Watchmen

[eternity]

It's from the same distance, angle, and framing as the Zapruder film. It, like a lot of the credit sequence, was there to show events that occurred between 1940-1985 that were famous in world history, and how Watchmen characters fit in. It was a clever, kind of hilarious little shot, turning over to Blake being the second shooter.

[Qrazy]

Honestly, it bothers me regardless. I don't like the idea of assigning a number or letter to my opinions, and I'm not sure why people get so particular (scales of a hundred, etc.), unless it's purposefully tongue-in-cheek.

I'd much rather talk about the art and get a dialogue going.

I don't like it when you assign words to your opinion. I'd prefer numbers only please. I kid. I really only want smiley or frowny faces.

---

Saw the film...

Pros:

1) Some of the scenes work extremely well. Rorschach's death and most of the Rorschach scenes in general. Much of the Dr. Manhattan stuff. Other miscellaneous moments.
2) It was nice to see the novel brought to the screen.
3) In isolated moments the imagery works well.

Cons:

1) The make-up is indeed terrible.
2) The choice of music is indeed terrible.
3) Some of the dialogue doesn't translate in the slightest from page to screen.
4) The violence did feel gratuitous in many places but this isn't really what bothered me most. Frankly I just hate the way Snyder films action. I can't stand it on an aesthetic level.
5) Like most films of it's type it suffers from poor drama (not necessarily bad acting in all cases)... if it's not the leads it's background characters/extras who don't sell the scene.
6) The pacing. There was a very drawn out quality to many of the scenes in the film. Even when the scene wasn't shot in slo-mo it felt slow moving. Give me some overlapping dialogue or something more dynamic.

The film's biggest problem was summed up by someone above me. Essentially the film is simply too blunt. The music cues are just brutal. The dialogue doesn't work either at times. The action is unnecessarily graphic (in that for the most part it's not hard hitting and raw but simply purposelessly gory). The assassination of JFK by the Comedian was mentioned but there's also the Ride of the Valkyries with Dr. Manhattan in Nam... The Rorschach test cards falling out of the shrink's briefcase... Rorschach's bloody remains forming a Rorschach symbol... etc.

Summary: C/C-

Re-posted from my upcoming film thread for comparison purposes:

"Snyder's track record has been lackluster but he does have an eye for visuals... in the very broad sense of the term... however, the slickness of his visuals detracts somewhat from the film's success on a thematic level. Some scenes work admirably, others don't make the transition from graphic novel to cinema as successfully. Snyder's drama needs work. This film earns a C+.

Anticipation level at NTA yellow."

[Mysterious Dude]

The way they incorporated Hiroshima was somewhat offensive, too.

[MadMan]

It's from the same distance, angle, and framing as the Zapruder film. It, like a lot of the credit sequence, was there to show events that occurred between 1940-1985 that were famous in world history, and how Watchmen characters fit in. It was a clever, kind of hilarious little shot, turning over to Blake being the second shooter.I thought it was a great touch myself. And after reading the novel I actually did assume that Blake was indeed involved in the shooting, along with the murder of Woodward and Bernstein and other killings. Especially considering he supposedly worked for the government and all.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't like it when you assign words to your opinion. I'd prefer numbers only please.

Your post = 21%

[Qrazy]

Your post = 21%

Your post rating my post: :cry:

[Qrazy]

I thought it was a great touch myself. And after reading the novel I actually did assume that Blake was indeed involved in the shooting, along with the murder of Woodward and Bernstein and other killings. Especially considering he supposedly worked for the government and all.

If the scene must be included why not use his silhouette on the grassy knoll or a cigar butt dropped at the scene of the crime? Why spell it out?

[Spinal]

The way they incorporated Hiroshima was somewhat offensive, too.

I'm blanking. When was this?

[Mysterious Dude]

I'm blanking. When was this?
Right after the title, they show a plane flying away from a nuclear explosion over a city, and on the plane there's a picture of "Miss Jupiter".

http://www.thinkhero.com/2009/03/07/watchmen-movie-opening-title-sequence/

It is a little hard to see; the plane is more prominent in the shot than the explosion.

[Qrazy]

Right after the title, they show a plane flying away from a nuclear explosion over a city, and on the plane there's a picture of "Miss Jupiter".

http://www.thinkhero.com/2009/03/07/watchmen-movie-opening-title-sequence/

It is a little hard to see; the plane is more prominent in the shot than the explosion.

I have to say I'm getting really tired of Last Supper references. It was great with Altman and Bunuel but it's gotten old. I can't recall now but I saw it in another film not too long ago as well.

[Spinal]

Right after the title, they show a plane flying away from a nuclear explosion over a city, and on the plane there's a picture of "Miss Jupiter".

http://www.thinkhero.com/2009/03/07/watchmen-movie-opening-title-sequence/

It is a little hard to see; the plane is more prominent in the shot than the explosion.

Ah, yes. I remember now.

[MadMan]

If the scene must be included why not use his silhouette on the grassy knoll or a cigar butt dropped at the scene of the crime? Why spell it out?Okay I can agree with that being the better way to go about it. Considering the other obvious moments that Synder threw in for fear that some of his audience hadn't read the graphic novel though, perhaps that's why he didn't do what you suggest he should have done in the first place.

[number8]

Okay I can agree with that being the better way to go about it. Considering the other obvious moments that Synder threw in for fear that some of his audience hadn't read the graphic novel though, perhaps that's why he didn't do what you suggest he should have done in the first place.

But the problem is that the whole conceit of the opening sequence is that it's teases for people who have read it. Why else would he show Rorschach as a boy before the film introduced Rorschach? Or the shot of criminals tied up with Rorschach's signature logo, when it doesn't even show up anywhere else in the film?

Still, I don't really have that much of a problem with the recreation of historical events. I think history is fair game in fiction, no matter how tragic.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Still, I don't really have that much of a problem with the recreation of historical events. I think history is fair game in fiction, no matter how tragic.

It's also a dark comment on how superheroes are a reflection of the idea of violence as a solution - their presence doesn't prevent, but instead facilitates, real-world horrors.

[Watashi]

I totally didn't know the dude next to Andy Warhol was Truman Capote.

[number8]

I totally didn't know the dude next to Andy Warhol was Truman Capote.

I didn't realize at first that the guy next to Bowie was Mick Jagger.

[number8]

It's also a dark comment on how superheroes are a reflection of the idea of violence as a solution - their presence doesn't prevent, but instead facilitates, real-world horrors.

We'll be having this discussion in depth whenever the Ex Machina movie happens. If ever. Doubt it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

We'll be having this discussion in depth whenever the Ex Machina movie happens. If ever. Doubt it.

What's Ex Machina? My curiosity is officially piqued.

[number8]

What's Ex Machina? My curiosity is officially piqued.

A comic about a superhero who decides he's better off helping people by retiring and serving as Mayor of New York. His campaign leads nowhere because as a superhero he was always more of a nuisance than a savior, until 9/11 happens and he takes up his mantle one more time, stopping the second plane from hitting the second tower. He wins the election in a landslide.

New Line bought the rights and the screenplay exists. I just don't think it will ever get made.

[Boner M]

It was pretty good.

[Fezzik]

I have to say I'm getting really tired of Last Supper references. It was great with Altman and Bunuel but it's gotten old. I can't recall now but I saw it in another film not too long ago as well.


To be fair to Snyder, that shot is from the Graphic Novel, so he was mimicking a panel from 20+ years ago.

I'll give him somewhat of a pass on it. I was actually surprised he used it, considering how sensitive my fellow Christians can usually be.

[jamaul]

JFK is a film about JFK. Watchmen is not. The footage adds nothing of substance to the film's plot or themes. It is an image of a recent American president with half of his face blown off. This is an historical figure still beloved by many who are alive today and who experienced great pain when he was assassinated. The film uses an inflammatory and emotional historical image, uses no restraint in regards to the gory details and does so for no good reason. That, to me, is the very definition of gratuitous.

This sounds more like either

a) weak sensibilities on your part

or

b) nit-picking

because, sorry, it is not the 'very definition of gratuitous.' I'm told by Merriam-Webster.com that the definition of gratuitous is 'not involving a return benefit' or 'not called for by circumstance,' which sounds to me that this single shot is indeed the very opposite of gratuitous, whether you like the shot or not. It is simply cause and effect: JFK gets his head blown off . . . oh, look, there's The Comedian with a gun. What are we establishing here? Oh yeah, an alternate history.

The fact also remains that it is handled with grace and taste, because, if you know anything about the philisophical concept of what an image can do by placing the camera a certain distance from the action, you will see that there is simply nothing gratuitous about it. The camera does not cut for close up, does not slow speed to catch all the visual on-set effects of an exploding head, nor does it linger for too long.

Oh, and by the way: JFK's death has hit the public domain by now . . . it is not a sacred death, but one that any artist has any right to subjectively or objectively use in their work. You're making it sound as if JFK's staged death in Watchmen was an act similar to pissing on the side of the Taj Mahal (which I for one would have little issue taking part in if I really, really had to go), while the likes of Bunuel or the Python's made careers out of satirizing, or re-staging sacred or religious acts, or moments of history, with a comedic slant.

[Kurosawa Fan]

To comment on something from a couple pages back, I used to have people ask me if I liked a movie nearly every night when I worked at Hollywood Video (and even sometimes when I worked at Suncoast, before they purchased a movie). My response was always the same: "I'm not trying to be rude, but my opinion of the film should mean nothing to you, because you have no idea who I am or what I generally enjoy."

I don't understand the mentality of someone who decides what to watch or not watch based solely on the opinion of a complete stranger. I was baffled then, and I'm still baffled now.

[Ezee E]

I think some people just need the confirmation so that they don't feel any regret spending the money. They can place the blame on someone for saying it was okay.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think some people just need the confirmation so that they don't feel any regret spending the money. They can place the blame on someone for saying it was okay.

If they're that worried about 99 cents (which was how much all of the movies were at Hollywood when I worked there), they shouldn't be at the video store.

[NickGlass]

You expect the majority of the moviegoing public to think for themselves? Insanity.

[jamaul]

If they're that worried about 99 cents (which was how much all of the movies were at Hollywood when I worked there), they shouldn't be at the video store.


I think you're taking what people say too seriously, or giving it too much thought. Isn't it a basic human gesture to ask someone what they think of something, especially if they work at the store you are purchasing from? I see how there is a certain unrelatablity between you and the average-moviewatcher, but I would see it as part of a daily dialogue with a stranger: if you've seen the movie, why not suggest your likes and dislikes? Movies should strike up varying opinions, but ultimately, we see with similar eyes and hear with similar ears . . .

Now if someone came up and said, 'hey buddy, don't know if I should rent this, how many stars would you give it?' - then I could see your point.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think you're taking what people say too seriously, or giving it too much thought. Isn't it a basic human gesture to ask someone what they think of something, especially if they work at the store you are purchasing from? I see how there is a certain unrelatablity between you and the average-moviewatcher, but I would see it as part of a daily dialogue with a stranger: if you've seen the movie, why not suggest your likes and dislikes? Movies should strike up varying opinions, but ultimately, we see with similar eyes and hear with similar ears . . .

Now if someone came up and said, 'hey buddy, don't know if I should rent this, how many stars would you give it?' - then I could see your point.

No, a lot of it was "Do you think I should rent this?". I can understand asking someone if they like it, but having them make the decision for you is bizarre behavior. I saw it happen numerous times with other employees. Someone would ask them if they liked the movie they had in their hand, the employee would say "No, it was pretty terrible", and the person would go put it back on the shelf. Why would you let a complete stranger talk you out of renting a film that looked interesting to you?

[Sycophant]

When I worked at a Hollywood Video, I had a handful of customers who were genuinely interested in my opinions and I usually gave them good recommendations and showed them a couple of awesome new things. The majority, though, were unhappy with my recommendations and I began to defer all recommendations for this majority to a coworker who had what I thought was shit taste. Everyone was happier that way.

[Kurosawa Fan]

When I worked at a Hollywood Video, I had a handful of customers who were genuinely interested in my opinions and I usually gave them good recommendations and showed them a couple of awesome new things. The majority, though, were unhappy with my recommendations and I began to defer all recommendations for this majority to a coworker who had what I thought was shit taste. Everyone was happier that way.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I worked at Hollywood for three years, and developed great rapport with some of our regulars, and we'd recommend movies back and forth, but they understood my taste, and vice versa. The inexplicable thing is people you've seen for the first time basing their decisions on whether you say you like something or not.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, I never understood that.

[jamaul]

No, a lot of it was "Do you think I should rent this?". I can understand asking someone if they like it, but having them make the decision for you is bizarre behavior. I saw it happen numerous times with other employees. Someone would ask them if they liked the movie they had in their hand, the employee would say "No, it was pretty terrible", and the person would go put it back on the shelf. Why would you let a complete stranger talk you out of renting a film that looked interesting to you?

I can see the lunacy there, but at the same time, some people literally don't have opinions of movies and music and things that run into much more detail than just 'it was good,' 'it sucked,' etc. And those people I think rely on the cool kids like us working the counter at your local video stores to help fulfill a fun, enjoyable evening of movie-watching merriment, so they may pull out their filmbuff card next time they see their friends, running down a list of films-just-rented and let them know which ones were good and which ones sucked. Then the friend will ask of the ones that sucked, 'well, why did you rent it,' to which they will then be able to respond, 'Kurosawa Fan suggested I do. And his name should have been the first indication it would suck . . . I don't even like Japanese movies.'

Yeah, sorry, none of that made much sense. I guess the bottom line is that people should not rely on the good posters at Match Cut to make their Blockbuster night.

[number8]

Well, don't people ask "What do you recommend?" to waiters in restaurants all the time?

[Sycophant]

Hi jamaul.

[Qrazy]

To be fair to Snyder, that shot is from the Graphic Novel, so he was mimicking a panel from 20+ years ago.

I'll give him somewhat of a pass on it. I was actually surprised he used it, considering how sensitive my fellow Christians can usually be.

Ah k, didn't remember that. Well I guess that's fair although it kind of downgrades my opinion of the graphic novel more so than it upgrades my opinion of the scene in Snyder's version. Please don't tell me that I blocked out of my mind that Rorschach's death forms a Rorschach symbol in the graphic novel as well.

[jamaul]

Hi jamaul.

Hello, Sychophant. Have we been properly acquainted?

[number8]

Speaking of the JFK thing, it's not the only thing the movie spelled out that wasn't so in the comic.

Like, say, Laurie being The Comedian's daughter, and that Comedian and Sally had consensual sex.

Yeah, yeah, I know they had to quickly get the message across to moviegoers, but still... I love the way those two issues are handled in the comics.

[NickGlass]

Well, don't people ask "What do you recommend?" to waiters in restaurants all the time?

There's a distinct difference between "what's good here" and "what movie should I rent?"

[jamaul]

There's a distinct difference between "what's good here" and "what movie should I rent?"

The biggest one, obviously, is that you don't eat movies.

[number8]

There's a distinct difference between "what's good here" and "what movie should I rent?"

I'm not so sure. Waiters don't cook the food they serve and Blockbuster employees don't make the movies they provide. When they give you recommendations, it's either their own personal taste, or what's popular with customers lately, or what item they really want to push.

As far as I'm concerned, both questions are kind of dumb.

[Ezee E]

Speaking of the JFK thing, it's not the only thing the movie spelled out that wasn't so in the comic.

Like, say, Laurie being The Comedian's daughter, and that Comedian and Sally had consensual sex.

Yeah, yeah, I know they had to quickly get the message across to moviegoers, but still... I love the way those two issues are handled in the comics.

Yeah, I forgot how it was pointed out in the comic, but it was put together well. It made Silk Spectre I seem somewhat interesting too, instead of just this old, crying woman that always had a drink.

[Qrazy]

I'm not so sure. Waiters don't cook the food they serve and Blockbuster employees don't make the movies they provide. When they give you recommendations, it's either their own personal taste, or what's popular with customers lately, or what item they really want to push.

As far as I'm concerned, both questions are kind of dumb.

I don't know, I think it's just a way of branching out and trying something new without going in completely blind. Asking a waiter or movie clerk's opinion is probably more valuable than just reading the back of the dvd or a description on the menu. Taste is variable but it's not completely arbitrary. I don't think there are any of us who would say that imdb's bottom 100 is better than it's top 100. If I went into a movie store without knowing anything about directors or top lists and wanted to try something new asking the clerk would most likely provide better results on average than picking a film at random. I say this much more so for arthouse rental places or fine dining... for blockbusters or Friendly's diners yeah there's no point in asking the clerk/waiter.

[number8]

Yeah, I forgot how it was pointed out in the comic, but it was put together well.

There's a flashback where Laurie runs into Blake in a party and the drunk Laurie goes off on him and says something like, "You need to use force just to have sex with a woman like her" and Blake sadly says, "Only once."

Laurie gets madder because she thinks he's being an asshole, as if just raping once is better than raping her ten times. But of course, the implication is that Blake only had to rape her once and all the other times are consensual.

[kuehnepips]

I didn't realize at first that the guy next to Bowie was Mick Jagger.

Yeah, I thought it was Ron Wood and was wondering ...

[number8]

By the way, I do have to thank Snyder one thing. Without him making the movie, we wouldn't have all these Watchmen discussions like this. It's been fun.

As I said in my review, the movie is nothing more than a three hour long commercial for the novel. Which might be a good thing.

[Ezee E]

I wonder how much of an increase that book has sold over the past year and this week.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, don't people ask "What do you recommend?" to waiters in restaurants all the time?

This isn't any better, as far as I'm concerned.

[Fezzik]

Ah k, didn't remember that. Well I guess that's fair although it kind of downgrades my opinion of the graphic novel more so than it upgrades my opinion of the scene in Snyder's version. Please don't tell me that I blocked out of my mind that Rorschach's death forms a Rorschach symbol in the graphic novel as well.

If you formed a mental block against it, then so did I, because I don't remember that. :)

[NickGlass]

I say this much more so for arthouse rental places or fine dining... for blockbusters or Friendly's diners yeah there's no point in asking the clerk/waiter.

I agree with this. There's nothing personal or site-specific about the films that Blockbuster has (or the food that Outback or Chili's "makes"), but restaurants often have a dish or two on the menu that the chef cooks extra well, and the waiter's are aware of what makes a certain eater special.

[[ETM]]

If you formed a mental block against it, then so did I, because I don't remember that. :)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/sf_anime/Watchmen-12-24.jpg

I don't know really... what do you see in this picture?:P

[Qrazy]

;144373']http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/sf_anime/Watchmen-12-24.jpg

I don't know really... what do you see in this picture?:P

Good, nah don't see it. Although the yellow tunnel is semi smiley face-esque.

[Spun Lepton]

I'm not so sure. Waiters don't cook the food they serve and Blockbuster employees don't make the movies they provide. When they give you recommendations, it's either their own personal taste, or what's popular with customers lately, or what item they really want to push.

As far as I'm concerned, both questions are kind of dumb.

Asking waitstaff "what's good" is asking, "What does the Chef recommend?" This tends to work in the customer's favor, because they may get deals that may not be listed on the menu.

[Qrazy]

Asking waitstaff "what's good" is asking, "What does the Chef recommend?" So, you're wrong about this. Waitstaff is instructed by the chef to push certain items when asked for recommendations by customers.

A valid discrepancy but still many video stores have 'staff pick' sections or stickers. This is often true of record stores as well. Employees of such venues are considered aficionados to one degree or another and their opinions are therefore given more weight than the average Joe. I agree that asking an employee who is a stranger for film advice is a shot in the dark but I think we can all agree that building a rapport with employees at music/film stores and discovering similarities in taste can be very rewarding (to find new recommendations... or to just strike up a conversation). However, since everyone starts out as a stranger to one another the rapport can only be established by making that first leap.

[MadMan]

But the problem is that the whole conceit of the opening sequence is that it's teases for people who have read it. Why else would he show Rorschach as a boy before the film introduced Rorschach? Or the shot of criminals tied up with Rorschach's signature logo, when it doesn't even show up anywhere else in the film?Well I recognized that when I was watching the opening sequence, I just really didn't mind it too much. If anything I would have been surprised had Synder not thrown in something like that in the opening credits.


Still, I don't really have that much of a problem with the recreation of historical events. I think history is fair game in fiction, no matter how tragic.Same here, especially considering how much Hollywood plays loose and fast with the facts anyways.


By the way, I do have to thank Snyder one thing. Without him making the movie, we wouldn't have all these Watchmen discussions like this. It's been fun.

As I said in my review, the movie is nothing more than a three hour long commercial for the novel. Which might be a good thing.The movie sure worked in that regard for me. Until the previews for the film showed up a year ago I wasn't even intent on reading the graphic novel. Or at the very least I would have put it off for the next couple of years. I now want to read it again.

[number8]

Probably won't be funny to those who've never read comics from the early 80's, but what the hell:

http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/5819/inkblotae5.jpg

[Spinal]

This sounds more like either

a) weak sensibilities on your part

or

b) nit-picking

Or maybe it's just my opinion. Would that be problematic for you if it was my opinion?

[Qrazy]

Or maybe it's just my opinion. Would that be problematic for you if it was my opinion?

In the vein of tragedy references there was also the shot of the blimp slowly approaching the twin towers as Ozy looks out the window of his corporate penthouse.

[Sycophant]

That's quality stuff there, number8.

[jamaul]

Or maybe it's just my opinion. Would that be problematic for you if it was my opinion?

Dude, unwad the panties . . . I was only arguing about the un-gratuitousness of the single shot. Did you read the rest of the post?

Ah, hell with it. No need to go back and forth, fighting like this. What do you say we make like Bowie and Let's :pritch:

[Skitch]

Going for second viewing tonight.

[kuehnepips]

Going for second viewing tonight.

I can't go tonight Skitch.

[number8]

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3356/alanmoorem.jpg

[MadMan]

Hilarious. The giant snake god painted on the wall in the background is a nice obvious touch.

[Skitch]

I can't go tonight Skitch.


You said you wouldn't go out with me again.

[kuehnepips]

You said you wouldn't go out with me again.

What? Was I sober?

*shivers*

[Spun Lepton]

JFK is a film about JFK. Watchmen is not. The footage adds nothing of substance to the film's plot or themes. It is an image of a recent American president with half of his face blown off.

It was a little gratuitous. But, it did play into the film's themes and it efficiently provided the audience with background information about The Comedian.

[Skitch]

Much better the second time. Extra loud theater helped alot.

[Sxottlan]

I'm looking forward to seeing this again on Friday.

[KK2.0]

Much better the second time. Extra loud theater helped alot.

i'm considering a rewatch in IMAX, to catch all the gory detail. :P

[Skitch]

i'm considering a rewatch in IMAX, to catch all the gory detail. :P


NICE. If I didn't have to drive two hours away...

[Ezee E]

I still don't understand the reasoning of watching this in IMAX. It's not 70MM, not even a 70MM print.

[number8]

I still don't understand the reasoning of watching this in IMAX. It's not 70MM, not even a 70MM print.

You don't watch IMAX for the picture, boyo. You go for the sound system.

[Ezee E]

You don't watch IMAX for the picture, boyo. You go for the sound system.
I'd say most people don't go for that reason.

[number8]

I'd say most people don't go for that reason.

Well, most people don't know the difference between IMAX-shot film and IMAX-projected film. They just like big screens.

Funny enough, I was told that the only IMAX theater in Oregon is the size of a regular movie screen, only in 4:3. :lol:

[Grouchy]

The bottom line is, I think it's a good movie... for people who have already read Watchmen. The rest might be simply too confused because the amount of information that has to be shoe-horned into the movie is fucking gigantic.

At least that's what my experience showed. I went with two friends, one who had read the novel and one who hadn't. The one who hadn't kept asking us about stuff he didn't fully understand or found weird and contrived.

I liked some touches Snyder added to the story - the opening credits are very cool, for example. But that doesn't justify the adaptation. As I said even before I saw the film, they can break their asses doing their best work and still they will fail, because there's nothing that can be changed or supressed from the comic that doesn't work against the story, even if it's the smallest detail like the original Nite Owl's murder.

One question. Why did Snyder have Roscharch kill the girl's kidnapper with the knife? Wasn't it much better and more shocking if he did tie him up and give him the chainsaw as in the book? Maybe he thought it was too Saw-ish.

[megladon8]

I don't like when people pull the whole "you haven't seen it unless you saw it on IMAX" thing.

The Dark Knight was no more fulfilling an experience on IMAX, nor was it lesser on a regular screen.

I'm seeing Watchmen tomorrow probably (Bay Plaza mall in the Bronx) which is a nice, big screen. Perfectly adequate.

[Spun Lepton]

The bottom line is, I think it's a good movie... for people who have already read Watchmen. The rest might be simply too confused because the amount of information that has to be shoe-horned into the movie is fucking gigantic.

At least that's what my experience showed. I went with two friends, one who had read the novel and one who hadn't. The one who hadn't kept asking us about stuff he didn't fully understand or found weird and contrived.

I went with two friends who never read the comic and they had no problem whatsoever following the story. They both enjoyed it quite a bit, too.


One question. Why did Snyder have Roscharch kill the girl's kidnapper with the knife? Wasn't it much better and more shocking if he did tie him up and give him the chainsaw as in the book? Maybe he thought it was too Saw-ish.

He used a meat cleaver and cleaved the guy's face three or four times. Not a knife. And it wouldn't have been more shocking in a film to leave the guy to saw off his own arm off-screen.

[Qrazy]

I don't like when people pull the whole "you haven't seen it unless you saw it on IMAX" thing.


I know man, I have a friend who knows nothing about film who says this and I just think hrm well in that case, go fuck yourself. I've seen films on IMAX, films on a regular screen, films on my projector and films on my computer and while a bigger screen and better sound may make the experience more immersive, ultimately the strengths and weaknesses of a film stand out on any size screen.

[Spinal]

Funny enough, I was told that the only IMAX theater in Oregon is the size of a regular movie screen, only in 4:3. :lol:

Hmmm ... there's one in Portland that seems a lot bigger than a regular movie screen to me. Don't know the official measurements or anything, but I would be surprised if this is actually true.

[Qrazy]

I went with two friends who never read the comic and they had no problem whatsoever following the story. They both enjoyed it quite a bit, too.



He used a meat cleaver and cleaved the guy's face three or four times. Not a knife. And it wouldn't have been more shocking in a film to leave the guy to saw off his own arm off-screen.

I would have preferred the original death and the house on fire in the background but Mad Max did it first anyway (the sawing bit).

[Watashi]

I can easily tell the difference between regular and IMAX.

IMAX is soooooo much better.

After seeing Dark Knight in IMAX, it's an automatic downgrade seeing it anyway else.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, I can see a difference. But if someone starts saying my opinion is invalid because I watched The Dark Knight digitally projected on a small theatrical screen or on my 20" CRT television, they can fuck right off.

[The Mike]

IMAX is like the breast implants of cinema. Sometimes it's fun to look at, sometimes it's creepy and weird, and all the time it's unnecessary if the enhanced items are part of a better whole.

[Spun Lepton]

I like the bigger screen and that's all there is to it.

[DavidSeven]

I saw The Dark Knight on a regular theater screen and IMAX, and I wouldn't say either experience was definitively better. I'm tempted to say I prefer regular screens because the compositions are easier to take in than on IMAX. I've found it challenging to focus on the entire frame on the behemoth IMAX screen.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I don't care for IMAX either for the same reason D7 just mentioned. The screen is too big, and I find myself struggling to take in the entire shot for most of the film. I constantly feel like I'm missing details on the outlying part of the screen because I have to focus my attention on what's in the middle of the shot.

[Sycophant]

That's why IMAX is pretty kickass for nature documentaries where you're just supposed to look at pretty things.

[megladon8]

That's why IMAX is pretty kickass for nature documentaries where you're just supposed to look at pretty things.


Yeah, I totally agree with this. The best IMAX experience I ever had was a documentary about the Mars rover.



I can easily tell the difference between regular and IMAX.

IMAX is soooooo much better.

After seeing Dark Knight in IMAX, it's an automatic downgrade seeing it anyway else.

Fine, but it's purely technical.

If you start trying to say that it is actually a better movie on IMAX, I'm going to have to dial 911-BULLSHIT, because you need to be locked up in Headupyourass Asylum.

[D_Davis]

Don't know the official measurements or anything,

And you call yourself a film buff.

[Sycophant]

Are we talking about Dr. Manhattan's penis again?

[Ezee E]

I can understand Dark Knight on IMAX simply because it fully uses the IMAX theater to its advantage of it being shot with their cameras. On regular screens, you're getting a cropped image at times. You don't truly see everything.

But Watchmen is just a digitally blown up image. It is bigger, yes, but nothing is different.

[Spinal]

And you call yourself a film buff.

I don't think I have ever called myself a film buff.

[Watashi]

Yeah, I totally agree with this. The best IMAX experience I ever had was a documentary about the Mars rover.




Fine, but it's purely technical.

If you start trying to say that it is actually a better movie on IMAX, I'm going to have to dial 911-BULLSHIT, because you need to be locked up in Headupyourass Asylum.
The Dark Knight had certain scenes that were filmed specifically for IMAX. It's more than "it's on a bigger screen".

Obviously the plot, acting, etc. does not change either way, but it is a better film when shown in its proper format.

[Watashi]

Oh, and you need to sit directly in the middle for the best IMAX experience.

If you sit near the bottom, you will have a terrible experience and it will look really fuzzy.

[Qrazy]

I'd like to see Tati's Playtime in Imax.

[D_Davis]

I don't think I have ever called myself a film buff.

Fine - a liker of movies.

[number8]

Oh, and you need to sit directly in the middle for the best IMAX experience.

If you sit near the bottom, you will have a terrible experience and it will look really fuzzy.

I sit three rows from the back. The middle is still too close for me.

[number8]

He used a meat cleaver and cleaved the guy's face three or four times. Not a knife. And it wouldn't have been more shocking in a film to leave the guy to saw off his own arm off-screen.

I don't think it's more shocking. The characterization is obviously different, though.

In the movie, the kill was an emotional moment for Rorschach. He was shaking. He was visibly upset and angry, he cleaved the guy as a release for his own disgust over what's happened. It was still a very human thing to do, to want to lash out like that.

In the novel, the point of the scene was that Rorschach snapped and became inhuman as soon as he saw into the heart of darkness. He became a weapon of objectivism. He actually looked pretty calm when he devised a death trap for the murderer. So yeah, there is that. The scene was supposed to be more than just Rorschach crossing the killing line. It was a transformation.

[balmakboor]

I'd like to see Tati's Playtime in Imax.

Shit yes.

[MadMan]

Because my town's IMAX closed down, I will never find out if an actual movie (not one of the short documentaries, which I've seen plenty of on IMAX screens) looks better on it or not. Or if the experience is better or not. Oh well.

[Barty]

First off, while films are converted to IMAX 70mm film, and thus not truly shot in 70mm (except for parts of Dark Knight), it's hardly simply a digital blow up. It's true, high quality 70mm IMAX film and the image quality is objectively better than 35mm.

And the Dark Knight is a better film on IMAX, for what it's worth. If I had a choice between watching it in 35mm or IMAX, IMAX would easily be the choice. It's supposed to be watched in IMAX, that's the true un-cropped, original shot composition for those parts of the movie filmed on IMAX cameras.

[Barty]

Hmmm ... there's one in Portland that seems a lot bigger than a regular movie screen to me. Don't know the official measurements or anything, but I would be surprised if this is actually true.

The Portland one is a new digital IMAX so the screen sizes are smaller than the old film IMAX projectors. Not necessarily saying it's small...but some premium 35mm screens could give it a run for it's money width wise.

[Morris Schæffer]

Because my town's IMAX closed down, I will never find out if an actual movie (not one of the short documentaries, which I've seen plenty of on IMAX screens) looks better on it or not. Or if the experience is better or not. Oh well.

Same here. A few years back I could have gone to Brussels (our capital and a 1 hour drive), but that closed down. However, for Avatar, I shall make the trip to Amsterdam assuming Cameron's film will play on the imax they got there.

That would be a 2:30 hour drive, but I don't think there's another option for that one. :lol:

[Sven]

the image quality is objectively better than 35mm.

I'd say this is pretty much an impossibility. It may be objectively bigger and objectively more defined. But "better"? Only if it's size and crispness that matter to you.

[Barty]

I'd say this is pretty much an impossibility. It may be objectively bigger and objectively more defined. But "better"? Only if it's size and crispness that matter to you.

The resolution of IMAX film is simply far greater than 35mm. That's the objective standard I'm using.

[Sven]

I don't mean to be an ass about it. I guess I'm just a little bored with IMAX hype. Size doesn't mean anything to me. If you can convince me that a movie is objectively a better movie in IMAX, I will listen. However, even if it's an issue of immersion, I contend that the human mind is still readily capable of such a thing on something as small as an iPod screen.

However, like 8 says, sound is a different issue.

Edit: Re: resolution: I never thought that was a question. Clearly that's an obvious, no?

[[ETM]]

Is there a working link for the titles video? They seem to have gone hunting and pulled all of them since it was first posted.

[Barty]

I don't mean to be an ass about it. I guess I'm just a little bored with IMAX hype. Size doesn't mean anything to me. If you can convince me that a movie is objectively a better movie in IMAX, I will listen. However, even if it's an issue of immersion, I contend that the human mind is still readily capable of such a thing on something as small as an iPod screen.


Well, the only film that has a clear case for being far better in IMAX is Dark Knight, since it actually was physically shot on IMAX film in some parts.

Otherwise, the selling point of IMAX is astoundingly clear image, sound, and the immersive experience of such a large image. If it doesn't appeal to you, then it simply doesn't.

[Sven]

Otherwise, the selling point of IMAX is astoundingly clear image, sound, and the immersive experience of such a large image. If it doesn't appeal to you, then it simply doesn't.

But is a regular theater projection, when the setting are ideal (dark room, in focus, etc), not clear enough? If not, then is classic photography not clear enough?

The sound thing I will concede. Frankly, I don't concentrate too much on sound, though, so even a basic mono does me fine.

As for immersion, I remain unconvinced that size = immersion. Not to mention the common complaint that frequently it's difficult, if not impossible, to pay attention to the entirety of the IMAX image. This could potentially lead to diminishing returns if, say, the filmmaker constructs the film in order to be registered as a frame, the way good filmmakers are wont to do. Frankly, I find the idea of IMAX immersion a bit masochistic.

[number8]

I'm confused by this argument. How is liking IMAX's big damn screen = putting down regular screens?

[Sven]

I'm confused by this argument. How is liking IMAX's big damn screen = putting down regular screens?

I was just irked at Barty saying that it was objectively better. Saying that TDK is "better" in IMAX. The implication that the clarity of the picture somehow makes it more worthy of your attention.

It's the semantician in me. Big damn picture is fine and fun, but I'm hatin' on those that keep nagging about the clearly superior IMAX experience.

[Watashi]

The Dark Knight is objectively better in IMAX because it was shot on IMAX cameras. The scenes are cropped when formatted to a regular theater screen. You're not seeing the entire picture.

It's more than just the clarity. Do I look down on people who don't see it on IMAX? No. Of course not because IMAX isn't everywhere, but its definitely the preferred experience according to the director.

[Barty]

But is a regular theater projection, when the setting are ideal (dark room, in focus, etc), not clear enough? If not, then is classic photography not clear enough?

But classic photography wasn't designed for IMAX, many of these films are shot with the intention of playing in IMAX. So, essentially, it's the filmmakers ideal venue for watching their product.

Heck, a 35mm film frame is insanely high resolution as a matter of fact. However, when taken into account the film size, projector throw, screen size, seating distance, it doesn't have as much "give" in terms of the perfect presentation. With IMAX, due to the astounding resolution of the film size, you can project the image bigger and sit far closer without losing any image quality. You can see every little detail of the frame, which, I'm sure you would agree, most good directors don't have anything unintentional in a frame, so your getting the full picture of their vision.


As for immersion, I remain unconvinced that size = immersion. Not to mention the common complaint that frequently it's difficult, if not impossible, to pay attention to the entirety of the IMAX image. This could potentially lead to diminishing returns if, say, the filmmaker constructs the film in order to be registered as a frame, the way good filmmakers are wont to do. Frankly, I find the idea of IMAX immersion a bit masochistic.

I've never had an issue, then again I always get a good seat in IMAX. :lol:

[Watashi]

A good example is seeing a film specifically designed for 3D without 3D glasses. The quality of the film may stay the same, but you lose the director's true vision when translating the medium.

[Barty]

I was just irked at Barty saying that it was objectively better. Saying that TDK is "better" in IMAX. The implication that the clarity of the picture somehow makes it more worthy of your attention.


With TDK it's not just about clarity, the film literally is not the same director's vision on a non IMAX screen. You are essentially seeing a cropped version of the film when you don't watch it in IMAX.

[Sven]

its definitely the preferred experience according to the director.

Of course, otherwise why bother shooting with an IMAX camera? However, I cannot imagine that Nolan was not considering alternate framing when shooting, given the scarcity of IMAX screens. I also cannot imagine him not thinking about home video consumption as well. Scope is awesome, but it fundamentally boils down to the text.

Plus, I'm one of those that could give a damn about what the artist intends. There is no objectivity in such a reading.

[Qrazy]

Well, the only film that has a clear case for being far better in IMAX is Dark Knight, since it actually was physically shot on IMAX film in some parts.

Otherwise, the selling point of IMAX is astoundingly clear image, sound, and the immersive experience of such a large image. If it doesn't appeal to you, then it simply doesn't.

On a side note, Playtime was shot on 70mm.

[Qrazy]

A good example is seeing a film specifically designed for 3D without 3D glasses. The quality of the film may stay the same, but you lose the director's true vision when translating the medium.

Seeing a film designed for 3D without 3D glasses shows blurry imagery (not trying to prove any point here just sayin).

[DavidSeven]

It's probably worth noting that only 20 minutes of the 2.5 hour Batman movie was shot on an IMAX camera.

[The Mike]

It's probably worth noting that only 20 minutes of the 2.5 hour Batman movie was shot on an IMAX camera.
Yeah, I was gonna say this too.

Plus, we're assuming objectively that the director's vision is always the best possible film. :twisted:

[Watashi]

Seeing a film designed for 3D without 3D glasses shows blurry imagery (not trying to prove any point here just sayin).

Yeah, but the story, acting, technical qualities all stay the same.

[Watashi]

It's probably worth noting that only 20 minutes of the 2.5 hour Batman movie was shot on an IMAX camera.
Which is amazing as it is considering its probably nigh impossible to shoot an entire feature action film in all of IMAX cameras.

[eternity]

It's probably worth noting that only 20 minutes of the 2.5 hour Batman movie was shot on an IMAX camera.
This is true.

[number8]

It's probably worth noting that only 20 minutes of the 2.5 hour Batman movie was shot on an IMAX camera.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7782/batmanjokerspanish1cg4.jpg

[balmakboor]

Seeing a film designed for 3D without 3D glasses shows blurry imagery (not trying to prove any point here just sayin).

I'm pretty sure he meant something like watching the non-3D version of Dial M For Murder. Of course, you probably know that.

[Qrazy]

I'm pretty sure he meant something like watching the non-3D version of Dial M For Murder. Of course, you probably know that.

Yeah... I just saw Coraline in 3D and wanted to share my knowledge of blurry glassesless cinema I suppose.

[megladon8]

Watchmen was pretty good. I'd venture to say it's about as good as a movie version of the book could be.

It featured some astoundingly great moments, and also some lows and cheeseball dialogue.

Just going to do a little pros/cons write-up for this one...


PROS

-entertaining throughout, never dragging or (the worst offense with long movies) stopping entirely; only two or three short scenes cut the pace slightly (outlined in the "CONS" section)

-Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach and Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian stole the show whenever they were on-screen; I could have watched a whole 160 minute film with those two characters

-Doc Manhattan's small speech to Laurie on Mars about his redeemed faith in humanity and miracles was done wonderfully. By far my favorite moment of the whole movie

-despite my initial reactions to Doc's voice in the trailers, in the actual film I really liked Crudup's unassuming voice, particularly in moments like the one I mentioned above

-Patrick Wilson was also great

-all the narration worked well

-while Rorschach's more "badass" persona certainly betrays the character in we were given in the book, it was in keeping with the tone and changes in the film version, so it worked

-the changed ending retained the power and message of the original (but I miss the squid)

-the whole thing really felt like a labor of love first, and a business venture second, which I appreciated and respected


CONS

-a narrative mess, and I could see it being nigh impossible to understand for people who haven't read the book

-the sex scene - unnecessary, stupid, misplaced, mishandled in just about every way possible

-some of the violence was handled well, some of it not so well, feeling like a bit of a hypocritical message sent out by the movie

-Malin Akerman wasn't as bad as I expected, but still felt way too young

-ditto Matthew Goode

-some horrible CGI - Doc Manhattan looked good standing still but very awkward when moving or interacting with anything, Ozy's pet looked like something out of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? in how obviously animated it was, and some CGI blood/gore shots were kind of bad

-too much slow-mo


Overall, it was a flawed but still very good movie. As I said in the "PROS" section, it felt like Snyder, the writers and actors all really wanted to make something good with the material. Snyder clearly loves the book and was more interested in doing the material justice than turning a profit.

It was an admirable adaptation of a mammoth work, and I think it did about as well as any feature film version could with all the information there was to plow through in that time of 160 minutes, which actually felt too short.

[megladon8]

Oh, and would someone clear something up for me since I don't have a copy of the book available to me right now?

In the book, was Laurie the product of Comedian's raping Silk Spectre, or was it like in the movie, where Silk Spectre and Comedian hooked up later on?

[Fezzik]

Oh, and would someone clear something up for me since I don't have a copy of the book available to me right now?

In the book, was Laurie the product of Comedian's raping Silk Spectre, or was it like in the movie, where Silk Spectre and Comedian hooked up later on?

If I remember right, they hooked up later on...she went back to him after.

[number8]

Again, they never spelled it out in the book. Moore even left the fact that she is his daughter somewhat ambiguous.

[Sxottlan]

Some thoughts after seeing it for a second time:

1. Just as great the second time as it was the first. The pacing is incredible and the nearly three hours just fly by, even the second time around knowing what was coming.

2. I don't get the talk that people may not be able to follow the film. I've never read the book, never had any real interest to, but I was able to follow it just fine.

3. I also thought the acting across the board was decent to great. The only one to give me any issues was the original Silk Spectre.

4. That opening credits was the best montage setting up an alternate universe since the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring.

[megladon8]

OK here's another question dealing with my confusion about the translation from the book to the movie...

I don't think the movie properly explained Comedian's sudden feelings of guilt towards the end of his life, when he went to visit Molloch and was crying, saying "this is the worst thing I've ever done".

In the book, it's clearly shown that he was aware of the whole squid plan, and his non-action is what he's referring to.

But the movie never shows him finding bombs, or uncovering Veidt's plan or anything - if it did, it must have been quick because I missed it.

Actually that's not really a question, just me stating my confusion over that event.

[number8]

It was explained quickly in Veidt's final exposition.

[number8]

I was right.

Box Office plummeted 71%. Witch Mountain #1.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I was right.

Box Office plummeted 71%. Witch Mountain #1.

Yikes. Looks like it also might finish behind Last House on the Left.

[D_Davis]

Box Office plummeted 71%.

Must be piracey!

[number8]

Must be piracey!
But they cut out all the pirates! :sad:

[Grouchy]

Again, they never spelled it out in the book. Moore even left the fact that she is his daughter somewhat ambiguous.
I think when the Comedian says "only once" he's trying to explain to Laurie that they had consensual sex later on. When Laurie first meets the Comedian and her mother bursts in after the Minutemen meeting, he says something to the effect that he thought all that (the rape) was settled between them.

Besides, meg, the Comedian never actually raped Silk Spectre. It was an attempted rape and a beating, but Hooded Justice appeared just in time. So they couldn't have made a daughter that day.

[Spun Lepton]

Yeah, I wasn't expecting it to make #1 this weekend, either. Too intellectual for regular folks. Not intellectual enough for intellectuals and Alan Moore brown-nosers. :P

[number8]

I think when the Comedian says "only once" he's trying to explain to Laurie that they had consensual sex later on.

Yes, but what I meant is that that's really all there is in the book, it's left unsaid. It doesn't have a flashback where Sally's husband spells it out to the audience that Sally lets The Comedian impregnate her later on.

Also, Laurie's realization that Comedian is her father, as depicted in the book, is based on speculation and repressed memory. It doesn't have Dr. Manhattan "showing" her and then conveniently declaring "The Comedian... was your father."

[Raiders]

Yes, but what I meant is that that's really all there is in the book, it's left unsaid. It doesn't have a flashback where Sally's husband spells it out to the audience that Sally lets The Comedian impregnate her later on.

Also, Laurie's realization that Comedian is her father, as depicted in the book, is based on speculation and repressed memory. It doesn't have Dr. Manhattan "showing" her and then conveniently declaring "The Comedian... was your father."

:: shrug ::

The difference seems negligible to me. It's like the Kennedy moment in the book vs. the film. Snyder isn't subtle nor does he have much grace in handling the themes or events in the book/film. It works solely for the reasons the book works and hardly none on its own.

[Sven]

Can I request a moratorium on *shrug*s? There's only so many times one can look at a word intended to convey a physical expression of attitude before it becomes monotonous. It's like reading a screenplay where, every page, some character [grins broadly].

And don't think I'm not anticipating *shrug* responses.

This is 90% directed at Rowland, who I think ruined for the rest of us.

[Raiders]

Can I request a moratorium on *shrug*s?

I do not acknowledge the requests of "seasonal" posters. You'll need to promise not to go on sabbatical again and I'll consider it.

[number8]

Snyder isn't subtle nor does he have much grace in handling the themes or events in the book/film. It works solely for the reasons the book works and hardly none on its own.
Then it's not negligible. That sums the worth of its success as an adaptation.

[Raiders]

Then it's not negligible. That sums the worth of its success as an adaptation.

My point being it is simply a small part of the entire film's upfront, unsubtle, style. It wouldn't make sense for the film to leave it almost unsaid. The end result though is the same as the book's. It is just less moving, as is the entire film.

[Grouchy]

Yes, but what I meant is that that's really all there is in the book, it's left unsaid. It doesn't have a flashback where Sally's husband spells it out to the audience that Sally lets The Comedian impregnate her later on.

Also, Laurie's realization that Comedian is her father, as depicted in the book, is based on speculation and repressed memory. It doesn't have Dr. Manhattan "showing" her and then conveniently declaring "The Comedian... was your father."
Obviously agreed. Snyder basically did this for the entire book - spelling out for the audience all the themes and subplots.

In all fairness, if he hadn't done that to an extent, the movie would be a fucking puzzle for most audiences. It's just not material suitable to be contained in three hours.

[Sxottlan]

Watchmen screenwriter David Hayter makes an appeal (http://www.hardcorenerdity.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2239098:BlogPost:40658 ) for people to go see the film again.

[Spinal]

You say you don't like it. You say you've got issues. I get it.

And yet... You'll be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you. How it was rough and beautiful.

No, sorry, David. I really haven't thought about the film much in the past week since I saw it. I think you have an overinflated sense of the depth of your own creation.

[The Mike]

He's Solid Snake. I'd listen to him.

[Watashi]

Isn't Hayter's script nothing like the final product?

[Kurosawa Fan]

No, sorry, David. I really haven't thought about the film much in the past week since I saw it. I think you have an overinflated sense of the depth of your own creation.

I haven't given it a second's though since the night I watched it either. Why does he think that what he did was so important? I've thought about the novel several times since reading it, but the movie was a washed-out photocopy, which provoked no thoughts of its own other than, "Well, they kind of screwed that up. Guess that was inevitable."

[number8]

Isn't Hayter's script nothing like the final product?

No, he kept working on it through Snyder's production. He and Tse even worked together.

[number8]

So I got a copy of the Tales of Black Freighter/Under the Hood DVD for review, right, and there's a featurette on the extras that talks about the history of the book and how this DVD supplements the main film.

It's making me giggle because the people interviewed have to keep saying "the creator" instead of Alan Moore's name, and they do this like 50 times.

[Qrazy]

We are indeed quantifying a valuation of the art's worth. I am not disputing this, but what I am saying is that this does not particularly distinguish it from how we quantify the next thing, since everything is quantified based on a valuation. Perhaps you are emphasizing that the object itself has no value independent of your opinion of it, but this does not really say anything about attribution. You can say the same thing about money. It has no value independent of our opinion of it. Yet, we still quantify money. A great example is quantifying the value of, say, an object that we can buy. Perhaps your argument is that the value (say, 5$) is not an inherent property of the object, but such a distinction seems insignificant. It is still the object's quantitative value because we have ascribed it such quantitative value.

Axiological assessment of quality or numerical rating, either way you're forming a judgment about the value of the artwork. If value judgments of art on a general level is what you wish to criticize then that's reasonable, it's a worthy criticism although I would argue such value judgments are incredibly important. Some art is more valuable than other art, but we need not get into that discussion now as that's not what you're arguing.

You seem to only be criticizing quantification. I feel the distinction between quantifying artwork and quantifying an opinion of an artwork is a valuable distinction but it needs to be elucidated further. It is valuable because the distinction is about more than separating the inherent properties of objects from an ascribed quantitative value. In the case of money (in any given society) the object's quantitative value is fixed (it fluctuates only in so far as the worth of the dollar shifts in relation to other countries and products, inflation, etc... but the shift remains constant in so far as a dollar bill is still worth a dollar to anyone who has one).

In the case of quantifying an opinion of art the individual doing the quantifying hopefully recognizes that their quantification only holds true for themselves. While someone who tries to use a one dollar bill for a five dollar product would be in the wrong, someone can assign a film an 8/10 or a B and then compare that assignment to someone else's assignment of a 5/10 or a C and neither party would be wrong, they would simply disagree about the relative value of the work. They may disagree for a wide variety of reasons. Hopefully both parties further realize that their own ratings and opinions of a work may themselves fluctuate upon a re-watch, further thinking, etc. These quantifications are not set in stone.

All these quantifications ought to be is a shorthand for general assessments of enjoyment in relation to individual definitions of quality. An A ranking might imply the film was excellent, a B that it was above average, a C average and so on. The value of such rankings (they could be numerical) is that they are succinct. If we accept that we can form valid value judgments of art, then it's simply easier to assign a number or letter as the judgment than to write this work was 'excellent' because... this work was 'above average' because... etc. This brevity is especially valuable on forums for signatures or when categorizing a large amount of information (rating a director's filmography, stating opinions concerning many films at once, etc). Of course the shorthand value judgments ought to act as an entry point for further conversation but in and of themselves they convey a large amount of information in a very concise manner.


But it is contingent upon your standards of quality! You are not numerically rating your opinion ("My opinion is a 5.7 out of 10!"). You are numerically rating the artwork ("My opinion is that the artwork is worth 5.7 out of 10"). In other words, I am not sure what it even means to say, "assigning value directly to the artwork itself" other than that you are assigning value to art. It is more basic: Do you value the artwork? If so, then you have assigned meaning to it. How much do you value it? Is it quantifiable? You have shown us that you believe it is, quite so! (Even if only quantifying it by your own private standards.) The next question is, What are you standards of measurement? This is where things get complicated.

Right he's rating the artwork and not his opinion but it is important that he states that his rating is an opinion because he then implicitly recognizes that his opinion may change. Furthermore the artwork may hold more value to someone else and he wouldn't necessarily disagree with their valuation if it were based upon a slightly different set of criteria (i.e. the enjoyment of a certain type of style, narrative, or character). Stating that the valuation is an opinion is not redundant because it affirms that standards of measurement may vary. This is of course not to say that these standards are absolutely variable and that there is no shared criteria when judging art. There is a great deal of shared criteria, just not all criteria is shared.

[number8]

Early review just for Match Cutters, and you can tell by the format:


Under the Hood >>>>>>>> Tales of Black Freighter > Watchmen

[Izzy Black]

Axiological assessment of quality or numerical rating, either way you're forming a judgment about the value of the artwork. If value judgments of art on a general level is what you wish to criticize then that's reasonable, it's a worthy criticism although I would argue such value judgments are incredibly important. Some art is more valuable than other art, but we need not get into that discussion now as that's not what you're arguing.

OK. Not really sure what you are getting at.


You seem to only be criticizing quantification. I feel the distinction between quantifying artwork and quantifying an opinion of an artwork is a valuable distinction but it needs to be elucidated further. It is valuable because the distinction is about more than separating the inherent properties of objects from an ascribed quantitative value. In the case of money (in any given society) the object's quantitative value is fixed (it fluctuates only in so far as the worth of the dollar shifts in relation to other countries and products, inflation, etc... but the shift remains constant in so far as a dollar bill is still worth a dollar to anyone who has one).

In the case of quantifying an opinion of art the individual doing the quantifying hopefully recognizes that their quantification only holds true for themselves. While someone who tries to use a one dollar bill for a five dollar product would be in the wrong, someone can assign a film an 8/10 or a B and then compare that assignment to someone else's assignment of a 5/10 or a C and neither party would be wrong, they would simply disagree about the relative value of the work. They may disagree for a wide variety of reasons. Hopefully both parties further realize that their own ratings and opinions of a work may themselves fluctuate upon a re-watch, further thinking, etc. These quantifications are not set in stone.

It still occurs to me that you are reaching for a vague and arguably irrelevant distinction. The general basics are there - we ascribe meaning or value to an item that otherwise lacks it. Your distinction is a "fixed" ratio, but art is not necessarily on an "intermittent" ratio, and even if it were, it would not be much of a distinction in terms of my initial argument. You say that someone who evaluates a work of art "hopefully" recognizes that their valuation is personal, but that is not always the case. In fact, very many people would present their rating to the group and try to maintain that this rating should be universalized. For economics, you point out that someone who tries to use a one dollar bill as a five dollar bill would be "wrong," which says that value is determined collectively, but there are also universalizing tendencies of evaluating art. If someone were to say to the group that Citizen Kane is the worst film ever made, the group would most likely say that this person is wrong. The person can say it all they like, but that does not mean its going to be particularly convincing to anyone. The only appeal, it seems, that you are invoking is one of consensus or agreement rather than individualism. This does not occur to me as modifying or affecting my original arguments on axiology and quantification, but merely says that some values have a stronger consensus or more consensus than others. Yes, they would be wrong to use a dollar on a five dollar item in one society, but that does not mean they would be wrong to do so in some other society. Which is to say, meaning and value is still relative even with regards to money. It is not "fixed" but rather its qualities are generally agreed upon. This says nothing of the object's inherent properties, or my argument against distinction.


All these quantifications ought to be is a shorthand for general assessments of enjoyment in relation to individual definitions of quality. An A ranking might imply the film was excellent, a B that it was above average, a C average and so on. The value of such rankings (they could be numerical) is that they are succinct. If we accept that we can form valid value judgments of art, then it's simply easier to assign a number or letter as the judgment than to write this work was 'excellent' because... this work was 'above average' because... etc. This brevity is especially valuable on forums for signatures or when categorizing a large amount of information (rating a director's filmography, stating opinions concerning many films at once, etc). Of course the shorthand value judgments ought to act as an entry point for further conversation but in and of themselves they convey a large amount of information in a very concise manner.

We are switching gears here as this is an argument for the merits of ratings, but it is still one that demands qualification. For example, you say it "ought" to be a shorthand general assessment of enjoyment, but it is not always used as such. As you said, standards are personalized and variable. The manner in which we approach art in terms of standards of quality diversify and vary so greatly that I think we would communicate and establish our opinions far more effectively through discussion and analysis. In other words, there is no general rule for how a rating scale should be, which means these rating scales are not particularly reliable or illuminating. More than this, I do not find that enjoyment and greatness are interchangeable terms. Perhaps there is a stronger consensus independent of me on the reliability of ratings in terms of entertainment, and it is effective in this way, but these ratings do not do my opinion of art justice. I also explained the difficulty in quantifying the various factors that go into play when assessing art. In my view, a single number just does not satisfy the complex emotions and notions of cultural value, aesthetic value, and intellectual worth that goes into formulating an opinion. I honestly do not know what it would mean anymore to give one film a 6 out of 10 and another film a 7 out of 10.


Right he's rating the artwork and not his opinion but it is important that he states that his rating is an opinion because he then implicitly recognizes that his opinion may change.

Yeah, what of it? Our opinion of anything can change. What is not an opinion?


Furthermore the artwork may hold more value to someone else and he wouldn't necessarily disagree with their valuation if it were based upon a slightly different set of criteria (i.e. the enjoyment of a certain type of style, narrative, or character). Stating that the valuation is an opinion is not redundant because it affirms that standards of measurement may vary. This is of course not to say that these standards are absolutely variable and that there is no shared criteria when judging art. There is a great deal of shared criteria, just not all criteria is shared.

How does rating an artwork assume that there are not various standards of measurement? My point about rating an opinion is that it does not make much sense to say that. This is not how we typically use the term and application of quantification. If he wanted to clarify the plurality of standards, he could say that this is my opinion of the rating, or this is my rating based on my own standards. It is still a rating based on standards, just as the next thing, just not necessarily shared standards. It does not clarify or get at anything to say that he is rating his own opinion, and if anything, it complicates matters. This was my only contention.

[number8]

Early review just for Match Cutters, and you can tell by the format:


Under the Hood >>>>>>>> Tales of Black Freighter > Watchmen

Here's my full review. (http://www.justpressplay.net/movie-reviews/929-dvd-reviews/5015-Watchmen-Tales-of-the-Black-Freighter-a-Under-the-Hood.html)

[Skitch]

TOO MANY WORDS.

[number8]

I.... find this adorable. (http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/98065.html#cutid1)


Apologies, Alan. :sad:

[Sven]

I thought this was hysterically awful.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I just got back from a second viewing (my friend Melinda hadn't seen it), and I'm still a big fan.

I tried to pay closer attention this time to the slow-motion and Malin Akerman, since they were, respectively, my biggest and others' biggest problems. The slow-motion is still occasionally irritating, just as it was on a first viewing. As for Akerman...I don't know. I'm still convinced that the problem is her character, not her performance (which might not deserve praise, but hardly deserves scorn). When you're up against the world's smartest man, a potential sociopath, and a God, having daddy issues just doesn't stack up.

But yeah, still amazed by how good it is.

[Sxottlan]

Very well done Wall-E/Watchmen mash-up here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Ka8DnUVEQ).

[Ezee E]

Watched Tales of the Black Freighter and the Under the Hood (or whatever it was called) "doc" that's on the disc.

The animated short is alright, about as good as it could've been I guess, but it's the doc that I liked the most, and is a must-see for any fan of the comic book. It probably does better service to the comic than the movie did itself.

[Skitch]

I might try to watch this for the 3rd time this week.

[[ETM]]

As for Akerman...I don't know. I'm still convinced that the problem is her character, not her performance (which might not deserve praise, but hardly deserves scorn). When you're up against the world's smartest man, a potential sociopath, and a God, having daddy issues just doesn't stack up.

This is what has been bugging me ever since I read Watchmen - the character itself is the weak spot of the graphic novel. I didn't want to comment further because I haven't seen the film yet, but I always suspected it would take a muuuch better actress, and one who wouldn't run around half naked all the time, to do anything credible with that character.

[Grouchy]

;148804']This is what has been bugging me ever since I read Watchmen - the character itself is the weak spot of the graphic novel. I didn't want to comment further because I haven't seen the film yet, but I always suspected it would take a muuuch better actress, and one who wouldn't run around half naked all the time, to do anything credible with that character.
Huh... I disagree. Sally is a crucial part of Watchmen. She is the most human character and an example of a life profoundly fucked up by both parents. If she wasn't for her suffering and the realization of the circumstances of her birth, Dr. Manhattan would have never given Earth a second thought.

Malin Akerman is just a crap actress. The film adaptation is curious in that all the good actors (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Jackie Earle Haley) give good performances and the rest just about suck.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Huh... I disagree. Sally is a crucial part of Watchmen. She is the most human character and an example of a life profoundly fucked up by both parents. If she wasn't for her suffering and the realization of the circumstances of her birth, Dr. Manhattan would have never given Earth a second thought.

So Sally's emotional arc exists purely to facilitate one key decision by Manhattan? That kind of supports my point.

Now that I think it over, Sally exists mostly to actualize other people, instead of herself. She helps Dan overcome his impotence. She helps Manhattan stay connected to humanity. She helps to humanize the Comedian. Sally exists to make men whole.

I always thought Dreiberg was the most human character. He behaves how must of us behave in real life: he's nervous, frightened, occasionally pathetic, but he genuinely wants to do the right thing, and he believes his works have value. And if he gets off a little on his vigilantism...well, who wouldn't?

[Qrazy]

Huh... I disagree. Sally is a crucial part of Watchmen. She is the most human character and an example of a life profoundly fucked up by both parents. If she wasn't for her suffering and the realization of the circumstances of her birth, Dr. Manhattan would have never given Earth a second thought.

Malin Akerman is just a crap actress. The film adaptation is curious in that all the good actors (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Jackie Earle Haley) give good performances and the rest just about suck.

After watching Watchmen I sort of wanted to rewatch Breaking Away to retroactively mentally impose Rorschach on Jackie Earle Haley as a child actor.

[number8]

I'm not sure how to justify it in the film, but I think in the comic, at least, Sally's purpose was to highlight how wrong it is for parents to force their own dreams/career onto their kids, and how it applies to every job title--even a superhero.

At the time, and even to this day, there was this assumption in comics that the children of superheroes would "carry the torch" and become the next incarnation of the character, as if they couldn't survive on their own identity. The premise behind Watchmen's characters are basically extensions of comic book archetypes, seeing how they would function in a realistic society, and Sally is no different. I found the examination of how legacy characters translate to bad parenting in the "real world" is at the very least eye-opening and interesting.

[DavidSeven]

Put in a well-seasoned actress, on the same level as Jackie Earle Haley or Patrick Wilson, in a Watchmen film directed by someone who isn't as concerned with machismo, and I guarantee you'll have a more well-rounded character and performance.

Think Winslet or Connelly (using Little Children actresses to find proper equivalents to Haley/Wilson) as Spectre II guided by anyone except Snyder.

[Ezee E]

Think Winslet or Connelly (using Little Children actresses to find proper equivalents to Haley/Wilson) as Spectre II guided by anyone except Snyder.

Both are too old.

Emily Blunt, Ari Graynor, or Evan Rachel Wood.

[DavidSeven]

Both are too old.

Emily Blunt, Ari Graynor, or Evan Rachel Wood.

:|

Silk Spectre II is almost 40.

[The Mike]

:|

Silk Spectre II is almost 40.

:confused:

If I'm not mistaken, that would put her conception around the time of the rape attempt, and I thought it was pretty clear that it occurred much later. I pegged her as 25-30 at most.

EDIT: If you follow the timeline of the credits, the scene in which a young Laurie witnesses her parents argument occurs after the JFK assassination.

[DavidSeven]

Born: 1949.
Current Date (for most of Watchmen): 1985.
Age: Do the math. (http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Laurie_Juspeczyk)

[The Mike]

Hurm.

Well that's dumb. :P

[Ezee E]

:|

Silk Spectre II is almost 40.
Eh, my bad. Guess the movie influenced me too much.

[Grouchy]

So Sally's emotional arc exists purely to facilitate one key decision by Manhattan? That kind of supports my point.

Now that I think it over, Sally exists mostly to actualize other people, instead of herself. She helps Dan overcome his impotence. She helps Manhattan stay connected to humanity. She helps to humanize the Comedian. Sally exists to make men whole.
This is all true, but in many ways it's the old argument between stories based on characters or on plots. I think Alan Moore has favored plot over characters in basically everything he ever wrote.

Roscharch also exists to represent a traditional, black and white morality, while Ozymandias is the complete opposite, a man who believes in the need for the lesser evil. Nite Owl and Silk Spectre act pretty much as confused humans (man and woman) caught in the middle of the debate.

[number8]

WIZARD: How did you feel about the Watchmen film?
GRANT MORRISON: I wished that they had turned it into a 12-part HBO miniseries and recreated every detail.

How did you feel about the new ending?
MORRISON: I was fine with it, until I realized it kind of destroys the original ending where the stupidest guy in the world picks up Rorschach's diary and wrecks the plan of the smartest man in the world. In the graphic novel, you know Ozymandias will fail. That's the horrible truth that lies in wait beyond the back cover. Veidt tries to save the world and does all these terrible things but we already know Rorschach's journal has to be found so that we can flip back to the beginning of the book's circular structure and begin reading again, this time with the horrible realization that it's actually Seymour and everyone else who's reading. The other problem is at the end of the movie, where we're told that world peace hinges on the belief that Dr. Manhattan is still out there to wreak havoc...but that's not true. Adrian Veidt had duplicated the destructive power of Dr. Manhattan, so you don't need the original anymore. Veidt can press a button and obliterate any city using Dr. Manhattan's powers. So Veidt becomes the great dictator in [the film] version, which is the opposite of the downbeat ending of the book.

Watchmen is the most perfectly constructed story you could find–turn it around at any angle, and it reflects itself–but my problem with it has always been the same. The basic story hinges on an illogical, unconvincing scheme to save the world. If Ozymandias is the smartest guy in the world, why does he have to kill millions of people, including the world's most radical and inventive artists, to execute a ludicrous and ill-considered plan that could only go wrong? All he has to do at the first meeting of the Crimebusters is to say to Dr. Manhattan, "Alright, I'm the smartest, richest guy in the world [and] you're the most powerful guy on the planet, let's get together and save the world. Here's the first thing you do: duplicate yourself into a hundred thousand Dr. Manhattans, go to every single nuclear reactor and nuclear missile site and turn the weapons into gas...and then we can start negotiating." [Laughs]. Ozymandias could have saved the world...in issue two. He would know, as we readers do, that Manhattan tends to do what he's told.

You’ve got experience as a Hollywood screenwriter. From a visual standpoint, do you think audiences would have taken the squid seriously?
MORRISON: The squid, the tachyon cannons, the inter-dimensional research, the cloned psychic's brain are all elements of the story which play against its perceived "realism" I suppose, but I quite like the outrageous-ness of it. Veidt being the most shatteringly insane, deluded character in the whole thing might be the only way to reconcile it but the squid's more in line with the practical joke element.

I think they could have done something with the squid, and the whole "This Island Earth" idea of the artists and architects on the island. But that brings me back to my original problem with the basic idea. Why didn't he take all the greatest architects, musicians, writers and artists and work with them to envision a new plan for society instead of killing them?

Power corrupts, I guess.
MORRISON: And stupefies as well. [Laughs].

Mm.

[Qrazy]

Mm.

I don't see that the film ending spoils the notion that Rorschach's journal will probably be found and read. Also I was under the impression that Veidt destroyed the machine that replicated Dr. Manhattan's power when he set it off.

Also his secondary plan for Dr. Manhattan would suppose that they knew where every nuclear missile was stored, but they don't. As the novel and film make clear, Manhattan is not omniscient.

In terms of why Veidt killed all the artists instead of using them to construct a new plan, I don't think that's a problem with the source. Rather I think that's part of the point of the novel and of the nature of Veidt's character. Veidt like all the other flawed superheroes started as a vigilante 'hero' for a reason. He is not some great humanist. He identifies with Alexander the Great, not Mother Teresa. His perspective is Machiavellian. He wants to unify but also to conquer. His motives are not purely selfless.

[number8]

Yep. I came up with the same rebuttal as you, but I wanted to post Morison's take.

[Spun Lepton]

Heh, I had no rebuttal, I just thought, "Oh, fuck this prick."

:lol:

[Spun Lepton]

Looks like Snyder has a lot to answer for! :P

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/06/24-year-old-man-kills-himself-during-watchmen-screening/

[Spinal]

Looks like Snyder has a lot to answer for! :P

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/06/24-year-old-man-kills-himself-during-watchmen-screening/

Eugene, OR? Jesus. Used to live there.

[Sven]

I was going to make a terrible joke about how he was the only smart one...

[soitgoes...]

Eugene, OR? Jesus. Used to live there.

Me too! Wait a minute... I still do!

[Sycophant]

Eugene, OR? Jesus used to live there.

Fixed? :confused:

[Kurosawa Fan]

Looks like Snyder has a lot to answer for! :P

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/06/24-year-old-man-kills-himself-during-watchmen-screening/

What an inappropriate picture they chose to accompany that story.

[Ezee E]

What an inappropriate picture they chose to accompany that story.
Ha, no kidding.

[Grouchy]

I guess he was pissed they took out the squid.

[Sxottlan]

It's sad to say that in this day and age, at least he didn't kill those ten other people first.

[MadMan]

It's sad to say that in this day and age, at least he didn't kill those ten other people first.Yep. I wonder why he choose that particular movie.

[Wryan]

What an inappropriate picture they chose to accompany that story.

For my college paper, I wrote an op column about the Jon Stewart-Tucker Carlson spat from Crossfire, and the guy that draws stuff for our columns drew a stunning representation of Stewart with the Crossfire logo over/near his head. This was after a recent school shooting or some kind of shooting that was near us or something. Can't remember, but we facepalmed about it later.

[trotchky]

Yep. I wonder why he choose that particular movie.

It is a pretty bleak movie.

[MadMan]

It is a pretty bleak movie.I didn't find it to be depressing overall, but it does have many bleak elements, yes.

[trotchky]

It just seems like the kind of movie a psycho would kill himself at. Like, if someone shot himself during a screening of Taxi Driver I would be unfazed. Same with Watchmen.

[rocus]

I liked it. A lot. In fact, for 2 hours I really thought Zach had pulled it off... but then.

That ending was terrible. The problem is the the Dr. Manhattan threat just wouldn't work. First off, Ozy is way to smart to think that people will just play nice so that John won't destroy them. No way he believes that that will last. So does he do it to have the world unite against John? That's just silly. John himself says that the smartest man on earth is no more threatening than the smartest termite. The US and Russia would know that there is no way to compete against him. They saw what he did in Vietnam. It would be as useless as us teaming up to beat the Patriots. The squid gave an actual enemy that was able to be defeated.

My second problem with the ending is with the reveal of the Comedian being Laurie's father. To be honest, by the time they got to Mars, I'd completely forgotten about the Comedian. Then I said, "Oh, yeah! This is where Laurie finds out." It just felt too rushed and didn't have much emotional weight at all. In fact, it only seemed added on to allow John to reach his "life is a miracle" speech.

Thirdly, Ozy got off the hook way too easy. In the book he asks John if he did the right thing in the end. To which he replies that nothing ever ends. This is huge, so why is it just given to Laurie as a throw-away line? John is telling him that while things are fine now, it won't stay that way.

Now, all that said, my biggest problem is that the movie left out the real hero in the story. Ok, technically he was in there, but the heroism was removed. I'm talking about Rorshach's psychiatrist. Cutting him down to a bit player destroys the point of the whole story.

Our world isn't helped by people who dress up in costumes to "protect" others. It's not helped by people who need a thrill, or need to prove something to themselves, or to their mothers, or make up for the injustices of their childhood, or think they are destined to save it. It can't even be helped by giant blue supermen. Our world can only be helped by us. The psychiatrist is only trying to do his best to help when he can.

The fight between the lesbians in the street is an ESSENTIAL scene in the book. How could that have been left out? The problem with our world isn't a stockpile of nuclear weapons that won't be used, it's the way we treat each other every day. It's the fact that we say everything is "their problem, I'm not getting involved". In the fight scene the psychiatrist risks his already tenuous marriage by walking away from his wife to help two strangers. In his own words, "I mean, it's all we can do, try to help each other. It means everything." "Gloria... I'm sorry. It's the world... I can't run from it."

It's not a big momentous event that changes the world, it's just us. It's the way we treat each other everyday. Alan Moore got this. It's a shame Zack Synder didn't.

That said, there were some elements I really liked (like I said for 2 hours I thought it was really well done). The prison break was great, and I actually liked the sex scene.

Night Owl, the Comedian, and Rorschach were just about perfect. And Ozy wasn't nearly as bad as I thought, even if he still seemed sort of young.

[vnvnvn2000]

THIS MOVIE ROCKS, GO WATCH IT ON CINEMA! DO NOT wait for the DVD! It's more than worth watching on cinema!!

[Sxottlan]

It took four stops before I found the director's cut. The other stores were all sold out and I even broke down and bought the theatrical cut before finding the DC.

I'm debating keeping both versions. The director's cut naturally doesn't hustle like the theatrical cut did. That thing moved with a ridiculous speed. The DC still moves pretty quick, but there are a few moments where it gets unwieldly. The added Mason Hollis scene at the end for instance, while beautifully done with Cavalleria Rusticana [strangely not credited in the end credits], also felt really superfluous at that point when the story was moving on to something bigger.

I also didn't care for the added stuff between Dr. Manhattan getting angry at the interview and appearing on Mars. In the DC, now it looks like he just killed Ted Koppel.

Otherwise, I loved all the new content.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Watched Tales from the Black Freighter and Under the Hood. Great stuff. Provides the movie with more context, making it a better, fuller experience. Now I'm awfully curious for the enormo-cut that's coming out later this year.

They should've done even more extras. An MTV interview with Veidt about his new toy line. A short feature with the comic guys and the New Frontiersman, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern style. Clips from Specter's old movies. I would've welcomed it all, were it all done with this much confidence.

[number8]

Under the Hood made me realize that the best person to direct a Watchmen movie would be Errol Morris.

[Mysterious Dude]

I kinda liked this movie, though it reminded me of Akira in that it tried to condese a complex narrative into a feature-length film and ended up being fairly convoluted.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I love the summary on my no-frills DVD case:


Someone's killing our super heroes. The year is 1985 and super heroes have banded together to respond to the murder of one of their own. They soon uncover a sinister plot that puts all of humanity in grave danger. The super heroes fight to stop the impending doom, only to find themselves a target for annihilation. But if our super heroes are gone, who will save us?

Did this guy even watch the movie?

[balmakboor]

Watched this again last night -- the director's cut.

I don't know. The performances and line readings are flat. The framing cramped. The staging feels imprisoned by the panels of the graphic novel. Snyder seems to shake at the very thought of making the material his own. And yet, I find it compulsively watchable. This thing is probably my favorite "superhero" movie.

[number8]

Did this guy even watch the movie?

More like, that guy is really good at writing summaries that make it sound like a completely different movie while not technically lying.

[Spun Lepton]

Did this guy even watch the movie?

Maybe you purchased the shameless straight-to-DVD rip-off Wortchman.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Maybe you purchased the shameless straight-to-DVD rip-off Wortchman.

Turns out it's the gay porn Crotchmen.

[number8]

Rorschach nominated as Best Superhero at Spike's Scream Awards. It will probably win.

I know it shouldn't be surprising at all, but I still got creeped out just a little bit.

[Ezee E]

What the heck are the Scream Awards

[Dead & Messed Up]

Rorschach nominated as Best Superhero at Spike's Scream Awards. It will probably win.

I know it shouldn't be surprising at all, but I still got creeped out just a little bit.

Come on, 8. Yes, he's a sociopath, but Rorschach is the only person in the story who sticks to a moral code, and that's one of the most fundamental ways to create a sympathetic character. I don't think there's anything creepy about how people connect to him.

Also, it's the Scream Awards.

[Amnesiac]

Also, it's the Scream Awards.

:lol:

[number8]

Gilliam saw the film:


Visually, it was really fantastic. He got it. And Rorschach was absolutely spot on.

But it was too reverential to the book. He was trying so hard, I just thought, “Somebody needs to kick this thing in the ass.”

[number8]

Just got invited to the Scream Awards.

Me and my big mouth.

[number8]

The wife is now demanding we go. So much for my integrity.

[BuffaloWilder]

ha

ha ha ha ha

If you see Snyder there, punch him in the balls for me. Oh, and keep count of how many guys call you "bro," "broseph," or any variation thereof.

[number8]

I've met Snyder before. He's an affable dude. I don't like his movies, but I will not injure his balls.

[Sycophant]

I read like two interviews with him. Seems like Snyder's a good chap. A guy can be a decent guy and even have good taste in movies and make bad movies.

[Watashi]

Yeah, Snyder's cool.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah, I'm probably the opposite of its target demo, I haven't read the comic, and I don't respect Zack Snyder.

But Watchmen: what a strange, untraditional, earnest, yearning, foolishly ambitious, willfully unique and gentle and far-reaching "cool superhero" thing this is. So weird suddenly finding out Alan Moore has indeed created the ultimate thing... that is, story of the world, as it stands. Snyder probably bungled it up, I can only imagine how much more awe-inspiringly good of ideas they are in the comic, without having to sit through what is more than a bit of a boring, overlong, confusing, baffling, bafflingly quirky, often unpleasant and quite campy movie.

[balmakboor]

Yeah, I'm probably the opposite of its target demo, I haven't read the comic, and I don't respect Zack Snyder.

But Watchmen: what a strange, untraditional, earnest, yearning, foolishly ambitious, willfully unique and gentle and far-reaching "cool superhero" thing this is. So weird suddenly finding out Alan Moore has indeed created the ultimate thing... that is, story of the world, as it stands. Snyder probably bungled it up, I can only imagine how much more awe-inspiringly good of ideas they are in the comic, without having to sit through what is more than a bit of a boring, overlong, confusing, baffling, bafflingly quirky, often unpleasant and quite campy movie.

Yes, I'm pretty far from the target demo as well, although I did read and enjoy the graphic novel, twice. I'm mixed about Snyder. I LOVED his remake of Dawn of the Dead. 300 was just stupid.

This movie is something that I don't think is very good and it seems to be trying too hard to be the graphic novel rather than being its own thing. And yet I've watched it several times and have even held that ultra extended cut in my hands a few times at Target. It's an oddly compulsive guilty pleasure. The movie has great big balls even if its dick is only half-mast at best.

[[ETM]]

The movie has great big balls even if its dick is only half-mast at best.

It has great big blue balls, and that makes all the difference.

[balmakboor]

;302197']It has great big blue balls, and that makes all the difference.

True. But that makes the half-mast all the more surprising.

[Bosco B Thug]

Did I watch a censored version? I'm pretty sure he was always wearing a little (or gigantic...) loincloth and I never got to see any swinging action.

[Spinal]

Did I watch a censored version? I'm pretty sure he was always wearing a little (or gigantic...) loincloth and I never got to see any swinging action.

What? That's weird. I'm pretty sure there was blue cock in the theatrical version.

[Spinal]

And a quick Google search reminds me that I am right.

[amberlita]

Did I watch a censored version? I'm pretty sure he was always wearing a little (or gigantic...) loincloth and I never got to see any swinging action.

Perhaps you just weren't paying attention all the time. There were certain scenes where he was wearing blue underwear and certain scenes where he wasn't.

[Bosco B Thug]

Hmm, yeah, perhaps I wasn't paying very much attention... shock/notice never registered in my brain.

I'll admit it was often a distracted viewing, but still, amazing unexplainable fail = my eyes. I totally posted that inquiry expecting someone to say "Yeah, the theatrical version CGI'd in a loin cloth."

[Bosco B Thug]

I forgot I still had this DVD (from Netflix)!

He does wear the underwear a lot, in the beginning, so I think that explains my neglecting to look diligently. I also went into the film with the faint idea that he was supposed to be naked throughout - like nakedness was the gist of his "persona" and guise as a superhero, so seeing him so much with the underwear settled me into thinking there was censoring occurring. But yes, I skimmed all the way up to the sex scene and we do indeed see it in that scene.

[Watashi]

Did you watch the director's cut? He's a lot more naked in that version.

[Bosco B Thug]

Did you watch the director's cut? He's a lot more naked in that version.
Makes sense. Nope.

[Watashi]

Makes sense. Nope.
The extra footage really adds to the experience. If you were fascinated by the original film, you should really check out the director's cut. It's a vast improvement.

[balmakboor]

The extra footage really adds to the experience. If you were fascinated by the original film, you should really check out the director's cut. It's a vast improvement.

How about the cut that has all the animated stuff included?

[Dukefrukem]

Is the directors cut on Blu-ray? I'd imagine that's the only way to watch this movie.

[balmakboor]

Is the directors cut on Blu-ray? I'd imagine that's the only way to watch this movie.

Yes. All three cuts are on Blu-ray.

[Watashi]

How about the cut that has all the animated stuff included?
I never saw that version.

[Dukefrukem]

I also watched the Director's Cut of this tonight and liked it a lot more than I remember from the version I saw in theaters. Maybe my dislike for this was an anticipation thing...and after many years a revisit has allowed it to simmer with my enjoyment from the comic. (I also had read the comic 2 or 3 times since my first viewing.) Aside from the director's cut suffering a little bit from 'Return of the King syndrome', I think I have a new appreciation for Patrick Wilson.

[Dukefrukem]

How about the cut that has all the animated stuff included?

I heard that cut is even 30 minutes longer than the Director's Cut?

[Skitch]

I heard that cut is even 30 minutes longer than the Director's Cut?


Yep, its a beast. And its awesome.

[EyesWideOpen]

If you ever see the Ultimate Cut blu-ray anywhere buy it. It's out of print and goes for $100+.

[Skitch]

If you ever see the Ultimate Cut blu-ray anywhere buy it. It's out of print and goes for $100+.

I nabbed it for $40 when I heard it was going OOP. One of my prize blus.

[MadMan]

Thanks to TNT I was able to watch the extended cut with additional footage added in, although it didn't include the Beyond The Hood stuff or anything with The Black Freighter, which I knew they wouldn't anyways. Getting to see Hollis' death was really fantastic, especially since its such a powerful and emotional moment. Its weird that Night Owl II's reaction upon finding out is so violent and almost out of control that Rorschach is forced to rein him in. I found that to be oddly amusing.

Regardless, at this point Watchmen is one of my favorite comic book/superhero movies of the past decade. Zach Snyder really did a fine job with material that was really difficult to translate to the silver screen.

[Dukefrukem]

Lindelof trying to turn this into an HBO series.

[Dukefrukem]

Lindelof trying to turn this into an HBO series.

Jeremy Irons cast

[dreamdead]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zymgtV99Rko

Hmmm. I like the crosscutting rhythm, not sure if Rorschach wannabes - if I'm reading this right -- yields much.

[megladon8]

So this isn’t based on the comics, but is rather an original story taking place in that world with some of the characters?

[Skitch]

So this isn’t based on the comics, but is rather an original story taking place in that world with some of the characters?

I hope so, because we got a pretty definitive version of the comics already.

[Skitch]

Regardless, at this point Watchmen is one of my favorite comic book/superhero movies of the past decade. Zach Snyder really did a fine job with material that was really difficult to translate to the silver screen.

I know its not a popular opinion, but I love the Ultimate cut with everything in the film. The Black Freighter stuff works as well as the graphic novel; when they derail into it it feels strange, then you get involved, then they go back to the live action story and you realize you appreciate the breaks between the two. Its long, but so damn good.

[Ezee E]

Been meaning to give the movie another try. Will def check this out too.

[megladon8]

The movie has moments of brilliance interspersed with moments of sheer stupidity.

Some greatness, and some “what in the hell were they thinking?”

[Dukefrukem]

This is what HBO expects to be their next GoT?? Good luck with that.

[MadMan]

I know its not a popular opinion, but I love the Ultimate cut with everything in the film. The Black Freighter stuff works as well as the graphic novel; when they derail into it it feels strange, then you get involved, then they go back to the live action story and you realize you appreciate the breaks between the two. Its long, but so damn good.

I have only seen the added footage cut, not the Ultimate one. At some point I will. That teaser was good but of course it did not give more away. Huh I didn't know Don Johnson was in the new show.