Okay, I’ve seen it twice and had plenty of time to think about it. My first question is: Am I the only person who has a mental image of three hundred Doctor Manhattans, wielding shields with happy faces or perhaps the letter “W” carved on it, bellowing, “We…ARE…WATCHMEN!”
Second, I don’t know if it’s humanly possible to have “spoilers” in any discussion since it seems a safe bet that everyone reading this blog has read the book and everyone knows there’s no squid. This, frankly, didn’t bother me one iota since I never liked it in the first place , and it wasn’t particularly original (so much so that Moore felt obliged to include a shout out to the “The Outer Limits” episode, “Architects of Fear,” from which he lifted it.)
Basically, what we have is a fairly competent, sometimes eerily accurate, “Reader’s Digest” version of the book. Subtext is lost, themes are diluted, backstory and the small human dramas that provided a lot of the punch to the climactic annihilation are gone. But essentially the story is there and the characters are there, undiluted by the same kind of Hollywood thinking that used to put forward such brilliant edicts as, “Sorry, Thor can’t be a god” and “Let’s remove the horns from Daredevil to avoid Satanic imagery and put a blindfold on him ’cause he’s blind.”
In terms of the film itself: Director Snyder sets the tone early with a dementedly over the top assault and murder of the Comedian. The noise of every cracked bone blasts over the speakers; the trajectory of every drop of spilled blood is tracked by the camera. The violence in the graphic novel was decidedly small scale and real world; it’s insanely over the top here and doesn’t let up. It continues later when the street clothing-clad Nite Owl and Silk Specter are confronted by a gang of toughs, resulting in broken limbs, punctured jugular veins, and yet more bone crunching.
When he’s not having his leads break heads or engage in explicit sex (the latter I didn’t mind so much) Snyder coaxes excellent performances out of his cast. Most notable is Jackie Earl Haley who was an absolute revelation as Rorschach. He’s Batman if there was really a Batman, and it’s a dámņëd shame that–if Alan Moore is to be believed–he will never see the film because I have to think even he would be impressed.
I think a lot of the fan analysis of the film is ultimately ridiculous. Discussing the relative dimensions of Doctor Manhattan’s nuclear junk? Really? Is that what we’ve been reduced to? (“In the original graphic novel it was drawn relatively small in order to symbolize Manhattan’s impotence in stopping the world from heading toward nuclear disaster.” Seriously?) Frankly, I just started using locker room protocol and kept my eyes fixed on Manhattan’s face during the full body shots.
What was of far more interest to me than dwelling on why the (as I recall) Jewish Jon Osterman was uncircumcised (so I’m told; I wasn’t staring that closely) were the reactions of my brother and his thirteen year old son who went with me. Neither of them had ever read the graphic novel.
They both loved the film. They both thought Rorschach was incredibly cool, were fascinated by Doctor Manhattan and the way he viewed the world, and stunned by the twists and turns of the plot. Basically, they were as blown away by it last Saturday as the rest of us were when we first experienced it twenty years ago. Perhaps that, in the final analysis, is the best measure of just how good an adaptation it is.
PAD
• 
First Peter, yes, you are the only one who thought that. But in the beginning I couldn’t get “Saturday Morning Watchmen” out of my mind.
Loved it. Thought for a comic that was said to be “unadaptable” it’s about the closes adaptation of a comic I’ve seen.
I’m Marvel Silver Age old, so I lived through much of the timeline portrayed. But i saw it with a friends 20 something kids. They thought it was great. And puts a lie to another criticism I’ve seen. “Will today’s audience get the whole Cold War theme. They did.
I find this criticism is like saying “Titanic” should have been updated to the Carnival Cruise Line because today’s audience wouldn’t get class struggle in 1912
Agreed, agreed and agreed. The end of the book didn’t work for me as there were too many ways the threat just wouldn’t do the job intended. Yes, the Soviets and Americans collaborated in WW II against an external threat, but all the while were plotting on where to put the knife in the other’s back. With an alien incursion in NYC (in the book), the paranoid Soviets would be likely to worry “what if there was also advanced alien tech and the capitalists have got their hands on it and are getting ready to use it against us?” and thus use a pre-emptive strike, just in case. The threat spelled out in the movie was FAR more effective and well thought out in my mind.
Yes, the characters were perfect. I don’t expect any to get Oscars and that’s a shame. You’re right about Haley being amazing as Rorschach, though I wish they’d have included the bit about how he became Rorschach and what the mask’s origin was in the first place. Very pleased with how they handled that Rorschach turning into the Rorschach we all know and really don’t want to meet in a dark alley.
You are wrong about one thing. There is a squid.
It’s only about a second or so, but if you look at one of the sequences where Ozy or Doc Manhattan (I don’t recall which) is looking at a video monitor and talking to people on the project, the project’s name is up on a sign on a wall in the background and the acronym clearly spells out S.Q.U.I.D. 😎
Oh, and, yes, I think you probably are the only one who had that mental image of “We … are … WATCHMEN.”
This was definitely as good an adaptation as I was hoping for, maybe even a little better. A few things stand out in my mind, though, that I feel were unnecessary and tacked on.
1.) The explicit sex scene was rather “South Park-ian” in its depiction, which made me have to hold back laughter. It also went on waaaaay too long, and made it seem as though Snyder was just rushing through the developmental parts of the story so that we could get to the sex and violence, which must be what we’re coming to the movies to see.
2.) The fight scene with Spectre, Nite Owl, and the gang is one of my favorite parts of the book. In the book, it’s surprising, funny, and clever. In the movie, it is a lame attempt at making a really cool-looking fight scene without regard to the characters in the fight. Spectre and Nite Owl don’t murder criminals – that’s what separates them from Rorschach. As soon as I saw a knife plunge into that guy’s neck, I actually said out loud, “Come on!” I was greatly disappointed that Snyder put their characters on hold so that we could see a cool fight scene.
3.) You’ve already said this, PAD, but I’ll second it. The characters in the book are not super-amazing kung-fu masters. They can handle themselves in a scrap, for sure, but the fight scenes seemed too manufactured and matrix-y for Watchmen. Especially Rorschach, who epitomizes sneak attacks and cheap shots.
At the end of the movie, I was satisfied with the adaptation, minus the details above. Though it seems that Snyder is an action director who likes music videos, he did a fair job whittling a large, complex, and poignant story down to its necessary elements and making a fairly compelling film.
What was of far more interest to me than dwelling on why the (as I recall) Jewish Jon Osterman was uncircumcised (so I’m told; I wasn’t staring that closely)
I would assume that since he reconstituted himself from the atomic level up he would be 100% intact. No scars or tattoos, if his appendix had been taken out it would be back in.
And, thematically, undoing the circumcision would be consistent with Jon losing any faith he had in God.
And that’s as much thought as i’d put into it. from the early reviews i was under the impression that Dr Manhattan’s junk had it’s own origin sequence. It wasn’t THAT obvious…though after having to stare at the ceiling to avoid looking at Manhattan’s tallywhacker it’s no wonder poor Night Owl had some problems rising to the occasion.
A few points:
As you said, Jackie Earl Haley was amazing. Who was the genius who thought of using him? Even with a mask on that totally obscured any hope of conveying emotions he somehow did it. he deserves some nominations but I doubt he’ll get any.
One thing that always bugged me–why did Dr Manhattan leave his first girlfriend? because she was getting old? That makes no sense–this is the guy who doesn’t see much distinction between a living and dead body.
Unlike PAD, I thought the sex scene was one of the worst in memory. From the use of Cohen’s Hallelujah, which has become a cliche, to the final shot of fire (Don’t have to be Fellini to figure that one out. Why not have the Owlship go through a tunnel while we’re at it?) it stopped the movie dead in its tracks.
has there ever been a less commercial 100+ million dollar movie? In the sense that, had Snyder not been so insistent on being true to the book, can you imagine what the suits would have done with it? I’m thinking–pretty much that Saturday morning cartoon video come to life, that’s about what we would have gotten.
Rorschach killing the pedophile killer–I preferred the old version, but I guess the old chain them to to the floor, give them a rusty hacksaw and set the room on fire has become a cliche.
One thing I noticed that has kind of bugged me–people keep calling it a graphic novel and I guess that’s fine. It’s how most people have read it. But it wasn’t really written that way–it was a 12 issue maxi-series. Every issue stood on its own, Moore used the limitations of a single issue to tell the story in a way that, while it worked as part of an overall storyline, still could be read and enjoyed as a part of a greater whole.
And this causes problems when someone tries to take all 12 parts and fuse them. It’s been a while since I’d read the book but I could see where some of the issues ended. It gives the movie a kind of stop and go quality. It would be like someone adapting LOST or THE PRISONER into a movie by taking episodes and slapping them together. It just doesn’t flow the way a movie written to be a movie probably would. But that would require some serious rewriting and the fans would have set themselves on fire in the lobby.
Great effects. Lousy makeup. The guy in the Richard Nixon prosthetic looks less like Nixon than Anthony Hopkins or Frank Langella did and all they did was scowl and say “I’m Richard Nixon.” and it worked. I’m a huge Carla Gugino fan but her old age makeup looked terrible. I’ll assume it was meant to look like she had bad plastic surgery to try to stay young looking but if so that was a bad choice. It looked like either bad makeup or they forced the makeup artists to not obscure too much of Carla Gugino, a decision I would normally applaud but which looked pretty cheesy here.
The change to the ending did not bother me since it’s the ending I thought the series was going to use 20+ years ago and I still think it makes more sense than the squid. BUT…there should have been more death in NYC. the destruction was too clean and bloodless, especially compared to the horror of the comic’s portrayal. And for me, the real mistake in the ending was the loss of the final exchange between Jon and Ozymandias. Having Lauri paraphrase the lines did not work. The look of doubt on Ozymandias’ face when Jon told him “nothing ever ends” was a far more satisfying punishment than Night Owl’s ineffectual pummeling.
All that said, I loved it.
I’ve seen it twice (the first was watching it as an adaptation) the second for being its own thing – had also missed the bigger scope of the ending the first time. Liked it the first time, loved it the second.
I hope like the Lord of the Rings and Kingdom of Heaven, the DVD extended version of Watchmen adds missing layers from the theatrical cut and makes the film even better (though I could like without an uber cut some hope is coming with the Black Freighter integrated, always found that a bit tedious in the comic).
“From the use of Cohen’s Hallelujah, which has become a cliche, to the final shot of fire (Don’t have to be Fellini to figure that one out. Why not have the Owlship go through a tunnel while we’re at it?) it stopped the movie dead in its tracks.”
The flame from the owlship was taken directly from the comic.
PAD,The headline made me think that you didn’t like the movie, but you give it the “thumbs up” right?
With all this Watchmen hype it’s gotten me thinking about how unique the original series was. I don’t mean the plot/storytelling/etc. I mean the format. Alan Moore is a terrific writer, but I wonder what sort of result you or any other distinguished comic writer could create if you were given the freedom of:
1) Totally original characters completely free from the existing superhero universe. No “Superman of Earth-32”, no “son of Spider-man” or whatever.
2) 12 issues to build your story. Not just 12 issues, but 28 pages of story, an extra-sized 32 pages for the finale, and you can run whatever sort of text or art pieces you like to fill in the extra pages.
3) Continuity-free story telling. You can make up the character’s entire history so that it fits as you wish it. You don’t have to make your plot incorporate changes from the “Galactic Meltdown” cross-over of issues #344-#347. You don’t need to figure out how the Green Lantern corps is going to guest-star in issue #5 to draw in readers, or how your story is going to fit into the previously created universe.
4) A closed ending. After the series ends, that’s THE END. A new creative team isn’t going to come on next month and change the meaning of what you’ve done. Lots of superhero books have arcs where it could be the end of the hero’s story, but if it was popular they keep coming out with more stuff until the demand is gone. Moore has his reasons for being pìššëd øff at DC, but the restraint they’ve shown to not put out Watchmen prequels/sequels/spin-offs is amazing.
5) Just to make it fair, I’ll give you Dave Gibbons on artwork. A guy who can do talking and action. A guy who can draw emotions on faces, a guy who isn’t going to skimp on details in the background, and a guy who has a style that isn’t going to be dated-looking 5 years from publication.
6) This book will be published and promoted by (arguably) the leading publisher in the medium.
The only criteria is that it has to be somewhat related to the “hero” concept. If those were your only restrictions I bet we would see some amazing results. I wonder why there aren’t more opportunities at the big 2 for creators to really unleash all of their capabilities in this kind of format? Certainly Watchmen has paid for itself in collected form a million times over.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Peter!
It was a no-brainer that the devoted fans of the graphic novel/maxi-series collection would nit pick it to death, but I was pleasantly surprised how the “uninitiated” felt about it! I would have thought that the “newbies” would either hate or be confused by the idea of superheroes not acting like Spiderman or Superman but that didn’t seem to be the case. My hats off to Zack Snyder for resisting the temptation to mainstream yet another comic book concept and being true to the characters as well as the central theme of the story.
I was, however, annoyed at the parents of 4-year-olds who brought them to a midnight showing of this R-rated film that announced IN ADVANCE that there would be nudity, graphic violence and adult language!
Overall, I liked the movie for itself and look forward to the release of the Special Edition DVD which will obviously include the edited scenes a la “The Lord of the Rings” and the deeply-missed “Tales of the Black Freighter!”
I liked ‘Watchmen’ the movie, but I didn’t love it. Having re-read the comic in the last two weeks, I think this just falls under the category of ‘not as good as the book’. I’ve always felt that the real strength of the book was not so much in the story, but in how well Moore (and Gibbons) crafted the intricate balance of character development and the impending sense of doom while dropping hints all along about Veidt’s plot. Obviously, Snyder’s film had to lose some of this, and it shows. Still, I think they did about as good as they could with it. Rorschach was nearly perfect (I keep wanting to call the actor ‘Haley Joel Osment’, which would have been a realy interesting casting choice), with one tiny complaint – I miss the ‘lifts in his shoes’! Rorschach comes across looking a little short in comparison to the others when in the book Moore makes a point of stating that he wore lifts probably to obscure his small stature. Changing the end didn’t bother me, the same moral questions remain, but it did leave me with a question – wouldn’t the rest of the world blame America for the actions attributed to Dr. Manhattan? I mean, for 25 years Manhattan has been America’s defensive advantage and the reason we decisively won in Viet Nam. The US created and employed him, how would we not be blamed if he went rogue? Still, I saw the movie with my brother who has never read the book and he thought the idea of the alien invasion was a little hokey and that they were better off with the way they went. BTW, he also thought the movie was good, but not great.
“‘Readers Digest’ version” is a very tidy way of putting it. I like the movie for what it is, a very good attempt to condense “Watchmen” to a commercially viable length.
And sure, it’s a tad juvenile to make so much of, as one of my movie-going companions put it, “the radioactive blue dong”….it’s still not going to stop me from running a Dr. Manhattan drinking game when the DVD comes out. (Full shot for full frontal, half shot for blue booty.) 😀
Speaking of my companions, I too enjoyed taking some uninitiated friends along (in my case, some fellow tabletop gamers, around 10-15 years younger than my own 34). It made quite an impression on them, and I of course took the opportunity to mention that the original story goes into more detail than the film did (wink wink, nudge nudge, buy the trade).
My one major complaint is that Malin Akerman, in my opinion, falls completely flat as Laurie Juspeczyk, and that takes away some of the emotional impact of Laurie’s realization and how it changes Jon’s mind about humanity. That’s a problem, considering how significant in the overall plot that moment is.
Chuck
I agree with a lot of what you said, and with a lot of the comments here. Although I disagree that the performances were excellent. Other than Haley, I thought the acting was pretty bad all around, especially from Malin Ackerman (but I don’t think it’s entirely their fault, they were just poorly directed, as was the movie as a whole). And I kind of wish they hadn’t cast Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. At the end, I kept half-expecting him to say something like, “Nuclear reactors: $100 million. Framing me with nuclear explosions: millions of lost lives. World peace: priceless.”
The flame from the owlship was taken directly from the comic.
I know, but it wasn’t at the end of a 3 page sex scene. And there are things that work in a still drawing that look ridiculous on screen. maybe it’s just me, but I’ve heard other people single the scene out for complaints and the audience I saw it with had a case of the giggles.
I was, however, annoyed at the parents of 4-year-olds who brought them to a midnight showing of this R-rated film that announced IN ADVANCE that there would be nudity, graphic violence and adult language!
Me too. I think they were expecting Iron Man Part 2 or something.
They never made Osterman’s religion explicit in the book. I just assumed he was German-American (not that that’s a religion, obviously, just to explain the European-Jewish sounding last name).
PAD,The headline made me think that you didn’t like the movie, but you give it the “thumbs up” right?
Yeah, pretty much. My original headline was “Cowboy Pete Watches the Watchmen,” but that seemed kind of lifeless. Plus–and this is a sad commentary, but it’s true–I think casual readers are more inclined to read a review they think is going to trash something than say positive things about it. As Anton Ego pointed out, “Bad reviews are fun to write and fun to read.”
PAD
Overall I was disappointed in the movie. I never had a sense of suspense in the movie. Everything was just kind of there. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t really like it either.
My one experience that was the complete opposite of PAD’s was that my friends who had never read the comic did not like the movie either.
My big issue with movie was not the changed ending, but the changed epilogue. In the book, Dan and Laurie went into hiding under different identities. In the movie, Dan stated that he’s made upgrades to Archie and they pretty much winked at each other that they’d be going out to fight crime again – neverminding the fact that they’d be wanted by the police for about a dozen charges, including violating the Keane Act.
To me, that kinda soured the movie for me, because it was a very Hollywood-type ending. Maybe not along the lines of Thor-can’t-be-a-God or Joker-Created-Batman-Who-Created-Joker, but just for a split second I thought to myself “My God, they can’t be serious about a sequel, can they”?
….oh, and I’m not sure what purpose Bubastis served in the movie. And did anyone else have trouble getting used to the scenes from the book being played out with a soundtrack?
My big issue with movie was not the changed ending, but the changed epilogue. In the book, Dan and Laurie went into hiding under different identities. In the movie, Dan stated that he’s made upgrades to Archie and they pretty much winked at each other that they’d be going out to fight crime again – neverminding the fact that they’d be wanted by the police for about a dozen charges, including violating the Keane Act.
But you just answered your own complaint. In the film, they cut the entire storyline involving the police figuring out that Dan was Nite Owl and coming after him after he and Silk Specter busted Rorschach out of jail. They had to go underground in new identities in order to avoid prosecution. When that storyline was cut, there was zero reason for them to disappear. Granted, the cops might go after Laurie if the sequence at the prison tipped them to the fact that she was involved in the breakout–except it’s not absolutely established that the government knows that Laurie is Silk Specter. (Yes, she’s John’s girlfriend, but still, they don’t come right out and say they know she’s that adventurer.) So basically there would be a lot of work to explain why she’s in a disguise at the end of the film at a point where it’s time to wrap everything up, not introduce new concepts.
PAD
I dunno. I figured everyone knew Laurie Jupiter was Silk Spectre II, even in the book: (a) she wore no mask (b) her mom’s identity as SS I was public (c) she lived with Osterman (d) on a military base. While you’re absolutely correct about Dan not needing hiding, I would assume Laurie would.
Even if it’s not stated outright that the government knew that Laurie was the second Silk Spectre, there’s one easy way to connect the dots: her mother’s secret identity was public, at least in the film (don’t recall offhand if it was so in the original). How do I know? The opening credit sequence, specifically the scene where we see the elder Spectre in nose art on an airplane; the caption above the art reads, “Miss Jupiter”.
I too was a little, “huh?”, seeing Laurie and Dan undisguised at the end, and I also think that even if Dan’s ID was still secret, it wouldn’t be hard to figure out that the guy whom the Silk Spectre is shacking up with out of costume might also be the one in the owl suit who’s helping her bust heads.
Chuck
I think that, overall, the movie was TOO faithful to the series.
Watchmen was a comic book that used the medium to its full extent, and when you take everything from the book and just throw it up on the screen, you’re going to lose a lot. You just can’t do in film what you can do in a comic book.
If Snyder had gone further in making movie tricks work instead of trying to storyboard directly from the comic, I would have enjoyed it more. The points where I thought it worked? The opening montage featuring the history of the Watchmen world and Veidt’s attempted assassination. When you hear that muzak version of “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” when Veidt is talking with these heads of industry, I loved it.
One point that fell flat for me was Doc Manhattan’s story. In the book, you can understand that Manhattan’s experiencing all points of time at once. In the movie, it’s way too linear. You don’t get the sense that he’s in multiple timeframes.
I loved most of the performances. At points, though, I wished I hadn’t read the comic series in order to enjoy it more. It is essentially a murder mystery, and I knew from the very beginning how things were going to go down.
I enjoyed it, but I really had to distance myself from the source material in order to do so.
PAD said:
“I think casual readers are more inclined to read a review they think is going to trash something than say positive things about it.”
Ah, yes, the entire premise for the forum at Comicon.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, knowing going in that it had several changes and omissions.
Justin said:
“…made it seem as though Snyder was just rushing through the developmental parts of the story so that we could get to the sex and violence…”
And I agree, but those scenes almost HAVE to be brought to the forefront because of the demands of today’s audiences. It shouldn’t have to be so, but it is. In movie viewing, it’s a Brand New Day.
It was the absolute best possible movie they could have made out of the comic. I have a couple of quibbles, but they’re so minor they’re honestly just nitpicking (Adrian’s nigh-incomprehensible accent, a couple of the songs, etc.).
I know I’m given to extreme bursts of hyperbole, but I swear on my grandmother’s grave that when I was done watching the movie, I could NOT stand up because MY KNEES WERE SHAKING from the sheer awesome of it all. Never has a movie done that to me. Loved it SO MUCH.
See, I always thought at the end of the comics that they were living in secrecy in case Adrian ever decided to get rid of all the loose ends. (although in retrospect, if he wanted them dead they would be dead).
I was always confused in the book why Adrian killed his staff at Karnak, but didn’t kill Dan and Laurie.
My assumption is that he trusted Dan and Laurie to keep their mouths shut, moreso than simple employees. As for Rorschach, my suspicion is that if Doctor Manhattan hadn’t killed him, Adrian would have…presuming the subzero weather didn’t attend to it. There was no way Rorschach was getting out of there.
PAD
I guess answers David G’s comment as well as an observation. Adrian killed his staff because of their intimate knowledge of the project with Dr. Manhattan much like the pharohs did with the designers and artitects of the pyramids. Not killing Dan and Laurie was an easy verdict since they understood the reality of the situation. Rorschach with his extreme views of absolute right and wrong could not let it go. What I find more interesting was at the end when Rorschach casually and without hesitation removes his “face” to before Manhattan kills him. He made so much of needing his face and that Walter was dead and there was only Rorschach. I don’t know I find it to be an interesting and tought provoking scene that sticks with me.
I always saw that as the moment that Walter Kovacs finally reasserted himself and his humanity over Rorschach. The pain was too much even for Rorschach to bear, and it makes sense that it would be Walter asking for it all to end. My thoughts, anyway.
Believe it or not, I started the GN once, a long time ago, but I never finished it. What’s all of this about a squid? I guess I’ll have to go back and read it now.
I have seen the film, however, and I thought it was pretty good. Not great, mind you, but pretty good. I thought the cinematography was outstanding, and Rorschach a terrific, compelling character. He deserves a spinoff film ala Wolverine. “Rorschach Chronicles: The Early Years” or somesuch.
But a giant squid??? Maybe it’s for the best that that sub-plot got axed…
The one thing I’ve found most interesting about all the discussions I’ve read criticising the film is that much of the critique is actually aimed at the comic.
While I liked the film, I think I’m going to need to see it a couple more times to be able to separate it from the comic. (Especially since I literally finished watching the surprisingly well done Motion Comic DVD then ran out the door to see the flick.)
While I agree that getting rid of the squid makes for a better ending, I didn’t really get the sense that the world was that afraid of Jon. I would have liked to see a bit where Adrian had to convince Jon that he needed to be the villain, and then have Jon TELL the world that he’s watching. Having a voice-over, or a newspaper flash on screen saying that the world fears he’s watching, didn’t do it for me.
David: The book makes it clear that Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are back in the hero business at the end…though she’s planning on becoming Leather Lady.
The things I find most interesting are what was changed…not the ending, but things like how the child killer was killed…was it for a reason other than because the Saw movies are that scene played over and over? Or why was Dan the one who went to warn Ozymandias of the plot, rather than Rorschach? Why shoot Lee Iacocca in the head? Did Snyder have a bad experience with a PT Cruiser?
I had some issues with Adrian’s portrayal…in the speech that leads to the “35 minutes ago” he gets a bit ranty, and the whole point of “I’m not a comic book villain” is that he shouldn’t be ranty guy.
People who complain about Malin Akerman’s performance, imo, ignore that Laurie doesn’t have a personality as such. She lived her life being her mother’s surrogate and then moved to be Jon’s girlfriend. She never developed into a real person until really the events of the story (and even then she basicly jumps from Jon right to Dan).
And she looked hot..so shatup!:)
Now, bring on the sequel!
http://scavgraphics.deviantart.com/art/Watchmen-2-Electric-Boogaloo-114886763
My money is on a more kid-friendly “The Muppets Take Doctor Manhattan” sequel.
I didn’t mind the ‘ranty’ bit following “I am not a comic book villain”, what bothered me was the change from the original “do you think I’m some Republic serial villain…?” which I found better, but do acknowledge that far too many of today’s movie audiences probably wouldn’t get the reference, so I can understand the why of the change.
Actually, I kinda liked that. The comic book version of Ozy states that he isn’t some movie villain… and the movie version of Ozy states that he isn’t some comic book villain. There’s a neat symmetry there.
Lance: well he had just blown up parts of a bunch of major cities. Had the world not feared him before, it certainly would have then.
Something else I noticed, the film compressed the story (ala PAD’s Reader’s Digesting) and that did show a number of the flaws of the original story…namely the sheer amounts of melodrama it wallows in.
(I also became aware for the first time about the lack of black characters other than the psychologist…just struck me when he showed up)
Last Saturday, I went to see the movie with a friend. And just as the usher tears his ticket…
the power goes out.
My friend denies that it was his fault, but I pointed out to him that his ticket was torn at that exact moment.
So, after waiting a bit to see if the power will come on again (we had about a half hour before the show was due to start anyway), we end up going to a different theater and seeing it an hour later than originally planned.
And what did I think of the film, once I finally saw it?
I have to say it was a major disappointment. For a movie called Watchmen, there was very little discussion of timepieces.
Just kidding. Overall, I liked it and felt it was about as faithful an adaptation as one might expect for anything less than a TV mini-series.
I also agree about Jackie Earle Haley’s excellent performance.
PAD, if for whatever reason Dr. Manhattan hadn’t vaporized Rorschach and Rorschach had gotten back to civilization (presumably by stealing the Owlship), could he have managed to elude Adrian’s subsequent hunt for him? I ask because of your comparison of Rorschach and Batman. I think Batman could elude such a hunt, though he’d obviously have to give up his Bruce Wayne identity. Rorschach had, for all intents and purposes, already given up being Walter Kovacs. But would he have the street smarts to remain off Adrian’s radar?
One thing I didn’t like was Dr. Manhattan stating to Laurie, “The Comedian was your father.” I think that if she’d started to say “he’s not…” and couldn’t get past the first syllable of “father”, as she did in the comic, the audience (especially those who’d never read the story) would have gotten it. They didn’t need to be told by Dr. Manhattan.
When the DVD comes out, I’ll buy it. Whether I’ll see the movie again in the theater remains an open question. I’d like to, but both time and the ridiculous cost of tickets need to be taken into account.
Rick
For everyone who is pining over “Tales of the Black Freighter,” never fear, it is being released as an animated short (This month I think, it’s on our list of movies set to come out at the video store I work at) along with a documentary of Hollis Mason’s book (of which, I cannot remember the name). It should be a goodie-package for everyone who loved the comic.
I haven’t gotten a chance to watch the movie yet, although I’ve watched chunks of it, especially chunks of the end. I’m planning on seeing it tonight after I get off work, and from what I HAVE seen of it, I think I will like it. I think every single one of my co-workers has seen it, and they all had responses ranging from “pretty good” to “great,” but then I’m the biggest comic nerd at the theatre. We shall see.
I feel like everyone here is smoking crack – but since I know a number of other people who enjoyed the movie, it really does seem possible to find WATCHMEN legitimately entertaining. And I truly don’t understand this, as “personal taste” doesn’t seem to account for it. I am easy to please, was excited for WATCHMEN, and expected an imperfect movie; I didn’t expect to actually be very bored for long periods of time, and my brother (who’s never read the comic) was so non-plussed by the whole deal he wanted to leave the theater without finishing.
There was Good: The visuals truly sprang from the comic. Rorschach, Comedian, and arguably Dr. Manhattan (I actually always heard a deep, otherwordly voice in my head, but I do like the soft voice approach taken here) were extremely well-cast. The squid replacement works decently. The fight sequences were fun, most effective among them the Comedian’s fight with Ozymandias. The 80’s setting, Richard Nixon. The opening credits montage was awesome (as everyone says). For the first 15 minutes, I was convinced I had a great ride ahead of me.
But the movie has major pacing problems (which was always going to be a major potential pitfall, but it wasn’t unavoidable), with some scenes badly-edited (perhaps due to clipping in the name of time constraints) so that they failed to resonate as they should’ve, and occasionally scenes that just failed and failed horrifically (the oft-mentioned laughable sex scene to “Hallejulah”, which as TIME mentions just needs to be outlawed for a while).
Sometimes Zack Snyder, in his recreation of great scenes from the comics, seemed to entirely miss the point of them. I suppose this could’ve been Snyder’s artistic choice, but Rorschach’s killing Big Figure is a comedic moment in the comic. We know R. is killing Big Figure in the bathroom, but Spectre and Nite-Owl believe he’s truly peeing and talk about similar experiences they’ve had while they wait.
The woman who plays Silk Spectre is a dead-ringer in likeness but an awful actress, as pretty much every critic has noted.
The gore was occasionally, ridiculously excessive. Why did we need to see that bone burst out of that guy’s arm? What did all the amped-up stuff help an adaptation of a book that brought “real” violence to comics?
Finally, the music: never mind the songs chosen – at times they were just extremely jarringly-placed. The best example is when Spectre and Nite-Owl glare at Ozymandias before leaving his arctic fortress at the end (and how did Archie get fixed, by the way?). Right when they do, a choir briefly cries out – and then is gone just as quickly.
Bizarre.
Saw it this sunday.
Once on the radio, I’ve heard that the composer of Hair had said of his music for the musical that it was like chewing gum: “You can chew on it for as long as you wish, spit it out, or even swallow it, you won’t be able to digest it”. Meaning that it would stay with you for a long time. This is the case with Watchmen.
Is it a faithful adaptation? Yes. And it has a lot of good things going for it: Yes, Jackie Earl Haley _is_ Rorschach, and deserves an Oscar (ven if I’m afraid he won’t get it). But the rest of the cast is top notch as well. And what can I say about Malin Ackerman, except “Wow!” (and that is while she has her clothes on).
But it has also a few things going against it. And the most important is that I don’t think that the flashy style usd in many parts of the movie (especially during the fight scenes) work with the story that’s being told. They are too comic-booky for a story that was supposed to be as close to reality as a super-hero movie could be. Something like the fight scenes in Kill Bill would have worked just fine. And yes, the actor playing Nixon didn’t look like Nixon. On the other hand, I recognized Kissinger right away.
All in all, a good movie, with a good story, a perfect cast, faithful to the original, but a bit stained by the director’s style.
I have to say it was a major disappointment. For a movie called Watchmen, there was very little discussion of timepieces.
Now you have an idea of the outrage I felt when I went to see “300” and discovered that it had absolutely nothing to do with bowling.
Just kidding.
Oh.
PAD
I thought the sex scene was supposed to be rather tongue-in-cheek. Which is fine.
Also, I felt like Malin Ackerman was trying to be Cameron Diaz, and I can’t imagine why any actress would want to channel Cameron Diaz for any role in that movie.
One thing that always bugged me–why did Dr Manhattan leave his first girlfriend? because she was getting old? That makes no sense–this is the guy who doesn’t see much distinction between a living and dead body.
Except that he does distinguish between a living and dead person–otherwise why would he care so deeply for Laurie? It sounded to me like he didn’t like seeing his girlfriend age–and therefore come closer to death–while he didn’t. So, he went for a younger woman because he knew she would have a lot more years ahead of her.
clatterboot
Ummm, NOT. They were modified versions of the Charlton characters DC acquired.
Troy Phillips
Well, the US got hit to about the same extent as everyone else. I suppose that some might suspect Tricky Ðìçk of being willing to play Realpolitk to the extent of killing millions of Americans to Make It look Good, but i doubt that they’d be people with their own red buttons to consider.
Except maybe for the Chinese…
David S.
March 12, 2009 at 10:27 am
Not a new phenomenon – i remember standing in line with friends for the first showing of Alien here in Atlanta, and being amazed that people were bringing pre-school age children to it.
Not only was it “R” rated, but i had read press reports that said that it had been toned down – slightly – since preview showings in Texas at which they had to mop out the restrooms between shows (And, indeed, some of the things i had heard about were missing from the final release). But bringing seven-year-olds?
Of course, since Watchmen is a “comic book movie”, that means it’s okay for kiddies, right?
Just like animated films are just for kids.
Right.
I’ve read the Graphic novel, haven’t yet seen the movie, but a few notes:
1) I thought that it wasn’t so much that Dr. Manhatten left his first girlfriend, she was moving apart from him due to the aging proces, and Silk Spectre II came onto him.
2) One thing that always bugged me: “I murdered my three loyal retainers to keep anyone from tracing this back to me, because, of course, if anyone backtracked all the way to these guys, they wouldn’t *possibly* expect that their brilliant employer had anything to do with it or was aware of it.”
3) I also thought that the reason the Ozymandias didn’t kill Nite and Silk Spectre two was that Dr. Manhattan would have prevented him, but then Dr, Manhatten left and Ozymandias could have killed them at any time. (I also think the password Rameses the second was a necessary plot device, but come on, most passwords (especially by a genius) are random combinations of letters, numbers, and characters that keep others from figuring it out. Not a big deal though.
Please.
My only disappointment is that Doc didn’t kill Veidt. Think about it. The world thinks Jon is the big bad. Killing the world’s smartest man is a logical step for self protection. And I really wanted Adrian to die.
One thing I noticed that has kind of bugged me–people keep calling it a graphic novel and I guess that’s fine. It’s how most people have read it. But it wasn’t really written that way–it was a 12 issue maxi-series.
That’s because too many people say you can’t take comics seriously. Yet, graphic novels, for some reason, can be. But then, I think most people are idiots. 🙂
I enjoyed Watchmen the movie, as well as Watchmen the maxi-series, which I read in the week leading up to the film’s release. I could go for the change from the squid to Dr. Manhattan being responsible, as it keeps everything more compact. I thought the acting was all good save Akerman; I just don’t think she’s much of an actress at all. One thing that did bug me early on was that the CG for Dr. Manhattan’s speech was off. His mouth was moving, but not the rest of us face, so it looked bad, but that was only for a couple of minutes.
I think one of the things that really hurts the film, as an adaptation, is that Ozymandius’ ‘origin’ was basically not there. So while that character was always a bit disconnected from the rest in the story, it just makes it even more obvious that he’s behind things in the movie since there’s nothing to the character beyond the flashbacks and the silly scene in his office.
Which reminds me: was it really necessarily to add more ‘historical’ figures like Iaccoca? Less Nixon would’ve been better as well.
Finally, the fight scenes. Imagine how much more story they could’ve gotten in from the comics had Snyder not treated every bit of action like he was filming 300 all over again. Yeah, he knows how to do those scenes, but Watchmen was *never* about that stuff, and it was so ridiculous to have every character walking around like a Batman-wannabe.
Oh, almost forgot: I also didn’t like the change at the end to Nite Owl witnessing Dr. Manhattan ink blotting Rorschach. What purpose did it serve? Changes in adaptations should serve a purpose, and this one just didn’t seem necessary at all.
I liked that, actually. It made sense.
Consider: If you’re Nite Owl, and Rorschach’s friend, the first thing you’re going to do is try and find Rorschach. He’s not going to leave the area. You’re going to keep searching and keep searching. For that matter, it’s unlikely you just let him walk out into the cold. (Indeed, the scenario in the book is even less likely: Allowing his friend to walk off into the cold and certain death, Dan bøffš Laurie out in the open in Adrian’s HQ by the pool. Huh?)
Nite Owl going after Rorschach actually made more sense than just letting him go out to, presumably, his death (not to mention the very reasonable concern that Rorschach might try to jack the Owlship.) Nite Owl then witnessing Rorschach’s death basically closes off that dangling thread.
It may seem heresy to suggest it, but from a real world point of view, it tracked better than Moore’s sequence.
PAD
I always thought Rorschach was heading back to the Owlship, not that far away. And that Dad assumed so as well. Maybe he thought Rorschach would “come to his senses” sitting out in a cold ship for a few hours. Or that Jon might teleport him somewhere. I doubt that, if Dan had considered that Jon was going to do that to Rorschach, that Dan would have slept with Laurie right then.
I liked the movie a lot. It’s a lot better than I thought it would be. The beefed-up action scenes are a price we have to pay for the movie to be made at all. They HAD to cut a lot of it, and they did the best they could. The six protagonists are mostly intact, and all of the major beats from their storylines from the comic are there. A lot more faithful than I thought it would be.
I thought the ending with Nite Owl witnessing Rorschach’s death and the pummeling he gives Veidt (who seems to allow himself to be beaten, perhaps due to guilt) seems to be there to make it less “Ozymandias comes out smelling like roses”, while keeping the book’s storyline more or less intact.
I watched the movie with two friends that had never read the comic, and they liked the movie a lot. I told them about the original ending, and they liked the movie verson better. I also said that the bits cut were a pirate comic-within-the-comic, and more scenes with the normal people, and Ozymandias origin. We came to the conclusion that those removals didn’t ruin the basic plot. The only one I’m not too sure is Ozymandias, but I think the movie made a moderately good job of showing who he is, without having to delve into his eastern travels.
PS: Oh, and for all the talk of Malin Ackerman’s supposed bad acting, I have to say one thing: somehow Nite Owl and Silk Spectre seem less whiny and more dynamic in the movie than in the comics, and I sorta like it. Makes the story as a whole slightly more uplifting when the only “good guys” are a bit stronger. And Zack Snyder did it without really changing Daniel and Laurie at all.
“Subtext is lost, themes are diluted, backstory and the small human dramas that provided a lot of the punch to the climactic annihilation are gone.”
.
I’m reading fast on a break and may have missed this being addressed by someone already, but that may be fixed later. I read something on AintItCool a few weeks back where they said that it’s already been decided that the DVD will have something like 35 or 45 (can’t remember which) minutes of footage in it.
.
Knowing the way Hollywood looks at action and “Comic Book” movies; the footage most likely cut to trim the runtime was stuff that was less actiony and actually fleshes some of that out. Here’s to hoping at least.
You know, I can’t help thinking that Snyder put himself in a no-win situation. If he had made wholesale changes in the graphic novel, he would have been roasted by the die-hard fans and probably some know-it-all critics who would happily point out that the director completely missed some of the key points of the original source material. But now I’m reading commentary that complain he was TOO slavish to the original.
Personally, I was always convinced that Watchmen couldn’t be produced as anything less than a Stand-type mini-series so I was stunned to see as much on the screen as their was. Still, there were lots of strange ommissions like Laurel igniting Nite Owl’s workshop because she accidentally tried to use the cigarette lighter on the dashboard. She mentions she pushed the wrong button, but not the ‘lighter,’ which makes no sense as A) she re-tells the original Moore line about the Comedian trying to light his cigar, and B) it ties into Nite Owl hitting that button during the sex scene, leading to the plume of flame mentioned in a previous post. And by the way, did anybody else get the feeling that the scene with Dan and Laurie loading the refugees from the tenament fire into Archie and offering them coffee got cut? When that sequence is over, there’s actually a shot of Laurie putting the coffee cups away which makes no sense unless the preceeding scene was cut. Although my wife insists the coffee cups are there as a nod to fans of the original.
I know a lot of people have been crying in their beer about the loss of the squid, but that never particularly bothered me. What did both me I suppose, was the use of Dr, Manhattan as the device that unites the various world governments. Whereas in the graphic novel, Ozymandias meticulously plans out the attack down to the final detail, the new plan leaves far too much to chance. I couldn’t help thinking that Ozy was making far too many assumptions, most of which centered on Manhattan’s behavior. True, he had read all the psych profiles, but an awful lot had happened in-between to rely on some educated guesses.
Also, I throw this open to other folks who saw the movie, because I’m curious as to your opinions. While I felt that Matthew Goode was just a little too slight to play the most perfectly developed man in the world, my wife felt the actor had made the conscious decision to play the character as gay. Not the original character in the graphic novel but Goode’s performance. Any thoughts on this?
And finally, an interesting footnote to the showing we went to last week. As we were walking towards the theater at the local mall, an elderly woman came up and asked us in broken English were Watchmen was playing. It turned out she was a Russian immigrant who spoke very little English, and even had the words ‘Senior citizen ticket, Watchmen’ written down in block letters on a piece of paper, presumably to hand the ticket agent. Anyway, we steered her to the right place and made she bought her ticket and eventually saw her sitting about five rows in front of us.
After the film, my wife and I went down to the food court to grab a late lunch and happened to notice that woman doing the same thing. Sheelagh went up and asked her how she liked the movie and it turned out that she absolutely loved it. Like I said, an interesting footnote to the day.
I, too missed the bit about the cigarette lighter, but it may have bene due to political correctness. The studio may have decided that the idea of a hero (never mind heroine) smoking nowadays just wouldn’t fly. Yah, I know, the film is set 24 years ago, but no one ever accused studio executives of making too much sense.
Joe: You know, I can’t help thinking that Snyder put himself in a no-win situation. If he had made wholesale changes in the graphic novel, he would have been roasted by the die-hard fans and probably some know-it-all critics who would happily point out that the director completely missed some of the key points of the original source material. But now I’m reading commentary that complain he was TOO slavish to the original.
David S.: Monday Morning Quarterbacking is a popular past-time in the world of comic books, Joe! You should know that by now! I too don’t envy the task before Snyder: trying to create a box-office winner while not pìššìņg øff the “true believers.” Other directors have tried before him and many of them failed, as can be attested by the “Under $15” DVD section at most Blockbuster Video Stores. At least we have the Special Edition DVD to look forward to. Speaking of which…
Joe: Personally, I was always convinced that Watchmen couldn’t be produced as anything less than a Stand-type mini-series so I was stunned to see as much on the screen as their was. Still, there were lots of strange ommissions like Laurel igniting Nite Owl’s workshop because she accidentally tried to use the cigarette lighter on the dashboard. She mentions she pushed the wrong button, but not the ‘lighter,’ which makes no sense as A) she re-tells the original Moore line about the Comedian trying to light his cigar, and B) it ties into Nite Owl hitting that button during the sex scene, leading to the plume of flame mentioned in a previous post. And by the way, did anybody else get the feeling that the scene with Dan and Laurie loading the refugees from the tenament fire into Archie and offering them coffee got cut? When that sequence is over, there’s actually a shot of Laurie putting the coffee cups away which makes no sense unless the preceeding scene was cut. Although my wife insists the coffee cups are there as a nod to fans of the original.
David S.: I’m with Sheelagh on this one, Joe. There were several “See, loyal Watchmen fans? I haven’t forgotten you!” scenes sprinkled throughout this picture that were probably sliced & trimmed to fit into the 2 hour 45 minute time-frame that Snyder was straight-jacketed into! Don’t you hate the “we’ve gotta have at least 12 showings a day to at least break even” mantra that The Suits chant like Trappist monks? I sure do!
Joe: I know a lot of people have been crying in their beer about the loss of the squid, but that never particularly bothered me. What did both me I suppose, was the use of Dr, Manhattan as the device that unites the various world governments. Whereas in the graphic novel, Ozymandias meticulously plans out the attack down to the final detail, the new plan leaves far too much to chance. I couldn’t help thinking that Ozy was making far too many assumptions, most of which centered on Manhattan’s behavior. True, he had read all the psych profiles, but an awful lot had happened in-between to rely on some educated guesses.
David S.: Not if Dr. Manhattan’s cognitive abilities were included in the profile. Remember how in the book he repeatedly called himself “a puppet who can see the strings?” Maybe he predicted everything that was going to happen and either Ozy “stole the plans” or this is one of those “it was meant to happen because it already happened and it’s going to happen again” stories that time travel stories have innundated us with since Merlin told a sceptical Arthur his personal future. As for the “squid,” I was less annoyed by that alternate ending than the villanization of Batman in “Dark Knight” for the sake of giving Harvey Dent “a heroic death!” Presumably Batman saved Gotham several times between “Batman Begins” and “Dark Knight” so why would its citizens believe that he would suddenly turn evil after The Joker shows up? At least Ozymandias’ smear campaign of Dr. Manhattan along with Nixon doing a political spin to avert WW III would sounds more feasible than swiping “Architects of Fear” as Alan Moore did! Why did they add “The Outer Limits” control-voice opening when they didn’t need it, I wonder?
Joe: Also, I throw this open to other folks who saw the movie, because I’m curious as to your opinions. While I felt that Matthew Goode was just a little too slight to play the most perfectly developed man in the world, my wife felt the actor had made the conscious decision to play the character as gay. Not the original character in the graphic novel but Goode’s performance. Any thoughts on this?
David S.: I don’t know if you saw the Reelz Channel special at the San Diego Comic Con where Goode did his Q&A contribution by saying that a friend of his read the maxi-series in order to “research the part” and he said “Well, dude, it looks like you’re gonna play another GAY! *audience laughter* But the good news is, this guy seems to be a STONER! *more laughter and applause*” In Rorschach’s Journal, even HE notes that he might be homosexual, so it shouldn’t be a shock to ANYONE that this was how he was going to be interpreted.
I have to say it was a major disappointment. For a movie called Watchmen, there was very little discussion of timepieces.
Now you have an idea of the outrage I felt when I went to see “300″ and discovered that it had absolutely nothing to do with bowling.
this is where someone usually makes a reference to “The Black Hole.” Not me though, too much class for that.
Also, I throw this open to other folks who saw the movie, because I’m curious as to your opinions. While I felt that Matthew Goode was just a little too slight to play the most perfectly developed man in the world, my wife felt the actor had made the conscious decision to play the character as gay. Not the original character in the graphic novel but Goode’s performance. Any thoughts on this?
Wasn’t there a line in the comics where Rorschach speculates that Adrian might be gay? Certainly, if he wanted to fully identify with Alexander the Great he would be at least bi. I didn’t catch any great gay vibes off of the performance but we did see him in the opening credits at a disco with what looked like Andy Warhol and David Bowie. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Snyder’s original scripted ending to the movie, before execs forced him to change it. Remind you of any other movies…
DOCTOR MANHATTAN STANDS. FACES OZYMANDIAS.
DOCTOR MANHATTAN: You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. I can do those things because I’m not a hero, like Rorschach. I killed those people. That’s what I can be.
OZYMANDIAS: No, you can’t! You’re not!
DOCTOR MANHATTAN: I’m whatever the world needs me to be.
INSERT CUT: OZYMANDIAS STANDS AT A PODIUM AT RORSCHACH’S FUNERAL. BEHIND HIM IS A LARGE PHOTOGRAPH OF KOVACS FROWNING.
OZYMANDIAS:…a hero. Not the hero we deserved- the hero we needed. Nothing less than a sociopath. Looming…
OZYMANDIAS (VO): They’ll hunt you.
DOCTOR MANHATTAN (VO): You’ll hunt me.
INSERT CUT: OZYMANDIAS, ON THE ROOF OF THE GUNGA DINER, AXE IN HAND, WATCHED BY AN ASSORMENT OF COPS AND REPORTERS…
DOCTOR MANHATTAN: You’ll condemn me, set the Soviets on me…
OZYMANDIAS TAKES THE AXE TO THE GUNGA DINER SIGN- A BURGERS ‘N’ BORSCHT SIGN RISING…
DOCTOR MANHATTAN:…because it’s what needs to happen.
INSERT CUT: SEYMOUR HOLDS RORSCHACH’S JOURNAL. THINKING.
DOCTOR MANHATTAN (VO): Because sometimes the truth isn’t good enough…
INSERT CUT: SEYMOUR BURNS RORSCHACH’S JOURNAL.
DOCTOR MANHATTAN:…sometimes, people deserve more.
INSERT CUT: VEIDT’S SERVANTS EACH RAISE A WINE GLASS.
DOCTOR MANHATTAN: Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded…
INSERT CUT: VEIDT’S SERVANTS DRINK THE WINE. THEIR BODIES TWITCH. THEN DIE. VEIDT SMILES TO HIMSELF.
DOCTOR MANHATTAN TELEPORTS OFF. DISAPPEARING INTO A FLASH OF BLUE LIGHT.
NITE OWL: Doctor Manhattan?! Why’s he running, Ozy?!
OZYMANDIAS: Because we have to chase him…
NITE OWL: He didn’t do anything wrong! Why, Ozy why?!
OZYMANDIAS: Because he’s the hero the world deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we’ll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he’s not our hero. He’s a giant squid, an alien invader… a blue pëņìš.
Y’know, if Snyder had just gone ahead and called the movie “The Blue Pëņìš” instead of “Watchmen,” I think the reviews would have been about the same for many critics.
Then again, the smurf dong never really bothered me that much in the movie or book.
In the original comics, both Rorschach and Ozymandias have something of an ambiguous gay vibe. Yes, Rorschach too, as the guy angrily repressing his homosexuality, while weirdly admiring the Comedian as a lost father-figure, holding Dan’s hand too long, caring whether Adrian is gay, making a mask out of a woman’s dress, and hating women in general, etc. etc. etc.
Together with Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice and Larry (Sally’s creepy first husband), Watchmen must be the comic book with the highest number of closeted dysfunctional characters with weird gay vibes.
I think the movie made it a bit more obvious in Ozymandias’s case. Not only how the way the actor plays him, and the scene he is in the introduction bit, but also a detail I noted: his computer has a folder named “Boys”
I don’t think Rorschach hated women in general (gay men tend to adore women) so much as he hated the entire notion of sexuality, both male and female. He didn’t dislike Laurie so much as he disliked her costume and its suggestiveness.
His using the material from the dress wasn’t to me a symbol of a woman so much as it was a symbol of a woman to whom the city turned a deaf ear while she was killed. It didn’t represent womanhood; it represented the true face of the city.
And yeah, he holds onto Dan’s hand too long in the handshake. That could be read–perhaps even intended–as barely repressed gay impulses. On the other hand, it’s the only time that we see Rorschach come into physical contact with another human being and he’s not trying to inflict damage. It can also be seen as a moment where an isolated, desperately lonely creature is clutching onto an emotional anchor and isn’t all that anxious to let go.
PAD
I thought the movie was, overall, mediocre. My full review is up at the Armchair Critic http://thearmchaircritic.blogspot.com/ but none of the performances really did it for me (except for the Comedian) and the action was far too stylized. As for additional thoughts:
1) People who use the term “graphic novels” all the time are too wimpy to admit they like comic books.
2) The movie made Silk Spectre II more provocative looking (replacing a miniskirt and lose top with a full-body spandex outfit) and less provocative as a character (in the comic she’s always cursing, usually smoking, insulting to many, and incredulous that they’d spring Rorschach; just about all of that was missing from the movie). And while the sex scene in the comic did end with the Archie fireburst, in the comic Nite Owl had most of his costume on and I think the Spectre did too, while in the movie he was naked (and far more buff than the comic) and she just had on the boots.
3) They shouldn’t have had the Nite Owl 1&2 meeting in the movie since #1 didn’t die. In the comic, his death largely prompted Nite Owl to empathize with Rorschach; in the movie, it just showed that Nite Owl 2 was nostalgic, which was covered with his trophies and stories.
4) Why include Bubastis (largely useless) and not the Gordian Knot (which was pretty much Ozy’s motivation)? For that matter, why not mention that the Comedian was the one who inadvertently opened Ozy’s eyes to his solution?
5) I *did* like the fact that Ozy’s plan afected the capitals of several countries. In the comic, the “alien attack” only hit NYC, which in a paranoid world might have made America think the aliens were after them specifically — or even working for/with their enemies. At least in the movie with “attacks” on several countries it made more sense that the countries would unite with the “common ground” that they were all attacked.
Joe Nazzaro: “[M]y wife felt [Matthew Goode] had made the conscious decision to play [Veidt] as gay. Not the original character in the graphic novel but Goode’s performance. Any thoughts on this?”
I suspect it’s more the writers and director than Goode. While Moore hinted at it (though the main reference is Rorshach’s opinion of Veidt rather than anything objective), there are at least two tells in the movie. The minor one is his appearance in the opening montage at Studio 54, being greeted rather fondly by The Village People. The major one: when Nite Owl gets into Veidt’s password-protected files, one of the folders is very clearly labeled “Boys”.
Other opinions from comments above:
– The changes of Nite Owl witnessing Rorshach’s death and beating on Veidt aren’t so much an attempt to redeem Veidt as to redeem Nite Owl. In the book, when Rorshach stalks off to the doom he knows is coming, Dan and Laurie simply wander off in a daze, screw themselves silly and go to sleep. They’ve caved in totally (and this is reinforced by the “disguises” they’re seen in at the end – more of that in a moment.) In the movie, seeing Rorschach killed by Manhattan and then raining blows on Veidt, who just stands there and takes it because he’s won and he knows it, are the two things that convince Dan he’s lost. Getting the last word against Veidt is the best he can do, but at least it’s something; he’s beaten, but not entirely broken. (Changing Manhattan’s final dialogue to be with Laurie rather than with Veidt gives her some of the same redemption. “Nothing ever changes” becomes more of a ray of hope than a warning.)
– Veidt’s varying level of German accent I suspect was deliberate. It’s stronger when he’s not in public, and strongest at the end – notably after Rorschach makes the comparison to Hitler. The backstory in the book broadly hints that Veidt’s parents were refugees from Nazi Germany. Since that wasn’t included in the movie, the accent is another way of getting the point across that Rorschach’s comparison isn’t off the mark: that Veidt has knowingly or unknowingly emulated Hitler. (Also suggested by other elements that didn’t make it into the movie, such as the “Millennium” perfume ads with their Aryan imagery and the name itself – that’s “Millennium” as in “Thousand Year Reich”.)
– Taking the two items above, this is where those disguises came in. Dan and Laurie going blond was a symbol of their submission to the new order – and it would have clashed with the redemptive scenes noted above. I think this is why the writers also dropped the book’s lines suggesting Laurie was going to become essentially a new version of the Comedian.
– Bubastis serves exactly the same purposes in the movie as in the book: a nifty visual, and an insight into Veidt’s monstrosity. In both, Veidt shows more hesitation and remorse in killing her than he does in killing millions of human beings. Deliberately or not, the movie actually does a better job at getting that point across, because it puts the audience into the same mindset at a very visceral level: we see almost nothing of the deaths of millions, but we see Bubastis disintegrating in agony. Which hurts more and which SHOULD hurt more are two very different things.
I more or less agree with you, Don. The slightly different ending makes Dan and Laurie a bit more heroic.
[i]Joe Nazzaro: “[M]y wife felt [Matthew Goode] had made the conscious decision to play [Veidt] as gay. Not the original character in the graphic novel but Goode’s performance. Any thoughts on this?”
I suspect it’s more the writers and director than Goode. While Moore hinted at it (though the main reference is Rorshach’s opinion of Veidt rather than anything objective), there are at least two tells in the movie. The minor one is his appearance in the opening montage at Studio 54, being greeted rather fondly by The Village People. The major one: when Nite Owl gets into Veidt’s password-protected files, one of the folders is very clearly labeled “Boys”.[/i]
Not true. I remember watching an interview with Matthew Goode discussing the character work he’d done in preparation for the Adrian role, and he specifically states he viewed Adrian as gay and played him with hints of such.
@ clatterboot:
This was the whole reason Image Comics was formed. Granted, most of the creators there aren’t currently Industry pop stars like they were in the early 90’s, but books like Invincible, Noble Causes, and Savage Dragon sound like the exact thing you are looking for.