Watchmen

[Azrael]

Despite being needlessly violent at random points (this film could have easily been a 12A rather than an 18), I found it dull.

While some of the violence was excessive (especially the compound-fracture filmed in loving slo-mo), other bits, like Dr Manhattan leaving a ceiling dripping with gore, and Rorschach's inventive use for a chip pan, were essential, and would never have got past a PG-13/12A.

The general plot of the book needed to be updated for the story to have been relevant.

Somewhere back in development hell, it was going to be updated to deal with terrorism, but I'm glad they left that part alone. There needed to be a genuine existential threat. The general message about "ends don't justify means" is universal.

I agree they stuck too closely to the work though. The Ozymandias plotline could have been extracted and turned into a lean thriller. All the flashbacks and backstory are better suited to a comicbook than a movie theatre.

 

[DexterTCN]

@Iguana They didn't accept his reasoning, they decided that the alternative was worse.

 

[andy2002]

i thought it was tiresome drivel

I'll see your 'tiresome drivel' and raise you a 'pompous load of old toss'.

 

[Iguana]

@Iguana They didn't accept his reasoning, they decided that the alternative was worse.

Except as we know the alternative wasn't worse. The cold war ended without the world being destroyed. The story needed to be updated somewhat, although I do agree that terrorism would not have been the way to go.

 

[Cpatain Rbubish]

Saw this last week and loved it. Did the novel justice I think although I haven't read it since the 80's. I think it's cool that the technology and graphics have made it possible to do books justice like this and Lord of the Rings etc

 

[subversplat]

Except as we know the alternative wasn't worse. The cold war ended without the world being destroyed. The story needed to be updated somewhat, although I do agree that terrorism would not have been the way to go.

Apparently David Hayter (yes, Solid Snake) had a go at a screenplay set in the year 2000, vigilantes having been banned in 1997 or something. I'd love a look at that one's Big Threat.

 

[Azrael]

Except as we know the alternative wasn't worse.

The joy of hindsight aside, in Watchmen's alternate universe East-West relations are different.

Even so, the whole point is that Veidt doesn't know nuclear was is a given, and manufactures the "inevitable" confrontation himself. It's a great parable about intellectual arrogance.

 

[kabbes]

I've never read the comic book and, indeed, am not a big fan of comic books. I watched the film on DVD a few weeks ago. I am a big fan of "this type" of movies generally.

I thought it was... OK. The problem, it seemed to me, was the usual one when somebody tried to turn a book into a film and wants to keep it as close to the original as possible. A book has tens of hours' worth of a reader's time to construct elaborate backstories, plotlines and motivations. A film does not. A book can have a large cast of characters and keep them all meaningful. A film can not. This film suffered from too many characters, too much backstory and an overblown plot. The result was a confused mess. I enjoyed bits of it and I could see that the original story in its original form was probably excellent, but as a film it just didn't work.

 

[100% masahiko]

I finally watched the Director's Cut.
And thought it was a superior movie to the one released.

 

[kabbes]

Please don't tell me that the director's cut was even longer than the overblown actual release was?

 

[100% masahiko]

Please don't tell me that the director's cut was even longer than the overblown actual release was?

It was an extra 30 mins long. Just additional dialogue but the scene that sticks out was Hollis Mason's murder and how Dan turns into Rorschach when he hunts/murders the gang member.

There's more dialogue.

I do know what you mean though. The other half is a die-hard comic book fan/movie goer and she was disappointed with Watchmen. I however, loved it. I loved how the characters/powers were flawed. How the superheroes were not there to protect the public but to control them etc.

 

[kabbes]

It was an extra 30 mins long. Just additional dialogue but the scene that sticks out was Hollis Mason's murder and how Dan turns into Rorschach when he hunts/murders the gang member.

There's more dialogue.

I do know what you mean though. The other half is a die-hard comic book fan/movie goer and she was disappointed with Watchmen. I however, loved it. I loved how the characters/powers were flawed. How the superheroes were not there to protect the public but to control them etc.

The things that you've described as the bits you loved were indeed very good. But there was simply too much of everything to fit into the natural length for this kind of movie, which is typically about two hours. If it wanted to have all the characters, backstory, plot and concepts of the source material then it would more naturally have been a trilogy of movies.

 

[kyser_soze]

...naturally have been a trilogy of movies

Not enough material to make it a trilogy, or for that matter a satisfying duology which wouldn't have aroused the ire of fans and cinemagoers alike with accusations of cashing in by making 2x90m movies.

I like the DC, but then I really like Watchmen as a film adaptation...but once more my argument that when comic books are translated to the screen, what seems to be deep and meaningful is rendered plastic & facile or (as in this case, and arguably) overblown and pretentious (which TBF is a crit you can land at Moore's door anyway), seems to be borne out.

This tho:

The general plot of the book needed to be updated for the story to have been relevant.

Irrelevant argument IMV - plus of course, had Snyder done this the immediate accusation from everyone would be 'no faith in the source material'.

But then I guess if someone updates any other cold war stuff it will need to be 'updated' to seem 'relevant'

 

[kabbes]

but once more my argument that when comic books are translated to the screen, what seems to be deep and meaningful is rendered plastic & facile or (as in this case, and arguably) overblown and pretentious (which TBF is a crit you can land at Moore's door anyway), seems to be borne out.

Yes, I think you're right. I think that it's because a lot of the meaning of a comic book is imputed onto it by the reader. It's unspoken and happens between the panels. But a film fills in the gaps between the panels for you and spells out the suppsed meaning, so you lose the ability to pace it yourself and create your own meaning.

 

[kyser_soze]

I also think that, generally speaking, there is a lower bar to widespread critical success when it comes to graphic novels - it's worth noting that something like Persepolis stayed true to it's roots when it made the transition from book to film, and lost nothing of it's power and general brilliance. Perhaps the move to live action is where the problem starts?

 

[The Octagon]

Yet to see the DC, but think this was the best possible film adaptation of the novel (bar a few casting / aesthetic choices, sometimes the vigilantes looked a little too 'cool').

However, an HBO mini-series (perhaps 5-6 episodes) would have been immense.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think about 90%* of comic/book adaptations would work better as a well budgeted HBO mini-series (or in the case of Dune, a lavishly funded mini-epic of between 6 and 12 episodes, depending on them sticking to the original 3 books, or going for all 6 of the Frank Herbert written ones...)