Who's Watching the Watchmen?

[xmuscularghandix]

it was written as a graphic novel but released by DC in issues to make $$$

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm not sure how I felt about it.  It was interesting.  Compelling, in a lot of parts.  Some critics are saying that certain actors were poor, but I didn't see it.  I don't know if I'd call uniformly entertaining, but I liked it.

The ending, though...  I see what they were going for, but no.  I didn't like it.  Bring back the squid!

[Schupac]

Dark_Lord have to disagree.  I also saw it with a friend who had not read the graphic novel, he wasn't really too confused.  He had a couple of questions about some of the slightly used side characters (Hooded Justice, for example) but they weren't about the major plot.

I also did enjoy the first two hours.  I thought they were paced well, actually.  And the fight scenes that were there (Opening fight scene, in particular) carried me through to the climax. 

Not perfect, again, but a faithful adaptation with competent directing, acting and editing.  Good enough for me.  Personally I'd give it a 7.5

[beantownboy171]

I have been planning on seeing the movie, but thanks as well for the tip about the novel -- it is now on my amazon wish list.

Novel is awesome - my understanding is the movie is basically a shot-for-shot recreation of the novel, with some scenes subtracted for length (a movie of everything in the novel would probably take 4+ hours), and a few key changes (including at least one semi-major one).  Most of the cut scenes will be readded for the DVD - I've heard that the full DVD movie will be over 3.5 hrs long. 

One tip for reading the book - I found it hard at first to keep track of who's talking at a given moment.  There are lots of scenes where they're showing Characters A+B but some of the dialogue is actually a voiceover by Character C or something from a comic book being read by Character D off to the side of the frame.  Read slowly and keep track of the graphical differences between word bubbles for actual dialogue, character thoughts, voiceover, comic book content (a small but significant subplot involves a minor character reading a pirate/horror comic book that mirrors much of the main plot), etc.   

Nearly every single frame has small hidden details and hints that you might not catch the first time, too.  It's cool though, because when you read it a 2nd time it's like a whole new book since you'll pick up on more of the subtleties and hidden messages you missed the first time through.

Hey, i've seen the movie but haven't nor ever plan to read the book, what was the semi-major change?

If you don't want to give it away to others just send it to me in a message.

[beantownboy171]

Its funny that Time put this on its list of top 100 "novels". It wasn't even a Graphic novel, it was a monthly limited series that was the collected into what now would be called a "Trade paper back". It is not a graphic novel in the traditional sense of " A History of Violence" or "300".

Kind of strange but many writers who fall into the cannon of great writers serialized their work.  Charles Dickens comes to mind as an example.  It's just a symptom of the medium, I guess.

*****************SPOILERS**************

I read the novel about 3 months ago to prepare for the movie, absolutely loved it.  I understand some of the criticisms (pirate side story?   no thanks) but it really did inspect many conventions within comic books.  The whole idea of these "super heroes" and their origins, and how they interacted with the real world around them, dealing with becoming obsolete, these are all things not normally touched on in comics.  The Nightowl's impotence without his costume was really smartly written.

Personally found Dr. Manhattan's justification for viewing Laurie Jupiter as a miracle to be be extremely touching and quite a pick-me-up for all us average people out there.



Saw the movie Sunday, really liked it.  It wasn't a masterpiece by any means, but the one major change (Ozymandias making Dr. Manhattan the villain instead of an alien) made more sense than the original graphic novel, the fight scenes were excellent, and I thought it was a really faithful adaptation.

It didn't take the story someplace new, like I think The Dark Knight did for Batman, but it didn't mess it up.  A lot of times that's all I hope for.

i disagree on a few accounts.

it was close to 3 hours long.  the first two hours are pretty boring and dragged out.  i know they attempt to give background knowledge of the characters and the story, but i think they could have cut it down, while incorporating more action/fight scenes.

like i said in my previous post, the last portion of the film was awesome, so if they cut down on the background while adding more action, the film would be much better received by the audience.

my last point issue is, i saw the film with a friend (who never read the graphic novel).  he was sooooo confused and lost during the aforementioned background information.  he was constantly asking me questions and just seemed frustrated and confused.  im sure he had more questions than he asked, but didnt want to keep interrupting my experience.

for those who read the novel and are somewhat into it...i give the film a 6 out of 10.

for those who have no knowledge going into the film, i imagine it is a 2 out of 10

I think it may have been because you read the graphic novel, I can see how some of the different background things they did would have seemed like were unnecesary and obvious, dragged out longer then they needed to be.

Personally i didn't really notice any dragged out parts, i loved the movie, but idk im not much of a reader.

Also i was never really confused on the plot, it was sort of designed to be confusing in the begining but after that it was pretty simple. i'd give it a 7, prolly not the most memorable movie i ever watched, but id watch it again

[Big_Matt34]

I was a pretty big fan of it, it is definately not the typical comic/superhero movie and it definately isn't for everybody but after the first 30 minutes or so i thought it was great. I had read the novel years ago but i went with my gf who never had and she wasn't confused and said it was one of her favorite movies of the last few years. Id give it a 7 or 8 out of 10. I think all the actors did a good job, Malin Akerman was fun to watch lol and unlike most i thought she did a good job. However, Jackie Earle Haley was excellent as Rorschach and was clearly the star of the movie IMO.

Also for anybody who like me really liked the opening credits, here you go

http://vodpod.com/watch/1418375-who-watches-the-watchmens-title-sequence?pod=dotxom

[fairweatherfan]

Really enjoyed the film though I couldn't help but notice all the stuff they left out.  Would've liked to see more of the character development from the original, and the movie didn't quite capture the growing sense of dread from the comics, but I had a blast overall.

As for the squid/Dr. Manhattan ending, I thought the squid would've been cool, but the Manhattan ending made the plot much more self-contained, and really hammered home the "Manhattan as God" theme that the movie played up more than the novel.  Without the genetic engineering theme, though, Bubastis (horned cat) pretty much came completely out of left field - hopefully they'll tighten that up in the extended cut.

Only omission that really disappointed me was the final, "Nothing ever ends" conversation between Veidt and Manhattan.  They give the line to Laurie as an aside instead, and it really hurt it, I think.  The book had a lot more on Veidt's character generally, which I would've liked as he's the most intriguing character in the whole thing.

Overall I'm really looking forward to the extended DVD.  I like the Black Freighter bits a lot more when you realize they directly parallel the storyline panel-by-panel.  The ending of the book shows that the "protagonist" of the Freighter is in fact Veidt, and it serves as a metaphor for his journey within the novel.  Can't wait to see how they incorporate that into the movie.

[Schupac]

Really enjoyed the film though I couldn't help but notice all the stuff they left out.  Would've liked to see more of the character development from the original, and the movie didn't quite capture the growing sense of dread from the comics, but I had a blast overall.

As for the squid/Dr. Manhattan ending, I thought the squid would've been cool, but the Manhattan ending made the plot much more self-contained, and really hammered home the "Manhattan as God" theme that the movie played up more than the novel.  Without the genetic engineering theme, though, Bubastis (horned cat) pretty much came completely out of left field - hopefully they'll tighten that up in the extended cut.

Only omission that really disappointed me was the final, "Nothing ever ends" conversation between Veidt and Manhattan.  They give the line to Laurie as an aside instead, and it really hurt it, I think.  The book had a lot more on Veidt's character generally, which I would've liked as he's the most intriguing character in the whole thing.

Overall I'm really looking forward to the extended DVD.  I like the Black Freighter bits a lot more when you realize they directly parallel the storyline panel-by-panel.  The ending of the book shows that the "protagonist" of the Freighter is in fact Veidt, and it serves as a metaphor for his journey within the novel.  Can't wait to see how they incorporate that into the movie.

At the time I didn't miss the "nothing ever ends" conversation in the film, but you make a good point I think it would have added some emotional gravity to the ending.

Also agreed on Bubastis... seems like something that was probably explained, and then cut for time or vieability.

I would disagree on Veidt being more developed in the novel, though.  That was my biggest criticism when I read it - if you discount the large between-chapters sections, he wasn't covered too much in my opinion, and those sorts of things would be really hard to put into a movie.

P.S. 5 days late response I rock.

[LarBrd33]

Never read the graphic novel... thought the movie was somewhere between average and crappy.

My buddy summed up the movie with one word:  "Gratuitous"

As in gratuitous violence, sex, etc...

It was rather long.  Not that compelling.  Not that interesting, actually.  I didn't care about any of the characters.  I didn't care about the plot.   It pretty much played out like this:

BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, SHOCK SCENE!!, BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, SHOCK SCENE!!!, BORING BORING... etc

Like I said, I haven't read the graphic novel.  I guess it came out in a time when comics were overly cheesy... and perhaps this kind of material was groundbreaking, revolutionary and mature... and I know I've read things about how they took every opportunity possible to maximize the medium.  I'm sure it's great stuff... but I'm saying as a movie it was forgettable and not worth seeing a second time.

The cheese of comicbook characters was still there... and maybe the only interesting parts of the movie were the "shock scenes".  Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing...  but the only memorable points were... unbelievably brutal violence, shooting a pregnant girl in the head, an attempt at rape, a softcore sex scene akin to what you'd get from skinemax, big blue guy showing off  his big blue phallus, cutting off some fat guy's hands, watching rabid dogs chew up a dead little girl's leg...   I mean... honestly.  The rest of it was just exhausting and boring to watch as a movie.  And honestly I think I was mostly entertained by those "gratuitous" scenes simply because I kept thinking "oh my god this kind of stuff must make half this audience uncomfortable"... resulting in mild laughter and vocal responses like "good lord!... (laughter) ... this is unbeievable! (laughter) ".

Sorta like the over-the-top squirting blood scenes in "Kill Bill", but those were intentionally funny.

As a Graphic Novel?  Dunno

As a movie... 55 out of 100 just for having crisp visuals and mild (if not sick) entertainment.

[LarBrd33]

I joked with my friend that the only lesson I took away from that entire movie was this:  Despite the fact that "Dr. Manhattan" eventually turned into this emotionless being that transcended time and space and essentially existed on a quantum level... without any cares or worries relating to our insignificant meager existence... he still found time to dump his girlfriend for some hot jail bait...

There you have it

[fairweatherfan]

Never read the graphic novel... thought the movie was somewhere between average and crappy.

Well, I'm shocked that the guy who was sure the movie would suck wound up thinking it sucked. 

I was pretty sure some of the violence was intentionally a little over the top - a lot about the movie was subtly mocking the common themes and characters of superhero comics and movies.  I think it did try to fit too much of the novel into a movie framework, it really would've been better as a miniseries, because there's so much information that contributes to the main plot.  Still liked what I got though, and I think I'll like the extended cut better.

[guava_wrench]

I just watched the director's cut last night. I do not read graphic novels and I did not see the theater version. I have no idea what scenes were added for the DC, but the only scene that clearly didn't fit in well was the one with the main female talking to her mom about her dad.

I was very happy with the movie. I didn't expect it to be that entertaining. My one problem is that the gore and blood didn't match up with the character driven story since this tends to appeal to different viewers. I thought the character development was great, but wasn't big on the gore.

Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan were great characters, and I loved the bizarreness of the discussion about knowing the future when they were on another planet.

I felt there was sufficient action. I wouldn't want to sacrifice character development or plot development for it.

I don't see why anyone would be confused by the story line unless they had a short attention span. Perhaps I benefited from extra scenes in the DC, but it was pretty easy to follow. Perhaps some people aren't used to thinking while watching movies, particularly action movie fans (which I am not)?

[indeedproceed]

I just watched the director's cut last night. I do not read graphic novels and I did not see the theater version. I have no idea what scenes were added for the DC, but the only scene that clearly didn't fit in well was the one with the main female talking to her mom about her dad.

I was very happy with the movie. I didn't expect it to be that entertaining. My one problem is that the gore and blood didn't match up with the character driven story since this tends to appeal to different viewers. I thought the character development was great, but wasn't big on the gore.

Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan were great characters, and I loved the bizarreness of the discussion about knowing the future when they were on another planet.

I felt there was sufficient action. I wouldn't want to sacrifice character development or plot development for it.

I don't see why anyone would be confused by the story line unless they had a short attention span. Perhaps I benefited from extra scenes in the DC, but it was pretty easy to follow. Perhaps some people aren't used to thinking while watching movies, particularly action movie fans (which I am not)?

I haven't seen the DC but I'm with you, I dunno how anyone could not understand the movie.

[Lucky17]

I just watched the director's cut last night. I do not read graphic novels and I did not see the theater version. I have no idea what scenes were added for the DC, but the only scene that clearly didn't fit in well was the one with the main female talking to her mom about her dad.

I was very happy with the movie. I didn't expect it to be that entertaining. My one problem is that the gore and blood didn't match up with the character driven story since this tends to appeal to different viewers. I thought the character development was great, but wasn't big on the gore.

Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan were great characters, and I loved the bizarreness of the discussion about knowing the future when they were on another planet.

I felt there was sufficient action. I wouldn't want to sacrifice character development or plot development for it.

I don't see why anyone would be confused by the story line unless they had a short attention span. Perhaps I benefited from extra scenes in the DC, but it was pretty easy to follow. Perhaps some people aren't used to thinking while watching movies, particularly action movie fans (which I am not)?

GW, did you see the director's cut on pay-per-view, or on DVD? I noticed the ad for PPV the other day. I missed it when it was out in theaters, but I read the novel. Looking forward to seeing the screen adaptation.

[indeedproceed]

For fans of the Watchmen, check out this:

Dr Manhattan turns the ball into a kryptonite synthetic mix that renders superman useless....Holla.

Dr. Manhatten is always getting whistled for 3 second violations and 24 second shot clock violations, because he doesn't see time the way we do.

It's 2009.  I am holding a round rubber ball.  Its atomic structure is pliant, spongy.  A sphere designed to compress and bounce.  It intrigues me, briefly.  A clock ticks on both sides of me.  In twenty-two seconds a buzzer will sound.

It's 1959.  Another clock is ticking.  It is Janey's pocket watch.  The door has locked behind me.  A loud humming begins, increases in intensity.  In twenty-two seconds I will change forever. 

It's a time without a date.  Trillions of years after humanity has disappeared.  Before me, the last star winks out of existence, with a tiny quantum whimper.  It makes a sound not unlike the slow final tick of a pocke****ch that needs to be wound.  I am alone.

It's 2009.  Again the clock ticks.  An opponent, a man of vast power, charges me.  Not for me.  He desires the sphere.  Absentmindedly, I turn myself and the sphere into gas.  In eleven seconds, a buzzer will sound. 

It's 1959.  The intrinsic field subtractor begins to take hold of me.  The hum has become an howl.  The ringing in my ears is unbearable.  In eleven seconds, there will be no ears to cause me pain.  I feel fear for the last time.

It's 2009.  A menagerie of teammates and spectators are shouting.  Shouting at me.  I think about human emotion, try to remember the experience of it.  It is slipping away.  There is a deeper purpose to their shouting, but it is meaningless.  Five seconds later, the buzzer sounds.  A man in a striped shirt is demanding the sphere.  I give it to him.  In twelve seconds, the other team will surrender the sphere after hurling it through a metal circle.  Six seconds after that, I will be holding it again.  All of this has happened before.  All of this will happen again in the second half.  Repeatedly. My teammates are ****ed.  They will be ****ed again later.

It's 2009, later that evening.  A group of badly dressed men with recording devices are shouting questions at me.  They want to know about a game, and failure.  I explain that failure and success are meaningless distinctions, outcomes viewed subjectively through a set of arbitrary criteria. They are not pleased with this response.

The press, the press is taking me apart...