Watchmen - the new movie, the original comic

[Outsider]

Just saw Watchmen. I'm interested in the thoughts of others.

I became a big fan of the comic a few years back. I had high hopes for this film -- It just looked very slick in the ads, but, in the end, it wasn't quite what I had hoped, though really that should have been easy to see coming.

In the end, my disappointment had nothing to do with what was not present in the film, but rather, how the characters' pasts and the important particular circumstances of the world they occupied were all present, but, were all presented too quickly to really absorb -- too many little important details presented as a headline on a newspaper -- not that there were too many of these, not that any were missing, but, that you just had to be really quick to keep up with all of them and then didn't really have enough time to digest them. Not that I needed to digest them -- I already knew and understood all those details, but, they just didn't seem to be given enough weight.

Plus, most of the heroes were simply too superhuman -- it was always one of the things I loved about the comic -- that there were all these masked adventurers - vigilante crime-fighers - who were really just ordinary humans, and not really super-human, with one important exception, of course. And again, in the movie this important details was well understood on the one hand, but then, sort of ignored on the other as all the ordinary non-super-powered heros just tore through ordinary people with a little too much ease in fight after fight, in my opinion. In lots of little ways, their exceptional physical abililties degraded the essential coolness of their characters -- except for Ozymanias, who WAS supposed to be exceptional, but, the back-story details of his physical exceptionalness was not sufficiently exposed, in my opion.

Oh well, I guess I'm just too hard to please. So sue me. But pity me, too, because its not really any fun always being disappointed with stuff that you're hoping to enjoy.

[Blue_turnip]

Good. I had a hard decision and opted out of going and seeing this movie yesterday.

[Colin]

I haven't read the book but I thought it was pretty good. I'm not sure how weight can be given to each of a half dozen characters' individual back stories in one movie.

The prison cafeteria scene was fantastic. The characters worked well as anti-heroes. The musical montages about the fictionalized 60s/70s were great. The casting was unreal. I can't get over how much the actors look like the original drawings (flipped through the book after watching).

[Frank_Sinatra]

I was hoping to read the book before seeing it, but the book is still in the mail somewhere I guess. But I saw it on Saturday. I knew on kind of a synopsis level some of the details. Particularly the human/superhuman thing, which also kind of confused me - I knew that none of them were supposed to have superpowers except for Dr. Manhattan.

I didn't know Ozymandias was supposed to be incredibly fast until a Rorshach voice over very late in the movie, and as Jon said this ability was never explained. Rorshach seemed to have some kind of extraordinary leaping ability, which is no big deal I guess, but a little out of place at times. And yeah, Night Owl & Silk Spectre II were just unstoppable badasses in their fight scenes, but the film didn't explain if they had learned martial arts, or had super strength, or why exactly they could fight off dozens of people at a time.

And the actress who played the original Silk Spectre was TERRIBLE.

But those are all small gripes. The movie was good, very enjoyable, but no masterpiece. I wouldn't put it on the same level as The Dark Knight or even Iron Man, but it was still very good. Far better than the typical action flick IMO.

[C-Fan]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but for those of you who read the book, here's a cool tidbit.

The Rorschach issue is laid out perfectly symmetrically, like a rorschach test. The middle two pages is a big image in the center, and the panels on the left and right are shaped the same, and have the same characters in them. The page before the middle two is laid out the same as the page after the middle two, and again, the same characters appear in each panel. It continues in that manner for the entire issue, so the whole issue is symmetrical both in form as in content.

Kinda cool.

[Jeremy]

My favourite blogger, PZ Myers wrote a fun review;

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/watchmen.php

Good counter point to Jon perhaps. I haven't seen it and probably won't. My housemates did and said it was a little boring.

[semiconscious]

Yeah, I was a pretty big fan of the comic, and so I went to see the midnight show on thursday night (big mistake, I hadn't factored in the fact that it was 3 hours long...). I was not dissappointed, and in fact I really enjoyed the first half of the movie. The opening credits montage was one of the bigger highlights.
For me, the big issue with the movie was the fact that a lot of the time, good comic book dialogue, doesn't necessarily translate well into good movie dialogue. I noticed many times, especially close to the end, lines I new were pulled right out of the comic, and yet, when they were movie dialogue they went from being intense to campy and kinda lame. Maybe it was just the acting.
I was also not so big on the way in which they all seemed to have super powers, but I can understand that there had to be some kind of draw for people who are not interested in dark, brooding comic books, so the cartoonish fight scenes are excusable. It was a shame in a way, though, because I felt that one of the keys to the whole "making superheroes look like normal people" thing was to make the violence as unglamorous as possible, something the book did well.
Also, the ending sucked. Maybe the ending in the book was a little over the top as well, but I wasn't quite so caught up in the movie as I was in the book, so my inner critic was being a little noisier, I think.
All in all, although it walks the line where n00bs will be confused and super fanboys will be angry and dissatisfied (but aren't they always?), it was probably the best that could be done. The book's still better.
While I'm here, this is a funny watchmen homage I found last week. Not funny if you haven't read it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

[Outsider]

Rorshach seemed to have some kind of extraordinary leaping ability, which is no big deal I guess, but a little out of place at times.

He's not really supposed to have any "extraordinary" abilities, its simply that he's very tough (tougher than the common criminals that he beats up every day) and fanatically determined, and he has lived his whole life this way, and he is as far from soft and weak and lazy as any ordinary person could be, so, he is capable of great physical feats. Great, but not superhuman. In that sense, he's like those occasional pro basketball players who are way shorter than the average pro ball player, but, they can still dunk... I'm not a basketball fan, but, do ya know the kind of guys I'm talking about?

And yeah, Night Owl & Silk Spectre II were just unstoppable badasses in their fight scenes, but the film didn't explain if they had learned martial arts, or had super strength, or why exactly they could fight off dozens of people at a time.

Well, their particular combat skills were never really explained in any detail in the book either, but, both of these were people who spent over a decade as "costumed adventurers" seeking out danager and fighting criminals. So, I think the point was supposed to be that when a bunch relatively ordinary gang-members tried to jump some ordinary-looking civilians in a dark alley, they (the gang) simply didn't know what they were getting themselves into. Also, part of the point of that scene was that those particular costumed heros (Nightowl and Silk Spectre) had been retired for a pretty long time and were not eager to get back into costume and go looking for trouble, but they sort of just stumbled into trouble instead and thus rediscovered their long-dormant desire for some action -- they began to realize they missed their good-old-days of kicking-ass-for-a-good-cause. Additionally, they were not necessarily supposed to be able to fight off dozens of bad-guys. In the comic there were only 5 or 6 baddies in the alley with them, not a dozen. Basically, these sorts of scenes were exaggerated in the film.

I didn't know Ozymandias was supposed to be incredibly fast until a Rorshach voice over very late in the movie, and as Jon said this ability was never explained.

Well, of all the "costumed adventurers" who were human (that is, everybody but Dr. Manhattan), Ozymandias was the only one who was supposed to be really exceptional in any way, and, in his case, it was simply a matter of him just being something of a perfect human specimen, without necessarily having any truely "superhuman" abilities. In the comic, Ozymandias is seen to give a gymnastics performance for a paying audience in Madison Square Garden (or something like that) even though he is in middle age. He's just supposed to be "naturally very gifted," but with an emphasis on "natural" as opposed to super-natural. In fact, the comic book seems to suggest that even he was unsure of his ability to actually pull-off that feet of catching a bullet, and that he sort of just made a gamble that his excellent powers of observation would allow him to anticipate exactly when his adversary was going to pull that trigger, and, combined with his terrific reflexes... and, in the comic it is also suggested that he kind-of/sort-of more deflects the bullet - it still wounds him, but only on the palm of his hand.

The Rorschach issue is laid out perfectly symmetrically, like a rorschach test.

Thats really pretty cool. I did not know this. On the other hand, when I flipped through my copy of the graphic novel last night, I still did not see any discernable pattern... perhaps the lay-out had been altered from the original comic issues when it was compiled into one large book? Or perhaps we're not thinking of the same section of the story when you say "the Rorschach issue." I'm assuming you meant the part when he's in prison and being interviewed by the shrink. Thats really like the highlight of the comic, that issue -- so cool. Sadly, much of it is missing from the movie. In the comic, those scenes take place over several interviews on several different days, but in the comic the scene happens all in one go. Also, one of the coolest things about those scenes in the comic are how the doctor's exposure to Rorschach begins to effect the shrink and twist his brain a bunch... Again, thats all abscent from the film. Understandable -- its a very minor plot point, but still, added alot of flavor and too bad it was left out.

edit: oh, yeah, regarding "the Rorschach issue", I see now that you meant chapter 5. The one I was thinking of, which has Rorschach in prison, is Chapter 6. Yeah, I can see that Chapter 5 was deliberately laid out as you described, as a mirror-image of itself. Chapter 5 is titled, very approriately of course, "Fearful Symetry", as in the William Blake poem. I shall have to take a closer look at that soon, but, not right now -- I'm very tired. But, thanks again for the tip.

The prison cafeteria scene was fantastic.

Yeah, as I was just saying, Rorschach in prison is basically the high-point of the story, in a couple of ways. I just love that line he yells about his perspective on the whole prison situation. So cool. And on that note...

For me, the big issue with the movie was the fact that a lot of the time, good comic book dialogue, doesn't necessarily translate well into good movie dialogue. I noticed many times, especially close to the end, lines I new were pulled right out of the comic, and yet, when they were movie dialogue they went from being intense to campy and kinda lame. Maybe it was just the acting.

Yeah, okay, I'm with you on that. But I'm not sure its necessarily the acting. I felt much the same about this director's other big comic-book film, "300" . That is, there were lines from the story that I thought were super-cool, and I was eager to hear them in the movie, but, in the movie they seemed to fall kind of flat, like, a musician hitting the wrong note. Somehow, I get the feeling it has more to do with the film-maker than the actor. I don't know how it winds of happening, but, given that it has happened to several different actors in different films, and the big common factor between them was the director (well, that, and that both of those films were based on comic books...).

[C-Fan]

I'm assuming you meant the part when he's in prison and being interviewed by the shrink. Thats really like the highlight of the comic, that issue

I think it's the issue right before that. It starts with Rorshach leaving his apartment in the first panel, and ends with him getting arrested at his apartment in the final panel. The center of the issue is Adrian Veidt "thwarting" his assassination attempt. Every panel out from that center panel is symetrical and has the same characters in it.

[daLai]

I've read the comic in February and short time after I ordered it I came across the trailer for Watchmen on the net. A nice coincidence.
I've watched the movie past week and I have mixed feelings about it.
On the one hand, I was relieved to see that there is no Jessica Alba or any other actor who absorbs half the budget of the movie...Because that is exactly what happened to other comic converts recently.
I was happy that the movie stuck to the comic, but on the other hand as Jonathan has already mentioned...It all was way too fast and the background of some characters was not satisfyingly described, albeit it runs 162 minutes.
All in all it was the best comic movie I've ever seen, but I have to admit that Watchmen is so far the only comic I've read before....
I wasn't happy about the ending though...A few details were fixed for the movie...I didn't like that.
It's worth watching, but I'd recommend you to read the book beforehand.

[Jeremy]

Went and saw it today - not a fan. Haven't read the comics though, but also don't like most comics or movies based on comics. They are usually great drawings, which I like looking at, with silly pretentious plots with simplistic attitudes towards the world and human nature. Frank Miller is the same as any other as well. Great art skills with a 14 year old's understanding of the world.

I do like cold war culture though, so I appreciated parts of it, and I like the way Miller lifts tiny little moments from current events and puts them into his comics - which are then reproduced in the movie - like using dialogue reported from the My Lai massacre when the Comedian shoots the pregnant woman, but it's a meaningless reference that seems to trivialise those events rather than offer any kind of comment on them.

[C-Fan]

Frank Miller=300, Sin City
Alan Moore=Watchmen, V for Vendetta, From Hell.

The director of the movie Watchmen is the same as the director from the movie 300, which may be the source of your confusion?

For the record, I don't think the art in the comic Watchmen is very good, but the story is excellent. Moore is only a writer, and so the art in his works isn't under his control, and in my opinion, usually isn't great. Frank Miller on the other hand often writes and draws his stories. Some of his work, like the stuff he did on Daredevil, are solid stories. Some of his work is childish, but with striking art, like Sin City. And then there is The Dark Knight Returns, which I thought was a great story with great art.

I do see what you are saying though about many comics having a 14 year-old view of the world. The comic-book "Wanted" (which was turned into a movie with Angelina Jolie) is a good example of that: fun, but for the most part just wish-fulfilment for angsty teenagers. That said, there are also comics like Sandman which are fantastic reads.

[Outsider]

For the record, I don't think the art in the comic Watchmen is very good, but the story is excellent. Moore is only a writer, and so the art in his works isn't under his control, and in my opinion, usually isn't great.

Well, "isn't under his control" could be understood from a few different viewpoints. I'm no expert, but I believe Moore and Gibbons collaborated fairly closely. That is to say, the artist wasn't selected and matched up at random with the writer by some other decision-maker. Surely, Moore chose to work with Gibbons.

Also, yeah, I tend to agree with you, C-Fan, about the art. Watchmen was famous for a long time before I became interested -- I'd see it on a shelf in a comic store or even a big-box book store, and I'd flip through it a little, and quickly dismiss it because I thought it looked awful. Something about the coloring looked childish. But finally, after having gone through all of The Sandman and Cerberus and The Dark Knight Returns and such and such, and I was looking for something else good, I gave in and bought Watchmen. And then a funny thing happened... somewhere in the middle of the book I stopped noticing that I didn't like the way the art looked. And then, I began to actually like it. I suppose that the characters and the world created for them to inhabit were so engrossing... I'm not sure, but, basically, my opinion changed completely with regard to how the art looked.

In general, with regard to the sophistication of the writing, I think that it is on a very high level, and demonstrates a very impressive flexibility of the writer -- what with the excerpts from an autobiography, and the psychology reports and global security reports and corporate sales strategies inserted, and the comic-within-a-comic. All in all, I'd say Moore had to write as though he were three or four different people or more.

That said, there are also comics like Sandman which are fantastic reads.

Yeah, the Sandman was my introduction to mature comics, and I was into it in a big way for a while. But I think that Watchmen blows it away. Sandman certainly has much more beautiful art, at times.

[Jeremy]

Oops, my bad. I don't know how I made that mistake, although I've been the only person in the house not excited by the movie (or the upcoming Star Trek movie) so I probably just misinterpreted a conversation. It does make sense given I have all of Frank Miller's work on my computer (most of which I haven't read) and it wasn't there when I had a look after seeing the film.

When I went to a Neil Gaiman talk a year or two ago everybody there told me I should read The Sandman. I was pretty much the only person there who was not a fanboy, although I did smash American Gods in the couple of days before the talk.

I don't really think comics are my thing. You probably have to grow up with them as a kid to appreciate them.

[Pinkus]

I don't really think comics are my thing. You probably have to grow up with them as a kid to appreciate them.

I think it may have to do with growing up with technology.

Why read a book or comic when you can get INSTANT gratification from watching TV or play a video game?

[Jeremy]

Perhaps. I grew up without television or video games and then became obsessed with both for a short period of time when my parents finally relented, and now find them largely boring and a waste of time. I guess we are at opposite ends of the spectrum, with comics in the middle . I would much rather read a book than watch TV, play video games or read a comic. Actually I did read all of Tintin and Asterix many times as a kid, but also lots of books and I grew up on a farm with 100 acres of native bushland, so spent a lot more time running around making forts, catching grasshoppers and throwing things at snakes.

[C-Fan]

Finally watched this, as I got it out from the library. For the most part I share Jon's disappointment. The movie felt rushed, and even for a fan of the comic it wasn't easy to follow. I also didn't think the actor playing Veidt looked like an olympic athlete like Veidt was supposed to be. That guy can catch a bullet? Gimme a break.

And the actress who played the original Silk Spectre was TERRIBLE. .

Very true. Notably terrible actress.

Also, the sex scene? What the hell was that? Ugh.

[CIC flurry]

This reminds me of Jim Gaffigan's tstand up.
at time 1:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHa8L8ORsu8

[C-Fan]

Oh man, I laughed so hard.

[CIC flurry]