The Watchmen Movie

[Kevin Smith]

edit

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by The Guard

Its not the story that people don’t get. It’s pretty clear that most people don’t understand what the movie is doing, in terms of its deconstruction of superhero lore. They simply don’t grasp it. They should, but many didn’t, including critics.

Many people don’t understand the concept of deconstruction to begin with, so how would they recognize it when it happens? WATCHMEN clearly went over a lot of people's heads, or at least, they missed half the point of it upon viewing. And that's reasonable. Most people aren't attuned to that kind of literary/film analysis. Most people go to movies to be entertained.

I was saying it wasn't there for them to understand. Not in the way it should have been at least.

The first time we meet Veidt in the book, its raining. The color palette is somber blues, subdued purples, and grays, etc. It appears to be dark inside his office. He himself is portrayed in shadow a lot, and he’s brooding like, the whole time.

The next time we meet him, he’s talking about death to his assistant.

“Dark” may be the wrong word to use, but he’s certainly portrayed as a somewhat somber and contemplative fellow, which is how the film portrays him as well.

I feel like Veidt in the movie and Veidt in the book are two different animals. The movie Veidt even has a psuedo german accent when he speaks. "Yeah, he's not the bad guy at all."

I’m not sure what you mean by the book handled the sequence better with the panel layout…it’s a different media to begin with.

Still, the movie handles the cyanide capsule sequence about the same as the book did. It’s certainly not “very obvious” that Veidt gives him the capsule in either version.

Veidt is angry with the guy, and Veidt appears to try to prevent the guy from biting down on the poison. In the book, Veidt’s fingers are shown inside the guy’s mouth, where in the film, he’s got his hand sort of shoved sideways between the guy’s upper and lower jaw preventing him from biting down.

The movie actually handles it with less dialogue and less action. So if anything, the film is more subtle in its handling of this element than the book was. You must not recall the graphic novel’s portrayal of the dying man. He looks terrified there, too. And he should. He's dying of cyanide.

Yeah but he seemed more terrified of Veidt to me. Idk.....I gotta watch the movie again.

You could definitely make an argument that the overall assassination sequence in the book is more subtle, at least up until the part with the capsule, but then a lot of the elements in the film’s version of the assassination are clearly drawn from the layout of the event in the book (the spraying blood and the choice to use slo-mo here are clearly influenced by what’s in the book).

Of course it portrayed him with less dimension. It’s a movie adaption. It doesn’t have the luxury of having Veidt ramble on about who he is for page after page. Even the book had to put that stuff in appendixes to the main story. However, the key aspects of Veidt’s personality and character are intact in the film.

Going to rewatch.

I think it’s pretty clear that by the end of the movie, you’re meant to question whether Veidt may be playing with a full deck before he reveals his motivations, as are his former fellow heroes, though the film handles it a bit more subtlety, and doesn't have them actually say "What if he's gone crazy?". He plays the character with a subtle detachment in the scene with his scientists, and the scene where Rorschach and Nite Owl confront him, and his actions certainly do not appear to be those of a completely sane man. Its obvious the others don’t understand why he’s done what he’s done or what he’s doing until he explains his plan to them.

That's true.

Yes, they’re that important. And many of them are in the film.

Many of them also are not. lol.

[Shazam]

Ok...........great discussion.

Question: Would any of you want to see a sequel? See how this faux peace plays out??

[Ultimatehero]

No f-ing way, from what I heard the spin off comics sucked. Unsure. Just, that's why I say no.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Ok...........great discussion.

Question: Would any of you want to see a sequel? See how this faux peace plays out??

If Before Watchmen is any good, I would happily see that be adapted by Snyder again, with all of the cast returning of course.

At the same time though I wouldnt mind if the movie was left as a stand alone at all either.

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by flickchick85

I was so hyped for this movie. It's one of only 2 movies for which I've ever channeled my excitement into a making fan trailer, as Watchmen was, at the time, my favorite comic ever (it's still pretty high up there). But I just walked out of the theater so colossally disappointed. I hated how Snyder ratcheted up the violence to the point that gives the impression they all had some kind of super-strength, I hated most of the acting, the make-up, half of the music choices, the pacing....I just didn't like it. I loved exactly two parts: The opening credits and the Dr. Manhattan origin sequence. And ironically, one of the few things I didn't mind was the changed ending. The biggest change from the comic and I thought that worked fine. It was just, aside from those couple of inspired sequences, the whole affair felt totally stiff and soulless to me. After I walked out, so let down by such a slavishly faithful (for the most part) adaptation, I couldn't help but think, "maybe Terry Gilliam was right and it truly was unfilmable." I don't know, it just didn't work as a whole for me.

The changed ending didn't work for me because the whole point of the giant squid creature in the comic was that it was a totally alien threat that the world could unite and stand against. Dr. Manhattan is not that foreign threat, in fact, he's an American. He could and probably would be used to incriminate the US even if he appeared to attack American soul. For all his power and detachment he was not the foreign enemy that was needed for Ozymandias' plan to work.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Ok...........great discussion.

Question: Would any of you want to see a sequel? See how this faux peace plays out??

No.

I like the film the way it is and I like the graphic novel the way it is. A prequel film, a prequel to the graphic novel...they do not interest me one bit.

[The Guard]

I was saying it wasn't there for them to understand. Not in the way it should have been at least.

How so?

I feel like Veidt in the movie and Veidt in the book are two different animals. The movie Veidt even has a psuedo german accent when he speaks. "Yeah, he's not the bad guy at all."

There are some differences. He's obviously not as built in the movie. Though a pseudo German accent does not make someone a villain. It makes them somehow foreign.

[BatLobsterRises]

Watchmen was pretty cool. Never quite got the hate. I have still yet to see the Ultimate Edition, but I plan on it soon.

I honestly think there would have been a lot of haters no matter what the product was. Snyder did an admirable job. At the very least, the love for the material is extremely evident.

I still enjoyed the experience of reading the book more though, just cause it gave me time to digest everything over a longer period of time. The movie just brought the images to life for me in a really impressive and visceral way.

[terry78]

I will always give Snyder credit for having the balls to take on such a sacred cow, regardless of derision from fanboys and even Moore himself. Just have to make your own decisions when it comes to it. I hadn't read the novel beforehand but read it after I saw the movie and was taken aback at how much he did get right.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I read the novel just before and thought Snyder did brilliantly adapting it, then I saw the DC and thats even better, I honestly think we will never get a better adaptation into a movie than what Snyder gave us.

[flickchick85]

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

The changed ending didn't work for me because the whole point of the giant squid creature in the comic was that it was a totally alien threat that the world could unite and stand against. Dr. Manhattan is not that foreign threat, in fact, he's an American. He could and probably would be used to incriminate the US even if he appeared to attack American soul. For all his power and detachment he was not the foreign enemy that was needed for Ozymandias' plan to work.

The reason it worked for me (and I can't believe I'm actually defending this movie right after posting about how much I don't care for it, lol), is because at that point, Dr. Manhattan had become an alien threat to most. He stopped representing America and left the planet in anger, which the whole world saw on live television. It was clear that America had lost control of him. So the idea was that Ozymandias was deliberately painting him as this American weapon that had evolved into an alien threat to the entire world, America included. Even if the rest of the world would blame America for creating him in the first place, they'd still recognize that they would need to ally themselves against a common enemy when the entire world was at stake. That was enough for me. Not ideal, but it didn't bother me like I'd thought it would.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by flickchick85

The reason it worked for me (and I can't believe I'm actually defending this movie right after posting about how much I don't care for it, lol), is because at that point, Dr. Manhattan had become an alien threat to most. He stopped representing America and left the planet in anger, which the whole world saw on live television. It was clear that America had lost control of him. So the idea was that Ozymandias was deliberately painting him as this American weapon that had evolved into an alien threat to the entire world, America included. Even if the rest of the world would blame America for creating him in the first place, they'd still recognize that they would need to ally themselves against a common enemy when the entire world was at stake. That was enough for me. Not ideal, but it didn't bother me like I'd thought it would.

Great point!

[The Guard]

I love the "threat" in the book, but Dr. Manhattan, in a lot of ways, really does tie the themes of WATCHMEN together better and more logically/completely, bringing them full circle in a sense.

Given the relative complexity of the concept of the "alien psychic squid", I think it was a solid move in an adaption. The most important element about the threat at the end of WATCHMEN was always that it created a common. Secondary to that is the fact that humanity cannot quite wrap its mind about what its dealing with due to the psychic onslaught of images and emotions, etc. That was missing from the film adaption, but really, something a lot more relevant to the concepts of WATCHMEN replaced it.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by The Guard

How so?

Because it did not speak to superhero movies the way the series spoke to superhero books.

There are some differences. He's obviously not as built in the movie. Though a pseudo German accent does not make someone a villain. It makes them somehow foreign.

This is movies, Veidt is the villain, the use of a semi "german" accent is obviously a reference to Nazis. One more way of outlining Veidt as a boogeyman, IMO. They're basically saying Veidt is like Hitler with his view of a "transformed" humanity. And maybe rightfully so, but here it's bombastic, again, like most of the movie, it isn't subtle and nuanced like the book.

Whether that came from not having enough time to do the whole book or something got lost somewhere in the translation process that's just how the film seems to me on a whole.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Great point!

The ending works in the context of the film I think. But I still prefer the book and I do believe it could have worked on film. Just maybe not this film.

[Mace Dolex]

Watching the Ultimate Cut in one sitting is taxing that I prefer watching it over two days, with that said this is as close to the book that Watchmen could've been possible to be made, I didn't like Snyder's 300 movie which I thought was a bore and people only were enamored by it's unique cinematography.

The song selections were appropriate, I didn't mind the sex scene except for Malin Ackerman making a funny sexface, Rorshach, Comedian, Nite Owl, Ozymandias were all spot on and the fight scene at the arctic was well done.

[Kevin Smith]

Lol it takes me two and sometimes three days to watch the theatrical cut.

[The Guard]

Because it did not speak to superhero movies the way the series spoke to superhero books.

Sure it did, in some ways, in particular when it comes to the look of the heroes themselves. And it did very much speak to the concept of superheroes and served as a deconstruction of them, as the book did.

This is movies, Veidt is the villain, the use of a semi "german" accent is obviously a reference to Nazis.

It's not anything close to being a Nazi reference until the very end of the film, and even then its never an overt one, nor is it an element the book did not feature as well. He's got noticeably less of an accent for most of the film, but he also displays noticeably less emotion through most of the film in general. And, not to put too fine a point on it...his name is "Adrian Veidt", which I'm fairly certain is a name that is German in origin. The accent wasn't just some incredibly unsubtle way to paint him as a bad guy.

One more way of outlining Veidt as a boogeyman, IMO. They're basically saying Veidt is like Hitler with his view of a "transformed" humanity.

Which...is also an element found in the book. Mind you, they never actually come right out and say this in the film, so how is that aspect handled in an unsubtle manner? You're also missing a key point here. He may be set up as this "boogeyman", but when his motivations are revealed, all that gets turned on its head. Just like in the book.

And maybe rightfully so, but here it's bombastic, again, like most of the movie, it isn't subtle and nuanced like the book.

What is bombastic? And compared to what?

Aside from the fact that the film does not contain ALL the nuance the book's difference in media allows for, and all the nuance from every subplot and omitted storyline, it very much does contain much of, and arguably, most of the important stuff. There were going to be a few sacrifices upon translation to film, because film, in general, is a less subtle media.

As far as subtlety goes in general...the book really isn't that subtle. There are subtleties to the work, to be sure...and the same holds true for the film as well, but it is not, overall, a truly subtle piece of writing.

[Kevin Smith]

@ Gaurd,

Veidt definitely sounds german, but nowhere in the book did it ever imply or point to the fact that he had a german accent. We could also point out that he has blonde hair and blue eyes and a "physically perfect" body and say that goes hand in hand with the name and therefore the accent is just complimenting all that, but I really think it takes it a bit too far. I know we don't hear how he sounds in the book as it is a book and has no audio, but I highly doubt it was Moore's intention for him to "reveal" his "true german accent" once his intentions were made clear in the movie, spelling a Hitler parallel or something out completely. That almost makes him more like....say....a "Republic serial villain" in a way, don't you think?

Now I have more to say on all of this of course, but I'm going to go and watch the movie again before I contribute anymore to this thread lol. Probably give the book another read as well, even tho I have read that thing to death.

[Shazam]

I've been pleasantly surprised at the Before Watchmen books....They have been very fatihful to the novel and I love the back stories.

The Darwyn Cooke stuff is darn near perfect!


So I guess I don't see why an "After Watchman" sequel wouldnt work.

The "prequel" is doing quite well.


http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__..._Variant_A.jpg

[metaphysician]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

Because it did not speak to superhero movies the way the series spoke to superhero books.

I'm not even sure its really possible to do a deconstruction of the "superhero movie" as such. Basically every such movie I can think of exists in the post-reconstructive idea space, mostly because of the stink of the later Superman and Batman movies. Nobody wants to do an unexamined, unaware telling of the classic tropes, and unexamined assumed tropes are exactly what you need in order to do deconstruction.

Even the actual original deconstruction movies like Hancock seem to target more the original comics than any contemporary movies. Attempt to compare them with their movie counterparts, and it just comes off as a cynical retort, no more a deconstruction than repeatedly yelling "am not!" on a playground.

[Kevin Smith]

^^ That's part of what I mean.

[the dmg]

I always felt the accent was just to portray that he is more sophisticated and above class, which is how I always read him in my head. It never came off as German to me, but I haven't watched the movie in a year, so I can't really verify if it sounds German or not.

Oh well, that gives me a reason to watch it again anyway!

[Kevin Smith]

I always read him as sounding "superior" to everyone too...just not in a pseudo german accent haha.

Definitely needs a rewatchin for me...it has been a while like I said