Are fans right or wrong to criticise the direction of this movie?

[Sandman138]

Won't argue that. But I will argue that at least in terms of the journals, there is a reason for their omission. Their obvious impact on screentime.

But the journals are all exclusively voice over going on while screen time is already being taken up by action. Hayter understood that and was able to keep much of Rorschach's journal entries intact.

Hardly, as the scene where Ra's Al Ghul asks Bruce to kill a man and then go back to Gotham and destroy and "Ducard's" obedience to Ra's lets us know who was morally in the right.

I forget, did we agree that Batman Begins wasn't nearly as deep and morally ambiguous as it was touted to be?

Only because you are thinking simply. A man dying does not erase the issues surrounding his actions.

It does when the man who dies and the man who kills him are wearing super suits. Hell, in every script I read the confrontation goes something like this:

Veidt: Why would you sacrifice utopia?
Dan: Because it's the right thing to do.
Veidt: I'd like to say you're making a mistake, but the truth is I was just going to kill all of you in the morning.

That is so morally ambiguous.

Because again, if Nite Owl kills Veidt, not only can we argue over whether or not Veidt was right or wrong, you can argue over whether Nite Owl was right or wrong.

Does anybody argue whether Batman was right to stop Ra's? Their motivations were similar. I remember *****ing for a long time about how Batman leaving Ra's to die was hypocritical and the response was always "What did you want him to do? Let a dangerous man like Ra's live?" The hero kills the villain by convention in this type of story.

Unfortunately, not everyone who sees the movie is going to know the significance of Richard Nixon still being President.

I'm only 21 and I know it. All my friends who took American History and Civics know it too. None of us were alive for his presidency.

Again, I understand the overt "historical significance", but this could be any character fitting this theme. Does Nixon fit it? Yes. But it could be any presidential character acting as such, and the theme's relevance would remain intact.

No, it couldn't. You treat the historical context of Watchmen as insignificant, but it is fundamentally tied to the story.

You're missing the point. It need not be JFK. It need not by ANY real President, and they wouldn't even have to be reelected time after time after time, as long as the themes of Dr. Manhattan being America's secret weapon and The Comedian being a darker reflection of that are kept intact.

You're the one that is missing the point. The point is not that Dr. Manhattan and The Comedian are America's secret weapon, the point is how that fact effects America.

Why couldn't a fictional President work in the same context? How does a theme have no real weight in relation to politics?


This isn't the real world, so you can't cite real world relevance. In the real world, Nixon didn't have a Dr. Manhattan, and even if he did, he wouldn't neccessarily have sicced him on all of America's enemies.

That's exactly what you should be doing. Noticing how the emergence of superheroes has changed this world from the one that we know. In the real world the 22nd Amendment was never repealed, but here it was? Why? Because, in large part, we won Vietnam. But I guess since this isn't he real world, Vietnam isn't essential to the story. It could have been an East Asian Hydra that we fought on a lunar base... so long as the themes were the same.

Yes, you have:

Viedt dying at Nite Owl's hand is the continuation of the black hat/white hat showdown morality that goes against everything Watchmen is about.

What WATCHMEN is about, at least the encompassing theme, is the interpretive nature of meaning. It has everything to do with interpretation of things, and situationality, and our points of view in relation to the meanings we derive. The entire graphic novel makes allusions to this. The plot fits into it.

I disagree. Certianly, that is a major theme just by the nature of a story with at least five perspectives. However, I believe that the main overriding theme of Watchmen is the deconstruction of the hero myth to reveal the political institution behind it. Rorschach, for all his moral absolutes is a jingoist driven by the same vein of patriotism as The New Frontiersman. Dr. Manhattan, a literal god, is turned into nothing more than a tactical weapon. The Comedian is made into a hero of Democracy while at the same time covertly assassinating political targets and maintaining the status quo. Ozymandias uses his image in a similar manner as the government, profiting off of it enough to shape the world through avenues ranging from the stock market to a final subversion of a Star Wars style apocalypse. Dan and Laurie are both impotent because heroes don't derive their authority from doing the right thing, they derive it from institutions. The Senate Subcommitee Meetings on Juvenile Delinquency do not go after comic books in Watchmen because the government steps in since they have superheroes on their payroll, later they pass the Keene act and make sure that these heroes can only work under their authority. Dr. Manhattan lets the US win Vietnam and empowers the hawks to continue fighting the USSR in a series of proxy wars that end up pushing us closer to a nuclear holocaust than ever, but they do it anyways because that same moral myth makes the policy legitimate and the people that perpetuate that myth make the policy.

The politics are extremely important. Because we still haven't learned the lessons we should have from the Cold War, and now we are fighting an enemy born out of the Cold War by the same rules. Remember when President Bush met Captain America and Spider-Man at a rally? That is why I am so concerned about this movie. In an age when superhero movies are the newest culture shaping myth, I think it's incredibly important to examine that myth.

 

[Sandman138]

One final note: The only way Rorschach can deal with the reality of the situation at the end of the book is to remove his face, the black and white, right vs. wrong lens through which he views the world.

 

[The Guard]

But the journals are all exclusively voice over going on while screen time is already being taken up by action. Hayter understood that and was able to keep much of Rorschach's journal entries intact.

Hayter included some of it. He cut a lot of it, too.

I forget, did we agree that Batman Begins wasn't nearly as deep and morally ambiguous as it was touted to be?

I think so, yes.

It does when the man who dies and the man who kills him are wearing super suits. Hell, in every script I read the confrontation goes something like this:

Veidt: Why would you sacrifice utopia?
Dan: Because it's the right thing to do.
Veidt: I'd like to say you're making a mistake, but the truth is I was just going to kill all of you in the morning.

That is so morally ambiguous.

Not when Veidt's reason for killing them is to cover up what he did, and maintain world peace. How is it any worse than when Veidt kills his assistants, or his "assassin", or any of the people who worked on his "monster" project?
It's not.

Does anybody argue whether Batman was right to stop Ra's? Their motivations were similar.

No, but then again, Ra's Al Ghul only wanted to cause chaos that would force the world to move back to a simple, more harmonic nature, not stop the world from ending overall. Veidt's plan averted a nuclear disaster of epic proportions.

I remember *****ing for a long time about how Batman leaving Ra's to die was hypocritical and the response was always "What did you want him to do? Let a dangerous man like Ra's live?" The hero kills the villain by convention in this type of story.

Batman leaving Ra's was out of character, yes. Does Nite Owl killing Veidt change the morally ambiguous nature of Veidt's actions to save the world?

I'm only 21 and I know it. All my friends who took American History and Civics know it too. None of us were alive for his presidency.

With all due respect, you are not "everyone".

No, it couldn't. You treat the historical context of Watchmen as insignificant, but it is fundamentally tied to the story.

The historical context isn't insignificant, but it's not neccessary for real people to be involved for the same themes and political relevance to exist.

You're the one that is missing the point. The point is not that Dr. Manhattan and The Comedian are America's secret weapon, the point is how that fact effects America.

I kind of thought that was implied. Again, to see how the "secret weapons" affect America, you don't have to have Nixon as President in the 80's.

That's exactly what you should be doing. Noticing how the emergence of superheroes has changed this world from the one that we know. In the real world the 22nd Amendment was never repealed, but here it was? Why? Because, in large part, we won Vietnam. But I guess since this isn't he real world, Vietnam isn't essential to the story. It could have been an East Asian Hydra that we fought on a lunar base... so long as the themes were the same.

To a point. I'm not saying that real world elements shouldn't be cited, I'm just saying the same themes and relevance could exist without doing so.
As for the main theme, yes, the politics are extremely important. But that is not the overarcing theme of WATCHMEN. It's more a background element, a way to make the heroes relevant.

One final note: The only way Rorschach can deal with the reality of the situation at the end of the book is to remove his face, the black and white, right vs. wrong lens through which he views the world.

That's debatable, as he never abandons his black and white view.

 

[Mikelus]

How can Hollywood and Snyder disrespect the Watchmen like this! How do they dare to alter the costumes, they have to respect the original versions period. There's no need to change anything at all, everything is perfect, damned Hollywood idiots! And don't get me started with the journals, is just horrible! I'm not going to watch this garbage, how can the fans tolerate something like this, is just unbearable!!





(Watchmen fanboy mode off)

The above is an insight into the fanboys mind, till I see a trailer or the movie itself, I'm not whining for the moment, some people need an open mind, bigotry should be avoided.

 

[CLARKY]

I am firmly in the 'against the Snyder' camp on Watchmen. My reasons are too numerous to put into this thread, but suffice to say that the latest images of the costumes confirms to me that this IS going to be a sacrilege of what the true essence is of the great graphic novel. Watchmen is not meant to be cool. Their costumes do not look high tech to any degree. The overall feel is one of reality, and not super reality. I am not sure whether there are fans here willing to debate this in a way that doesn't devolve into a slagging match, but hey, it's worth a shot. I have seen so many THE COSTUMES ARE SO COOL! messages with no reason as to why, that Ihave to wonder at where the Watchmen fans are and why more folks haven't actually said hey stop a second...isn't this meant to take place in 1985...weren't their costumes old and from the late 70's to begin with anyway?
Question is whether fans are justified in having strong reservations about this film and the fact Snyder has been given control of it? I understand people LOVE everything about this film, but why those who do not get lambasted is beyond me. The reasons why folks don't like the way this is going are valid reasons. In fact the arguments are more thoroughly represented than those who simply say, it's gonna rock, did you see how the pics looked like panel blah blah blah etc.
Hoping for some productive debate on this...

I understand quite well your point of view, but I don't find the costumes that bad. If I may quote myself :

I think the costumes are great! That's what I call an adaptation. With the exception of Ozymandias. He looks good, but I don't understand the rubber/nipples thing. They should have dressed him like he is in the comicbook : kind of antiquity king.

To some degree, I agree with you.

 

[T0NE]

watchmen is just dressed like batman forever. it's going to rule all. but im afraid it's going to be the last good superhero movie. especially if they keep the violence to women from the comics in it.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

watchmen is just dressed like batman forever. it's going to rule all. but im afraid it's going to be the last good superhero movie. especially if they keep the violence to women from the comics in it.

Don't take offense if I scratch my head in mild confusion...

 

[deathfromabove]

I just don't get Guard's borderline-OCD habit of defending things that virtually noone sane is willing to defend. He does this all the time on all boards for nearly every movie. I'm guessing he's either a lawyer who does this thing for practice or maybe he just gets off on it.

I like him otherwise, as a poster.

his postings in this thread have drained him of 90% of his credibity as far as im concerned. i will never read his posts in the same light im afraid.

So far all Snyder has done are adaptations of other works, and so far they've all been dead on. Was his 300 full of depth and complexity? No, but was Miller's book? Snyder knows how to keep an adaptation faithful to it's source material.

You act as if Snyder's going to somehow just sap all the psychology and philosophy out of the story. As if he's just gonna think all that stuff is stupid and he just wants the action and explosions. He wouldn't be a fan of the book if that's the kind of person he was. Nobody reads Watchmen, enjoys it, and adapts a film version with as much care for the source material if they dont care for the deeper themes in it.

And like I said, it doesn't matter if Snyder isn't capable of that amount of depth, he doesn't need to be. Moore already wrote the book. All the political and philosophical messages are already there. If Snyder's as faithful to the book as he says he's going to be, and as he is in past adaptations, then all of that should still be there (or at least as much as he can fit in a 2.5 hour movie)

i have no doubt snyder has nothing but the best of intentions. unfortunately there is no evidence that he has the skill to pull it off. we are not talking about a lightweight 300 here. lets remember we are talking about adapting a book that most (including the creator) have said would be impossible to translate to film. snyder has one relative success and one pile o crap on his resume. its not unreasonable to assume why some have their doubts.

You just lost all credibility right there. Both of those movies are fantastic. And wildly received as such.

no. there were not.

300 was fairly well recieved but any horror fan with half a brain will tell you the dawn remake sucked. it was horrible. if your standards are that low im sure watchmen will please you no matter what.

I keep seeing Batman being brought up in rebuttals against those who criticize Watchmen. The Batman argument holds no water because Batman has seen countless story adaptations and countess visual interpretation. Batman is a character with no one clear defining source.

However Watchmen is one story, with this movie being the only interpretation. Therefore the stakes are extremely high to get the film adaptation spot on. People have very high expectations for what Watchmen should be, and those expectations are also not unrealistic nor should they be ignored.

To be honest, I haven't read any of the Watchmen scripts, so straight up I have no idea what this thing is about the ending being changed (if someone could clue me in though, I'd very much appreciate it). Whatever the change is, it's obviously a strain on the expectations of those who would want the absolute best for the story. Can you really blame them? Changing something around for something like Batman is perfectly fine, again as he's had 69 years of consistently released material that constantly varies in story and image. But Watchmen is still only one story, and people just don't want it to be plundered of just what is instantly gratifying about it. It might not be, but try and understand where that viewpoint is coming from. V for Vendetta was a great movie, but honestly it is a watered-down interpretation of its source. That cannot be denied, and for some people who really really love that story, that's kind of a drag.

great post. on batman on film: comparing one story=one film with years of stories and history=one movie does not compute. especially with a character that is grafted into pop culture so permanatly as batman is.

and v was an alright movie and an uneven adaptation. hugo was great and i thought tying it into current events was actually brilliant but the material should have been treated more like "children of men" and less like "the matrix" meets "robocop". is anyone arguing that the movie really did the book justice? for shame.

The Batman argument isn't quite that simple. There is an accepted mythology and approach to the characters for the Batman movies, just like WATCHMEN has. Changing the nature of a character is changing the nature of the character. And isn't that the issue? The changes that were made?

there is a difference. the character of batman has already been re interpreted and changed by countless artists over many many years. one more approach is just part of that collective history. watchmen is one work by two people. one story. nowhere near as much wiggle room.

I'm only 21 and I know it. All my friends who took American History and Civics know it too. None of us were alive for his presidency.

No, it couldn't. You treat the historical context of Watchmen as insignificant, but it is fundamentally tied to the story.

You're the one that is missing the point. The point is not that Dr. Manhattan and The Comedian are America's secret weapon, the point is how that fact effects America.

That's exactly what you should be doing. Noticing how the emergence of superheroes has changed this world from the one that we know. In the real world the 22nd Amendment was never repealed, but here it was? Why? Because, in large part, we won Vietnam. But I guess since this isn't he real world, Vietnam isn't essential to the story. It could have been an East Asian Hydra that we fought on a lunar base... so long as the themes were the same.

I disagree. Certianly, that is a major theme just by the nature of a story with at least five perspectives. However, I believe that the main overriding theme of Watchmen is the deconstruction of the hero myth to reveal the political institution behind it. Rorschach, for all his moral absolutes is a jingoist driven by the same vein of patriotism as The New Frontiersman. Dr. Manhattan, a literal god, is turned into nothing more than a tactical weapon. The Comedian is made into a hero of Democracy while at the same time covertly assassinating political targets and maintaining the status quo. Ozymandias uses his image in a similar manner as the government, profiting off of it enough to shape the world through avenues ranging from the stock market to a final subversion of a Star Wars style apocalypse. Dan and Laurie are both impotent because heroes don't derive their authority from doing the right thing, they derive it from institutions. The Senate Subcommitee Meetings on Juvenile Delinquency do not go after comic books in Watchmen because the government steps in since they have superheroes on their payroll, later they pass the Keene act and make sure that these heroes can only work under their authority. Dr. Manhattan lets the US win Vietnam and empowers the hawks to continue fighting the USSR in a series of proxy wars that end up pushing us closer to a nuclear holocaust than ever, but they do it anyways because that same moral myth makes the policy legitimate and the people that perpetuate that myth make the policy.

The politics are extremely important. Because we still haven't learned the lessons we should have from the Cold War, and now we are fighting an enemy born out of the Cold War by the same rules. Remember when President Bush met Captain America and Spider-Man at a rally? That is why I am so concerned about this movie. In an age when superhero movies are the newest culture shaping myth, I think it's incredibly important to examine that myth.

that is one of the best posts i have read on here in a very long time.

what i dont understand is why:

a. more people arent at least a little weary of this...c'mon a passable cast, a director with a 50/50 chance of making a horrible movie, the mere fact that it is one 2-2.5 hour film...

b. some are suprised that there those who think watchmen deserves better than it seems to be getting?

i really hope this film is great. and to be honest i have seen nothing that tells me otherwise. but if i had to guess... hell, i hope its at least good enough that it sheds a good light on the book and puts the novel in more hands. alan moore deserves it. dave gibbons deserves it. and the work deserves it.

as far as im concerned, snyder needs to prove my doubts are unfounded. i feel no obligation to give him the benefit of doubt where watchmen is concerned.

if the movie is great than i will be very happy. overjoyed in fact. but why is everyone so optimistic and so suprised that some are not?

 

[The Guard]

there is a difference. the character of batman has already been re interpreted and changed by countless artists over many many years. one more approach is just part of that collective history. watchmen is one work by two people. one story. nowhere near as much wiggle room.

great post. on batman on film: comparing one story=one film with years of stories and history=one movie does not compute. especially with a character that is grafted into pop culture so permanatly as batman is.

That is quite simply, a copout used to defend the changes the Nolan movies have made to the mythology. Unfortunately, it doesn't really hold any water when applied as a concept.

We're not talking about the actual storyline used in a given Batman film, we're talking about the nature of the character and his mythology itself. No one expects a literal translation of one or two storylines and nothing else. However, while it's true that there have been many, mostly tonal changes to the Batman mythology over the years (from dark, to camp, to campier, and back to serious, and then to dark and psychological), there are elements that have almost always remained constant in the actual continuity and mythology, and certainly in the modern Batman mythos. BATMAN BEGINS made fairly sizeable changes to these elements. The fact that many writers and artists have left their stamp on the character is irrelevant when arguing an faithful adaption of the source material if the source material is not adapted faithfully.

You want to use that argument, then you should be accepting what Joel Schumacher did to the character as valid. After all, it's just another artist's take, right?

 

[CaptainGenerica]

You want to use that argument, then you should be accepting what Joel Schumacher did to the character as valid. After all, it's just another artist's take, right?

I don't see anybody saying Schumacher's vision was invalid. Undesirable, anachronistic perhaps, but it's not like there wasn't precedent for it.

 

[WaltertheWhite]

You know it's been said multiple times that it takes more than just a good director to direct watchmen, it takes a great one. If the movie isn't perfect than there's really no point.

Any movie can tell the face-value story of watchmen. ANybody can tell a story about that basic story and people in those costumes. Thats not the point of watchmen, the point of watchmen is its use of the superhero archetypes and the comic book format to analyze human nature, the nature of power, and more or less the meaning of life. It takes somebody capable of making a masterpiece to make Watchmen, and with all due respect to Zack Snyder, Zack Snyder is not capable of making a masterpiece. Unless it's something that changes cinema forever, then there really is no point. It would just be another movie.

 

[The Battousai]

You know it's been said multiple times that it takes more than just a good director to direct watchmen, it takes a great one. If the movie isn't perfect than there's really no point.

Any movie can tell the face-value story of watchmen. ANybody can tell a story about that basic story and people in those costumes. Thats not the point of watchmen, the point of watchmen is its use of the superhero archetypes and the comic book format to analyze human nature, the nature of power, and more or less the meaning of life. It takes somebody capable of making a masterpiece to make Watchmen, and with all due respect to Zack Snyder, Zack Snyder is not capable of making a masterpiece. Unless it's something that changes cinema forever, then there really is no point. It would just be another movie.

 

[Katsuro]

You know it's been said multiple times that it takes more than just a good director to direct watchmen, it takes a great one. If the movie isn't perfect than there's really no point.

Any movie can tell the face-value story of watchmen. ANybody can tell a story about that basic story and people in those costumes. Thats not the point of watchmen, the point of watchmen is its use of the superhero archetypes and the comic book format to analyze human nature, the nature of power, and more or less the meaning of life. It takes somebody capable of making a masterpiece to make Watchmen, and with all due respect to Zack Snyder, Zack Snyder is not capable of making a masterpiece. Unless it's something that changes cinema forever, then there really is no point. It would just be another movie.

I think it's ridiculous to assume that somehow all of that will be lost in the translation. I dont know where you get the idea that Snyder's just gonna take the characters and the sets and strip out all the psychological and philosophical themes.

If Snyder is faithful to the book, those important elements will be there, and if set reports and eyewitnesses can be believed, he pretty much carries the book everywhere he goes and refers to it more than he does the actual shooting script. There's no reason to assume he's somehow gonna just glance over anything with a deeper meaning and just do "omg kool superheros kicking butt!!!!111)

 

[The Battousai]

I think it's ridiculous to assume that somehow all of that will be lost in the translation. I dont know where you get the idea that Snyder's just gonna take the characters and the sets and strip out all the psychological and philosophical themes.

If Snyder is faithful to the book, those important elements will be there, and if set reports and eyewitnesses can be believed, he pretty much carries the book everywhere he goes and refers to it more than he does the actual shooting script. There's no reason to assume he's somehow gonna just glance over anything with a deeper meaning and just do "omg kool superheros kicking butt!!!!111)

QFT

He also got copies for everyone on the cast to read - Jeffrey Morgan said something about reading it between takes, I believe

 

[The Guard]

While I agree that WATCHMEN is hardly a simple adventure story, part of it is. And something that's given me comfort throughout this process is that throughout the history of this project, other than Sam Hamm's (which still kind of got the point every so often) every single draft has kept the psychology and themes mostly impact. Every draft.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

You know it's been said multiple times that it takes more than just a good director to direct watchmen, it takes a great one. If the movie isn't perfect than there's really no point.

Any movie can tell the face-value story of watchmen. ANybody can tell a story about that basic story and people in those costumes. Thats not the point of watchmen, the point of watchmen is its use of the superhero archetypes and the comic book format to analyze human nature, the nature of power, and more or less the meaning of life. It takes somebody capable of making a masterpiece to make Watchmen, and with all due respect to Zack Snyder, Zack Snyder is not capable of making a masterpiece. Unless it's something that changes cinema forever, then there really is no point. It would just be another movie.

I beg to differ, although I'll probably get ragged on for it. People tend to make a lot of noise about "the comic book format", and while Watchmen is renowned for using it to the fullest, is there really all that much that comics can do that movies can't? The things that pop into my head that I remember Alan Moore talking about, such as the length, level of detail, slower more leisurely pace--these are all things that adaptations from normal books have to deal with as well. And since books have been adapted into movies despite these problems, and without too much fuss from anyone, I don't see these things getting in the way of the Watchmen movie. I do grant that comic books are unique in their use of the panel format (such as juxtaposition of large and small panels for effect, or the whole Fearful Symmetry thing), but to me that's a small loss compared to the whole host of artistic devices available to movies, most notably sound and motion, which can be used to portray Watchmen in a new, exciting, and potentially "great" way.

In my opinion, sure, it's all well and good that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons made great use of the comic book format. But what I think really makes Watchmen great are things like character development, dialog, superhero archetype commentary (which you mentioned) and yes, the "face-value story". These are what was revolutionary about Watchmen, not the comic book format; a movie is perfectly capable of delivering these things. Although, so far these big important things have yet to be revealed to us, what we have so far in terms of sets and costumes looks great, which is a good sign.

So while I do grant you that it will take at least an above-average director to make Watchmen, I disagree as to your reasoning. I also disagree that there is no purpose if the movie falls short of perfection. If it turns out good, if I enjoy watching it (with all my fanboy standards intact), that will be purpose enough for me.

(BTW don't get me started on why I think the costumes are great. No they're not "fanboy faithful", but basically I think the changes (a) were necessary, (b) serve a conceptually interesting purpose, and (c) are too minor to be a big deal even without (a) and (b).)

 

[TheFamilyGuy]

As someone who never read the Watchmen graphic novel, I thought the images looks very good.

 

[Nivek]

300 was fairly well recieved but any horror fan with half a brain will tell you the dawn remake sucked. it was horrible.

As a Horror film fan, I disagree. And given the opinion of most Horror fans of the Dawn remake, you are flat out wrong. The movie wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything Romero himself has put out since 1979.

 

[Sub-Zero]

i'm not a huge fan of all of the changes, but i think story-wise snyder will stay true.

visually its going to look different. the costumes from the comic were extremely 80s, the one's in the movie are very modern and somewhat technologically advanced especially nite owl and ozy. ozy especially is just not practical. for crimefighting sure it may work, but would ozy really wear a heavy armored suit while he monitors the world on karnak?

there's all this talk about this is going to have a taxi driver feel to it. aside from rorschach's parts,i doubt it'll be that way. it should play out like a psychological thriller with lots of action.

 

[CaptainGenerica]

i'm not a huge fan of all of the changes, but i but would ozy really wear a heavy armored suit while he monitors the world on karnak?

Well, in the comic he did wear his normal costume while monitoring from Karnak. If this is just that, his costume, it makes sense to have him wear it.

Although to me it doesn't look that heavy...meh.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Well, in the comic he did wear his normal costume while monitoring from Karnak. If this is just that, his costume, it makes sense to have him wear it.

Although to me it doesn't look that heavy...meh.

yeah i know. that's why it just doesn't seem practical or 80s enough. what i want to know is if they are taking a 'realistic' view of the watchmen, will bubastis make an appearance?

 

[Katsuro]

yeah i know. that's why it just doesn't seem practical or 80s enough. what i want to know is if they are taking a 'realistic' view of the watchmen, will bubastis make an appearance?

Who's saying they're doing a "realisitic" take? Dr. Manhattan is a glowing blue man with god-like powers, there's a giant telepathic squid that wipes out New York, and people run around dressed in silly costumes fighting crime. Bubastis is no different than.. well most of that, and there's no reason to assume he'll be cut. At least not for the sake of "realism", which honestly isn't a word i've heard used in the production of this film even once. This isn't Nolan's Batman.

 

[deathfromabove]

As a Horror film fan, I disagree. And given the opinion of most Horror fans of the Dawn remake, you are flat out wrong. The movie wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything Romero himself has put out since 1979.

creepshow, day of the dead, and even the dark half were better than the dawn remake and all post 1979.

and what kind of horror fans have you been hangiing out with?

and you are right. it wasnt uwe or sommers bad. but it was just completely and totally mediocre. and my point was snyder, while having proved himself fairly technically capable, nothing in his resume shows that he has the ability to pull this off. i hope i am wrong but i will not give him the benefit of the doubt on this movie.

no way.

i look forward to being proven wrong though!

 

[Sandman138]

I beg to differ, although I'll probably get ragged on for it. People tend to make a lot of noise about "the comic book format", and while Watchmen is renowned for using it to the fullest, is there really all that much that comics can do that movies can't?

Yes. There are a bunch of cognitive functions involved in reading and creating comics that have no real analogues in movies. Tell me when you find a movie that can do this:

 

[Infinity9999x]

Yes. There are a bunch of cognitive functions involved in reading and creating comics that have no real analogues in movies. Tell me when you find a movie that can do this:

Actually, you could probably do all of those easily in movies, except instead of static pictures, people would be moving in each individual little box. You could do the first example in a movie, it would just require special effects, and you'd actually show the cat jumping into each panel instead of standing there.

The second example has already been done, just watch Ang Lee's Hulk, or if you want to go older then that Andromeda Strain. Both those movies have scenes where the main action is overlayed with many small boxes that contain people doing other things. Like I said, it would look just like those examples, except the people would actually be moving in the pictures.

Now, granted, it's much easier on the eyes and much less busy in comics because the images aren't moving, but you could still do it in a movie.