll see whether this one can stand on its own, or whether it is indeed as messed up as you say it is. I know just from clips that I'll be wincing any time Mila Akerman speaks...I've liked a lot of superhero cartoons, so if this one is good, I will definitely have to check out "Wonder Woman."
Yes, the music was something I forgot to mention. Those were some seriously weird choices for music. I was raising an eyebrow when "Sound of Silence" started playing. Is it a great song? Sure, but when I think the cemetary scene in Watchmen, I imagine a slow dirge, not the soft pop/rock melodies of Simon and Garfunkel.
On the music choice, again, I can see why people think they were out of place, but "The Sound of Silence" worked for me because of the slow, kind of sorrowful tone of the song... but it still doesn't make a lot of sense for a funeral. The worst one was "Hallelujah" though. That was horribly out of place... and My Chemical Romance needs to stay away from Bob Dylan songs, too.On the Saturday Morning cartoon, Anonymous... that was brilliant.
I've see the trailers Lewis, and this movie in my world, might be good. But first, I have to read the book first, then I'll watch the movie.
My final word on the ending:http://www.cracked.com/article_17131_how-studios-would-have-ended-watchmen-storyboard.htmlJust be thankful it wasn't as bad as that.
Personally I'm on netural on the endding but Lewis let me ask you this; Do you think, despite its flaws, that this was one of, if not the best, rewrite of book to film? It may not be the best but it could have been a hell of alot worse. As for my thoughts on the movie, I think people should go to see it without "It's Watchmen IT MUST BE PERFECT" in mind but rather "It's a superhero comic book adaption, it could go ethier way" that way your more likely to enjoy it. Anyway, before I go here's something I think you'll enjoy, Moore's Reaction.http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w58/GrocerMan/alanmoorem1.jpg
Yes, Skeith, I can definitely agree with that.
"just replying to mightysamurai I disagree that Dr M's nudity was anything to complain about. It's not like the camera lovingly panned over any part of his blue flesh."True. And to be honest, the nudity didn't bother me as much as the fact that other people in the theater kept snickering every time Dr. Manhattan's genitals were shown on screen. Their immaturity was annoying and distracting. If they hadn't been acting like such children I probably wouldn't be complaining about this.
Not having read the graphic novel, I really loved "V For Vendetta" for the following reasons :5) Visually, this film is magnificent and you really get the feeling of an oppressed city trying to live its life as normally as possible ignoring the fact that it's being ruled by dictators.4) Although the last one over-did the slo-mo, the fight scenes are spectacularly shot : They're fast, intense and never seem ridiculous or insulting to your intelligence.3) The cast is top-notch : Natalie Portman completely redeemed herself for her awful performances in the odious "Star Wars" prequels. A lot of people complained about her English accent but, being part-British myself and speaking in an English accent, I found it impeccable (except for the unnecessary opening narration during which her accent slips noticeably). Her performance as Evey was heartfelt and completely convincing through and through, conveying a good balance of innocence and inner strength. Stephen Rea also did a superb job as disillusionned Inspector Finch and John Hurt is always great to watch, although his character was, I understand, a lot more complex and sympathetic in the graphic novel. Honorable mention to Stephen Fry and his amusing and moving portrayal of a closeted version of himself in a homophobic England.2) Valerie's Letter remains one of the most powerful and poignant sequences I have ever been given the privilege to watch in a movie. Though the overall ideology of the movie didn't always make sense (neo-conservatism, as bad as I feel it is, is NOT fascism !), the strong message of tolerance and freedom contained in the letter was not lost in translation. It never fails to move me to tears whenever I watch it, and I've cried through movies such as "Wall-E", "Schindler's List", "Children Of Men" "Rain Man", "Batman Returns" (the Penguin's death, especially Danny Elfman's music), "Edward Scissorhands" and, supreme tearjerker of them all, "The Elephant Man".1) This is one point even the movie's biggest haters, graphic novel fans or not, agreed on : Hugo Weaving was perfectly cast as V. In fact, I think he should have at least been considered for an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role : He spends the entire movie with his face hidden, either in the shadows or behind a porcelain mask. Relying on his magnificent body language and flawless delivery, he brings V to life and gives one of the best performances I've ever seen given by an actor. He switched from menacing to comical, from charming to moving, from over-the-top to subtle with amazing effortlessness. I know you're busy, but I'd at least like to know what you thought about these points (especially Hugo Weaving and Valerie's letter). I of course will attempt to read the graphic novel if I can ever find it in Original Version (I live in France).As for Watchmen, well same scenario as "V For Vendetta" except I don't really want to see it.
I'll play Devil's advocate right now, not only praising this new ending, but using the source material to back up it's logic.Altough I will say that I think the ending wasn't ballsy enough in it's change, it should have gone one more.The movie had a number of scenes showing humanities joint fear of Jon, the movie only scene of the news reporter correcting his quote from "The Superman is real and he's American" to "God is real"It fit with the themes of the book which included the Vietnamese hailing him as a God while surrendering.It's a weak link, but the source material showed humanity could view him as a God, the movie just made sure we knew they did.Then the Manhattan bombs. Humanity has a known enemy. Someone who ended a war in a single week. The indestructable man.Now.What SHOULD have happened, was Jon should have agreed to the plan and televized a statement that he will destroy the Earth if it is not peaceful.Sounds a bit like "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Perfect! The novel itself made that allusion, showing a marquee for the movie in the debris of nuked New York.If the original GN can use the world peace methods of that movie as inspiration for the eventual outcome, I see nothing cheap in doing it again.If the movie outright stated that humanity knew Jon was watching and wouldn't tolerate their bullshit, I'd have bought that 100 times more than "Let's fight... some... invisible force. Which doesn't really exist"Alas, despite how themeatically and logically it would work and how the moviegoing public are ready to accept that preachy peace ending, I haven't found anyone who agrees.People correctly state that Jon wouldn't go through with it, Ozy wouldn't go for a plan which rellied on an unpredictable aid and such.But, yeah. It would seal the holes in the re-written ending and make the "peace" and more importantly the threat Rorschach's journal poses seem all the more tangiable than the flimsy and vague mirage of peace we're left with in the novel.But, eh. I was prepared for the change going in. My bigger concerns for the movie were my problems with scene pacing.
"But, yeah. It would seal the holes in the re-written ending and make the "peace" and more importantly the threat Rorschach's journal poses seem all the more tangiable than the flimsy and vague mirage of peace we're left with in the novel."Except that was the whole point. The ending poses two questions: 1. Will this period of peace and unity last? 2. Will Rorschach's journal be discovered and if so will it threaten the peace? We're supposed to wonder whether Ozymandias' "flimsy and vague mirage of peace" works out in the end. That's why in the book (and I really wish they hadn't cut this line) Ozy asks Dr. Manhattan whether he did the right thing in the long run and Dr. Manhattan basically refuses to say one way or the other.
I agree with you on the ending. They could have had it be, say a "Massive inter-diminutional energy" that was being produced by the institute. And why was it affecting 10 major cities, instead of just New York? New York alone would have made more sense.Sadly, that was not my biggest problem with the movie. You can read my blog to find out what was.(That post was written minutes after seeing the movie)
Oh my God, I can't even type out how hard I'm disagreeing with you, both on WATCHMEN and WONDER WOMAN. Loved the former, really disliked the latter.Since you probably don't have time to yell at me over Skype, can I just use bits of quotes from this vlog and do a counterpoint on the show this weekend? (I'd invite you back on, but we've got two guests already and it gets crowded beyond four people.)
Go right ahead! ^_^
You know I've heard the whole "They tell you Ozy is the bd guy" thing.But my friend watched it without reding the book and said he felt Oy was the good guy. And I argued on rorsachs side. So it doesn't make him automaticly the bad guy.
Alrighty, I'd also like to point out that it was kind of clever in Watchmen with the Reagan thing. Because they weren't saying Ronald Reagan was going to run for president.Sure, you see the sign that says "R.R. for President."But its ROBERT REDFORD. Its not as obvious as Ronald Reagan.
Wow. I'm such a big fan of yours; I should've known that it I would inevitably disagree with you on something.OK, where to begin? I knew that there would be plenty of angry fan zealotry around this film. And honestly I'm glad. Because every single negative criticism I've heard on this film so far has been hollow and narrow-minded. First of all, if I hear one more gripe about Zack Snyder's slo-mo, God help whoever's standing within arm's reach of me at the time. Seriously guys, every director has a trademark style, it's what makes them memorable. Nobody complains when John Woo or the Wachowski brothers do it, so shut the hell up.Second, comparing Billy Crudup's performance to Leonard Nimoy as Spock is a weak argument. Nimoy had three seasons to develop his character, and many of his emotional bits were played for laughs. Crudop had less that three hours to let us into his psyche, and I think he did an amazing job, considering he was working without the full benefit of his eyes, an actor's most potent tool.Third: While I can't entirely disagree with you on Malin Akerman's performance, she wasn't really that bad. She did an acceptable job, she just couldn't hold her own against the others, who were fare superior. And honestly (and I know I'm in the minority here) I didn't think Patrick Wilson was much better.Fourth, I realize this has pretty much been covered in previous comments, but I had no real problems with losing the squid, and neither did most of the fans I talked too. They only advantage the squid had over Doctor Manhattan was the gruesome imagery of the millions of bloody bodies in the streets of New York among it's tentacles, much more haunting than simple rubble. But, as it's been pointed out, some vaguely defined alien menace is much less of a tangible threat. Doctor Manhattan is much less of a jump and far more plausible. And as for the leaving the galaxy problem: Dude, he's a TELEPORTER! And they know this! He could return at any instant without warning!Also, I actually liked that Dan witnessed Rorschach's death. I was always kinda pissed that Dan completely forgot about Rorscach at the end. I also liked that bit with his punching out Ozymandias and yelling. Not only does Adrian's not fighting back help flesh out the complexity of his character by making him seen slightly less villainous, but Dan's little rant makes the argument a little less one sided. Before all we had was Ozymandias' speech and everyone's agreement versus Rorschach's two words: "Never Compromise". At least now we have more of a argument for Rorschach's side. Fifth: If this is your definition of "upbeat", then I'm guessing you think American Beauty was a romantic comedy. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre end the climactic scene in the book by making love by a reflection pool. In the movie, they storm off brooding. In the book Big Figure kills his henchmen before cutting his arms off. In the movie, they cut his arms off while he's still alive. In the book, Rorschach kills the kidnapper by blowing up his house, and we never see the corpse. In the movie, he hacks his head open with a butcher knife. 'Nuff saidSixth: I can't believe it, but you actually missed the one aspect of this film that I really hated, that being that the costume's are terrible! With the only exceptions being Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, and the Comedian, they're just ridiculous, particularly Ozymandias and his Schumacher nipples, and Silk Spectre II in her s&m outfit (though her mother's costume I though was an improvement). Nite Owl II I'm kinda neutral on though.And before you start thinking that I just don't understand the graphic novel, let me just say that Watchmen was one of the first comics I ever read. And at the time, I had no idea what it was. I didn't know about the critical acclaim or cult followings. It was like watching Citizen Kane thinking it was just another movie. So I never had any hype to ruin it for me. And it blew me away. It's the reason I'm the comic book fan I am now. And furthermore, as much as I love the film, I don't for one instant believe that it even holds a candle to the graphic novel. But I do believe that it's the best film anyone could have possibly made out if it. Both the book and the film have advantages and disadvantages over each other.
Joshua, slo-mo isn't a style. It's a visual effect. Now, it can be (and actually often is) used effectively, but Snyder went overkill with the "slo-mo, speed-up" technique in 300. I haven't seen Watchmen yet, so I can't say whether or not he did there as well, but I'm hoping Noah "The Spoony One" Antwiler's comments about him not noticing is a testament to Snyder being more conservative with the technique.And speaking of Spoony, he actually pointed out a big weakness with the changed ending: that Dr. Manhattan has long been thought of as a god-like being. Hell, he became a majour factour in detente. It's much less likely that the world would unite against a being they think unstoppable than against an alien invasion.And finally, to mightysamurai, Nite Owl witnessing Rorschah's death and subsequently attacking Veidt DOESN'T balance the moral ambiguity. Even with Rorschach being the only dissenter, there's still ambiguity from the rest finding it unpalatable and Manhattan's comment to Veidt before leaving after Veidt himself shows a sign of doubt. Granted, such would be too subtle for today's audiences, but throwing in NO's heroic spaz attack was completely unneccesary.
Let me just say that I generally agree with Mr. Joshua.Except on the argument about the Wachowskis, whom I'm pretty sure Linkara said he hated somewhere earlier in the comments.Also, the only costumes I really had any problem with were Ozymandias and Silk Spectre II, both of which were satires on past films (sexy, skin-tight latex for the women, and the nipples and idiotic masks for the men.See: Nostalgia Critic Reviews Batman & Robin).Oh, and Skeith, that Alan Moore GIF is just brilliant.Though, just because critics think it's bad, doesn't mean it's a failure.It's box office IS a disappointment, which also means that the WB will take less chances now with films of this caliber.
Wait! There was an audition for your Lightbringer comic. I don't remember hearing anything about it. I would've tried to audition. Geez, when was this?
Not an audition so much as a call for guest artists or a permanent artist. It happened at least a month ago and I made a post in the newsbox about it.
Good rant and review on the film, and I find myself a lot in agreement on your take on where it worked and where it didn't.My only disagreement would be your view of Doctor Manhattan. The way I saw it, and didn't realize when I read the comic (and it's been awhile so bear with me) is it wasn't so much that Dr. Manhattan was entirely devoid of emotion; rather, because of his ability to see his personal past and future all at once, at the behavior of people around him with all their pettiness, ignorance, and capacity for evil, at his inability to change events--his making himself cold, distant, and emotionally disengaged was the only way he could cope, not unlike how certain trauma victims react whenever they witness and experience horrible moments in their life. Just imagine being able to recall that and relive it all the time. I thought it was rather insightful and fascinating take on the character.Everything else though, was spot on. I would also add that Zack Synder is definitely one of those directors who thinks he has to bludgeon the audience over the head instead of trusting the source material out of fear they won't get it. As a result, he doesn't emphasize the right things or he's as subtle as a sledgehammer. This is especially true for his usage of gore in the film, as well as that god-awful and laughably bad sex scene.Mike McNulty, a.k.a. stillanerd
I totally agree with you on the absence of ambiguity. It would be nice to have had that, but I never went in expecting it, so I guess my experience was a much nicer one than yours. In fact, almost no films dare to dwell in any moral ambiguity. Hollywood types just don't want to get behind it, they "need an angle" a clear right and wrong. I disagree with you on your thoughts about the Dr. Manhatten ending, I thought it was well used, and certainly tied the threads of the movie's plot together. I won't go into it, as it's already been argued to death in earlier forums, simply stating my difference of opinion on that. I DID NOT like how Dan witnesses Rorschach's death, and then goes into that big moral rage. That was just stupid. I DID NOT like some music cues. (I'm looking at you Leonard Cohen!)I did not like Laurie or Sally Jupiter. One was wooden, one was a fucking cartoon of a woman.I did not like the CG cat, it was unnecessary and totally distracting.But what I LOVED was the first 45 minutes of the movies, and the perfect intergration of the flashbacks and character development. I loved the opening sequence, I thought that, though added, and as you would argue took away from the original work, it was necessary to establish the world. It sucked me in right away. I could have done with a shorter fight. It ran a little too long.And then the opening credits started....OH MY GOD.Those were the BEST opening credits I've seen in recent history. Every, every, superhero movie always does some kind of hokey cg effects of clocks, gears, bats, webs, brain circuitry, metallic, etc. Just dialing in and going with what is considered "cool" and what they are "supposed to do." They took the credits, and the wrote the history of the world for the audience, and they chose THE ONLY SONG they could have put to it. The only credit sequences that I can think of that even compare are the various animated sequences for Hitchcock films. Nothing is quite as good as the hitchcock intros, but this is close.I went to a Matinee of the film, and it was a perfect film experience for me. I love books. Adapted material RARELY ever fulfills me. I would say, I'd have to compare this movie to the Lord of the Rings movies, with the only difference is that it is one third as long, wasn't adapted by Fran Walsh (may she get carpal tunnel and never write again), both of which made it fun. I think if it had been longer the novalty of seeing the adaptation would have worn thin and started to affect my viewing pleasure. I think the DVD will be nice to see, and I think as far as adaptations go... It's not bad. It's not great, but the entire experience wasn't bad.It's no Watchman as the comics, and it certainly isn't Alan Moore, but it's a good movie to buy popcorn and watch. We're not looking at "high art." It had that potential, but it will take a really serious film maker with some vision to make superheroes even approach high art. The closest it came was Tim Burton's Batman. But if you look at all the directors that are given these movies... well... It is always good to lower one's expectations.
I'm afraid i have to disagree with you, I loved the movie, the graphic novel is way better, there is no doubt about that, there never was a doubt, and I completely agree with you about the final scene between Nite Owl and Ozymandias was unnecesary and detracts from the ambiguity the movie is supposed to have, but, A person with enough brainpower will be able to identify this as the opinion of Dreidberg and then make his own opinion.And also, why does everybody hate slow mo so much? why do they react as if it was an insult to their intelligence? but if in an action sequence where you have to endure five different takes per second, in a confusin and mindless editing, to a point where you can't tell whether the characters are fighting or having sex, nobody even mendions it. I must admit, i'm a fan of John Woo-Hong Kong movies, and I think that slow-mo is a great way to better enjoy the action scenes.And sorry man, but you really sounded like an angry fanboy. You should try to judge the movie by its own merits, because compared to Watchmen, hell, compared to Watchmen almost anything is bulshit, and i'm not even a comic book fan. Watchmen is a movie that encourages you to think and that is what I love, even with all it's many flaws.
Okay, where to begin...I agreed with a vast majority of what you said, which, surprised me. Still, there are a few things I disagree on.First off, RORSCHACH'S ACTOR WAS NOT THAT GREAT! So what, he looked like Kovacs, he had the gravely voice. For god sake, Rorschach had a monotone voice. The only time he showed emotion was when he was being captured by the police and right before he was killed by Dr. Manhattan. Laurie says it her self, he's monotone. Every other word Rorschach was puking out angry tones and sounding as if he was going to kill your first born son. He's detached from normal people. He's afraid of women. He's a ultra conservative. He thinks killing is simply part of a days work. For the love of god, his mother got fed a bottle of bleach and when he found out all he said was, "Good." He's not going to get angry from simple things. He's got rage, yes, but it's an internal rage. I think his voice was almost as bad as Dr. Manhattan's. This leads me to my second point... For the love of all that is holy, we can both see the problems here. So emotional, so 'caring'. I have to disagree on you saying that all the character's backgrounds were fleshed out well. I think everyone's left something to be desire. It felt rushed. They had to cram as much as they could into the scenes, which ended up with everyone with giant gaps of personality. Dan's background was the only one I really thought went well, but, in all truth, Dan's background was the easiest to explain! I digress... Jon and Laurie's backgrounds were the ones that bothered me the most. Laurie... well, over all, Laurie seemed like she was only there because they needed a vagina. Granted, I thought she was like that in the beginning of the comic, but by the time I got into it, I respected her as a character. In this, they made her a cheap slut who just fucked anyone that looked into her eyes. Jon's background, on the other hand, just made me feel like they only cared about him being God. It was almost like he had no Humanity to begin with! I think he was more emotional as Dr. Manhattan than he was as Jon Osterman. Speaking of which, side bar comment, was I the only one annoyed about the whole, "You'll see the world how I see!" nonsense? Instead of doing meaningful conversation, they just skipped everything and made it "MAGIC SHOWS THAT THE COMEDIAN IS YOUR FATHER!"[WHAT A TWIST!].Now for the ending... All I can say is that it was just a sick bastardization of an amazing device. The Squid was interesting. It was so blatantly ridiculous that the people of the world, in comic and reality, HAD to believe it. You saw the drawings, read the bits about the writers and artist... and you had no way of really knowing what the hell was coming at you till it was too late. Everyone knows that for ONE second, you really thought, "HOLY CRAP IT'S AN ALIEN!". The worst thing about the ending, is, like you said, The fact that the message was decided FOR YOU. You didn't necessarily AGREE with it, but it wasn't something you thought about. It was just, "You made the whole world a twisted little mutilated bitch!" and it was either you said, "No!" or "Hell yes!". You couldn't find a middle ground. You weren't allowed to form a complete opinion of your own. It was just,(Caveman voice) "Adrian good!"(Another Caveman voice) "No, Adrian bad!"*hits other caveman with rock*. I mean, I agree with what they said, Yes, Ozymandias turned the whole world into a bunch of retarded children so he could keep the world the way he wanted it, but that's not an opinion I made by the book SHOVING it in my FACE. If Alan Moore wanted to make HIS opinion the ONLY one you could chose, Adrian would have either lost or everyone else would have agreed, including Rorschach!Okay okay... Calming down... Uhh.. what else is there to mention. Ah, I hated them spelling out everything for dumb people. I hated that they were called "The Watchmen", once again, for stupid people. You ruined the symbolism of the "Who Watches the Watchmen?" Instead, you just turned it into a crummy slogan like, "I LIKE IKE!" Oh, also, I hated that you got to see the full message of "WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?". Okay, that may seem like a pretty big Fanboy thing, but, honestly, I always thought that was one of the most iconic images. To me, that would be like if they changed the Bat Signal to a full articulated 3D model of a bat. It's just weird. It's not THAT big a deal, but, I just wish that it hadn't been tampered with. Umm.. Adrian's accent switching got kind of weird. What was the point of it? Really...Let's see... the good things. Pretty much everything I already mentioned that I liked, everything I didn't mention as horrible or bastardization, everything the video mentioned that I didn't state my disagreement with. The only thing I didn't hear mention of, which I'll talk about now, is the soundtrack. Bob Dylan's "The Times are A'Changin." fit the intro perfectly. I loved it even more when I heard Jimi Hendrix's cover of 'All Along the Watchtower." when Nite Owl and Rorschach were going to Ozymandias's... temple, for lack of a better word at the moment. I just wished they had the bikes so they could time it with "Outside in the distance, A wild cat did growl, Two riders were approachinthe wind began to howl.", just because I always read that line at the end of the issue and look back at the picture of the two riding.Simon and Garfunkle made no sense at the Comedian's funeral and Nina just seemed a bit out of place really... but they were still fun to listen to with the scenes. The only problem I have... and this will sound bad.. My Chemical Romance... doing a cover... of Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row". It has NOTHING to do with the band, I assure you. In truth, I do not like My Chemical Romance. This is not the issue. The song Bob Dylan wrote would have fit the ending. It was slow, a bit brooding, and very sad. The cover.... It was up beat, cheerful almost in that kind of wannabe punk/emo kind of way, and it just made you want to smile and jump up and go, "Alright! Rorschach's journal is gonna be published! Whoo-hoo! The world is all better!" Which is NOT what it was supposed to be! I respect the cover and I respect what they artist were trying to do.. but they FAILED to give the message.Well, that's my big list of stuff. Sorry to bore you with it.P.S. Haven't seen the Wonder Woman movie yet, but when I do, I'll be commenting again most likely. Hehe.. Oh, and YEAH! REVOLUTION OF THE MASK!
Ronald Reagan had a number of cowboy/wild west roles so at least that's something. The Watchmen part was because people who didn't read the comic wouldn't get it, it the same reason why people think Captain Marvel name is Shazam.The ending I didn't mine it I knew for a while that's what they were going to do, for a while (at least you see air ships) and hey oil isn't just used for fuel, also all we ever saw WAS electric cars, maybe they still used oil and gas power plants, like they finshed fixing the cars now it's time for the cities
I haven't seen the Watchmen movie yet, before I saw the vid. I got to dust off my copy to compare the two when I do. But I'll know what to look for, and keep an open mind.You need to give yourself a lot more credit, because you are excellent unscripted, just as you are scripted. never say otherwise!But this candid vid blog was a nice change of pace. I recommend and look foward to more, as do a lot of your fans I'm cenrtain. Perhaps in a shorter form, just to give honest replies about things of interest to you personally outside the AT4W format. Say another comic film comes out, and you wanna share your two cents, or even if some event happens in comics that you know your two cents need to be added. Those are my 2 cents.So until Alan Moore goes to Zack Snyder, shouts "I AM A MAN!!!" and punches him in the guts, Make Mine Linkara!
Alrighty. You probably are going to get a butt-load of negativity so I'll try to make this brief: I am not mad that you did not like this movie. Your thoughts on why the movie was bad to you, even though I don't share the same, I even accept. The thing is, you have the right to your own opinion and the freedom of speech to state said thoughts. The reason I am upset is the part where you say that other people are wrong for loving it and saying its brilliant. I am a student aspiring to be a film maker and I especially take that personally when you outright and say I'm wrong for thinking a movie is done brilliantly. However, that is all that irked me with your review. I think your comic reviews are awesome and I respect your opinion. I only ask that you try and respect ours as well.
Noted. My apologies for that remark.
I haven't seen Watchmen or even read it (I know, I have to... know how many times I've been told that in the past 3-4 months?), but I was just surprised at how different yours and Spoony's reviews were. He seemed to quite like it, and i was thinking "Man, I really should go see this", whilst you clearly hate it. Still, I'm going to see it anyway, just cos pretty well everyone else i know is and i don't wanna be left out..
I don't really hate it; I've mellowed out since I made the video... though I still hate the ending.
Hey Lewis, and all the others!!!!Please read this, this aint no spam, I don't want to flood this site with anything, it is actally very important statement, about an important movie, and about comicbook adaptations in general.According to it, The future of the genre seems... Bleak, to say the least. David Hayter, the screenwriter of watchen just posted an open letter for all the audience, asking us to watch the movie again one more time if possible. As we all know the film had quite high production values, and if its gonna be a bomb, well that'll mean some serious budget-cuts on future comicbook-movies. So please read the whole thing here:http://www.hardcorenerdity.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2239098%3ABlogPost%3A40658Watch the watchmen again, and spread the word!!!!Thank you.
Ah, yes.Occasional Superheroine commented on this and sums up my feelings about his request well.He's comparing the audience to an attempted rape victim, then trying to claim it's about a love-hate relationship with an attempted rapist and accomplished murderer.If I see the movie again, it will be out of a genuine desire to see it again, not because the writer suddenly has become an idiot.
Still the film doesn't do that well.http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=watchmen.htm
Sorry for stuckin upon this subject but according to boxofficemojo.com BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA has grossed more than watchmen yet. It's gonna change i guess but still... ugh...:)I mean :(
Yeah I know. This comment comes pretty late and a long time after your Vlog, but this was the first time seeing it and I wanted to comment.I don't have anything to say about the Watchmen thing, since I never read the book or seen the movie. I rather bring up the Wonder Woman movie. I personally liked Steve Trevor, but that is a matter of opinion, but there was something I hoped you would bring up, but didn't.During the movie, like you mentioned, it was pretty darn brutal. I was fine with that, but I found it sort of OOC for Wonder Woman to snap some people's necks. Yeah I know, Countdown to Infinite Crisis and such, but still. I just really can't picture her doing that, especially to people who may or may not be innocent and just brainwashed. Maybe she does that and I haven't seen it before in other comics (I haven't read many comics, especially WW material), but what's your thought on that?
I know I'm almost two years too late with this comment, but: Thank you. The ending of Watchmen ruined the movie for me, and I think you pretty thoroughly addressed everything wrong with it.
DC reboot/Watchman parody(Disclaimer: Character choices except Linkara and Marzgurl are random and I only know 5 internet comic book reviewers).Josh Hadley: It was only a matter of time I suppose.Linkara: Reviewers, one of us died tonight. Somebody knows why. Somebody knows.The Last Angry Geek: I heard he'd been working for Rob Liefeld. Maybe it was a mercy killing.Linkara: Or maybe it someone is picking off comic book reviewers.MarzGurl: Suede thinks there's going to be a Watchman reboot.Linkara: What if that's why someone wants us out of the way? So we can't review it. An attack on one is an attack on all of us.Josh Hadley: Comic book reviewing is over. What would you suggest we do about it?Linkara: Retribution.The Last Angry Geek: We can same this continuity.Suede: Why would I save a type of sequential art I no longer follow?Marzgurl: Do it for me. Suede: Leave me alone.Linkara: Comic book readers will look to use and shout, "Review it". And I'll whisper, "No".
You're not bad unscripted, I liked how it came out as a review, but evidently totally honest, awesome reactions :3
the whole point is that rorschach is not supposed to be seen as right; he's supposed to be seen as a lunatic; that answers aren't always so clear cut
Post a Comment