Is it as important as the comic?

[Paradoxium]

CGI is what it boils down to then. Nolan tries to avoid it. This bothers you. I find that amusing. t:

Well done CG is not a bad thing, it's when it is overdone that is the problem t:

 

[Anita18]

To clarify (my fault) I think the two are intertwined (for a story like Watchmen). The flair keeps the audience interested and paced to the story. Though I admit you could separate eye candy flairs to plot only in the bad way. But I see your point.

The art direction constitutes most of the visual flair we're talking about. I think having the script and editing be different wouldn't take away from the overall look.

 

[Paradoxium]

The art direction constitutes most of the visual flair we're talking about. I think having the script and editing be different wouldn't take away from the overall look.

Alright I concede to that. But now that you mention this, they should get some of the guys on Watchmen to do the Batman costume. I was no fan of the RoboBat costume, bit too excessive on the plates.

 

[RoboAmish]

Of course it's not as important as the comic

Watchmen is considered peerless in the entire medium of comic books. By directly transplanting that idea to the movie world, for the film to have such importance, it would have to have been up there with Citizen Kane as one of the most influential films of all time.

It's certainly important within its genre, but it won't change the way the comic book movie is seen by the industry.

Inna Final Analysis

 

[StorminNorman]

Not a perfect adaptation. A perfect adaptation would have featured better acting for Ozy and Laurie. And the God-awful music choices by Snyder wouldn't have been in there. Don't even me started on that.

We are going to have to disagree, I loved the music and the entire cast.

Ozymandias is perhaps my favorite fictional character of all time, and IMO Goode's performance was nothing short of brilliant.

 

[StorminNorman]

I wouldn't want Nolan within a ten foot pole of Watchmen.

With a property like Watchmen, I want an adaptation - not a reinterpretation.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I wouldn't want Nolan within a ten foot pole of Watchmen.

With a property like Watchmen, I want an adaptation - not a reinterpretation.

Your signature says it all. Zach Snyder > Chris Nolan?

 

[SatEL]

Watchmen is one of the most important and influential comic books of all time. So...what about the movie?

1. Is the movie also important in the genre or was it released too late?
2. Did another movie already accomplish the task?
3. Where does the movie rank in the genre?

Discuss.

1. Definitely released to late, it just doesn’t have the kick the GN would have had at the time of its release.

2. Yes TDK, and a non comic book film Clock work Orange have already shocked and preached to the masses on just how corrupt things can be.

3. Its a mediocre film at best and will be forgotten not to long from now, I would say it will perhaps drop in the same category as the movie V for Vendetta (Although in my opinion V was the better film)

 

[inflames]

oh please.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Well done CG is not a bad thing, it's when it is overdone that is the problem t:

Well yes. Snyder and company did a hell of a job with the CGI in Watchmen.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Zach Snyder > Chris Nolan

Who's Zach Snyder? Some fan you are.

 

[Anita18]

One thing to consider is that in the movie-making business, money talks. I think the reason why TDK is so lauded is because it was so critically-acclaimed AND it's box office run was such a phenomenon. It crushed all of the opening-weekend records, and was the fastest to get to any total until around $528 million, when Titanic finally overtook it.

It's because of this financial success that everyone's suddenly going bonkers over making superhero movies dark or using the IMAX cameras or whatever. If TDK was just as good, but only made $200 million, everyone would probably be like, "Yeah, Dark Knight was good" but keep on pumping out SM3s because those make money.

A good box office performance for Watchmen will certainly prove that a rated R superhero movie can make money, so studios shouldn't shy away from that kind of material if the project calls for it. But the fact that TDK was also dark and made such a huge entrance undermines Watchmen's influence.

 

[theJust]

It's funny, I asked these questions in my review from last night.
Anyways..
1. It damn well should of been. Late being it should of been made in the 80s under the direction of Gilliam, or not at all. And definitely before The Dark Knight, cause wow, you can't escape the inevitable and trite comparison posts.
2. Is this the part where I'm supposed to compare to the Dark Knight, foolishly?
3. None rate above the other. This comes close to Sin City, where it's just off the wall wacky at times, and leaves the characters with little time to develop to their true form.
The only landmark comic book movies I truly accept are Tim Burton's Batman and Richard Donner's Superman. They made history, I can watch them over and over again, and I don't feel like they walked all over the material, since there had been a long history of mixing up the characters to begin with.

Watchmen stands out above all. In book form. Read it and weep.

Watchmen the movie, doesn't do anything new.
You can enjoy it, but it don't make history. And that's what could have happened, despite the potential box office.

 

[Gamma Ray]

With a property like Watchmen, I want an adaptation - not a reinterpretation.

LMAO! Did you leave the theater before the movie ended?

 

[The Guard]

Was it as important as the original?

Of course not. The original made people COMPLETELY reevaluate how superheroes and superhero mythologies are approached. The original led to writers, who were overtly serious, trying to be Alan Moore, and making comic books almost painfully serious and "dark". It was an unintended result, but a result nontheless.

I'd love to believe moviemakers will look at WATCHMEN and go "Wow, a lot of the way they explored those concepts, the subtleties in the character development and the way everything isn't so "black and white", that makes a lot of sense. But I kinda doubt it.

 

[Catman]

I'd love to believe moviemakers will look at WATCHMEN and go "Wow, a lot of the way they explored those concepts, the subtleties in the character development and the way everything isn't so "black and white", that makes a lot of sense. But I kinda doubt it.

I guess time will tell.

 

[CristiMAN]

The movie is just so-so when compared to the classic original book. The movie is so loyal to the source it forgets to be more than just an adaptation. It forgets to be a good movie at all. I would really liked if it was another director. Someone with courage. To be loyal to the source but never forgeting what makes a good movie. I did enjoy the movie to a certain degree. It's enjoyable. But it didnt stay with me the moment I walked the cinema. The book remained with me since the first time I read it (20 years ago). Thats a huge diference. It takes more than a good source material to result in a classic movie. Most of the time the diference is in the director. And I'm sorry, but watchmen is waaaay out of the Snyder league as a film maker. My opinion only...

 

[rdh007]

How can you rate the importance of this film the day after it was released?

As far as how it ranks in the genre, IMO it blows The Dark Knight out of the water. The Dark Knight was a good adaptation, and a great film. Watchmen is not only a great film, but a perfect adaptation.

I'd agree with this, but I'd say that it's generally better than TDK, but doesn't necessarily blow it out of the water. As for it's adaptation, I've never read the gn, but I've seen the differences discussed and they all seem for the better.

 

[nathaniel]

I don't think Marvel will be able to get away with a lot of the BS they've been doing recently as a result of DCs latest stuff, which I guess is good for the genre.

DC has to try and make movies with other characters though Batman and Superman will always sell and Watchmen was a cult comic but lets see Flash, WW and even lower characters i still think Blade 1 and 2, are some of the best films of the genre this is an obscure 70s blaxploitation character who was lovingly recreated by Snipes into an ace comic book movie.

DC hasnt even tried to adapt a character that isnt Bats or supes from thier library for the 30+ years since Superman showed these films can be made and make profit in the process sure the likes of Elektra, daredevil and ghostrider where pretty crappy but at least they tried and they all made profit.

 

[Leenie]

1. Is the movie also important in the genre or was it released too late?
I don't think it's important to the movie genre, and it isn't because it was released too late.

2. Did another movie already accomplish the task?
A few already did. X-Men 1, Spider-Man 1, and The Dark Knight ... All for different reasons.

3. Where does the movie rank in the genre?
For the general public, we'll see. We need a few more weeks to see how it does in the box office. For myself, the movie isn't even in my top 10.

 

[Cadetak]

Watchmen is one of the most important and influential comic books of all time. So...what about the movie?

1. Is the movie also important in the genre or was it released too late?
2. Did another movie already accomplish the task?
3. Where does the movie rank in the genre?

Discuss.

1. Generally speaking, No not as important. Yes kind of too late in a lot ways. Like I wonder what kind of effect Rorschach's 'saw' scene would have had if they could have done it, if the movie's 'twists' would have had a bigger impact if people weren't already use to big twists from guys like M Night, if it would have came out closer to the cold war, if it came out before TDK or even the Matrix.

2. For its genre it will kind of end up being a second rate TDK. All the philosophical or intellectual stuff didn't stick on the audience. My friends were talking about Rorschach(and blue penis) after the movie nobody was like "would you do what Ozy did?" like we all would if got done reading the book.

3. What genre? The only other 'dark and gritty' comic movies to compare to are TDK and Sin City. Its not going to stay in people's mind for long I think, probly won't win any awards, and be forgot about a couple months after the DVD release. I don't think it will even live up to the promise of having people rethinking the superhero movie.


Good enough movie, definetly not as important as the GN.

 

[Browncoat]

I liked to movie. Let me get that out of the way first. I enjoyed it as movie, but I have some pretty serious issues with it, especially with what was sacrificed to give it some appeal to typical-dumb-guy-action-buff (and I don't mean what was left out, I mean things that were altered...Snyder doesn't understand the subtlety). Still, I ENJOYED IT...but...

The movie isn't even close to being as important as the GN, or even important at all.

We're fans. It's important to us. But if you take a look at the Yahoo! user reviews, it's completely lost on the general public. Which is what you need to take into account (and the only thing you need to take into account) when asking this question.

The comic was important for not only breaking new ground in the superhero genre, but it shows off what comics can do that any other medium can't. It goes beyond what you see at face value on the page (which is the only thing the movie gave us). The film doesn't really do anything but show that someone can take a drawing and turn it into live action. As a result, so many of the things that made the graphic novel great are lost. Nor does it break any new ground. I'm not willing to call it the first R-Rated superhero movie, though it may be the first to really look like one. The graphic novel will live on forever. The film can't even stand on the credit for "filming the unfilmable," since, obviously, it wasn't unfilmable in the first place.

As for the other two questions...

2. The Dark Knight already did this. Go ahead and claim TDK is boring or overrated, you are in the severe minority, so your opinion at the moment holds no sway on it's importance. Only time will tell just how classic and how important it really is.

3. It seems the genre is constantly being outdone. This is why I'm not willing to call TDK a timeless classic just yet (though I'd be willing to bet it will be). The rank game is pointless.

 

[DACrowe]

Watchmen is likely to become a cult classic. I just wasted about 20 minutes of my life seeing what the mainstream thought on Yahoo and other sites. While some who haven't read the book loved it, there seems to be a large number of negative reviews. Some are just disgruntled fanboys who cannot accept that a film could never have the rich pacing structure and detail that the novel had. But most are people who simply HATED the movie due to its fringe mentality. They hated the rape scene, dead dogs, dead children, dead pregnant women, a man getting his hands cut off, "graphic" sex scenes (I saw no shots of genetaila? It was only the boobs that made it R-material I thought)...but most of all...they really hated that blue penis.

I have said it being structured in storytelling like a book (though paced like a film) gives it a bit of an uneven pacing and causes it some narrative problems, that is why I gave it an 8.5. However, I now realize Snyder did not just do this to please the fans, but he did this to FRUSTRATE the mainstream movie audience. Those who just came in looking for a simple superhero movie were not ready for a movie that had its action scenes spaced out by 20-30 minutes and unfolded in a convoluted detective story closer to the narrative style of Citizen Kane (though nowhere near as good) as opposed to Spider-Man or X-Men.


BUT

It is a good movie with strong visuals. I think it could live on despite this problem. It will have an "okay" run at the box office that will ensure no sequel (good for us, but perhaps bad for the genre as a whole when it comes to darker comic book movies) and the mainstream will shake its character-driven, extremely violent celluloid off.

And then it will I think achieve some cult status. As I mentioned earlier, there will be those who just get it. It is not as good as the book, but those who are major fans of the book will likely continue to admire the film as a companion piece. But for those who have never read the book or are coming of age to discover some strange unsettling ****, this movie will likely speak to them. This movie will likely live on as a strange superhero movie with a very fanatic cult audience. I'm just guessing here.

I don't think it will redefine the genre or cinema (as the book did for its medium), but it may inspire future filmmakers and a very loyal following well after the studio finishes its triple/quadruple and final dip of the DVD sales.

 

[chosen1]

In a word NO it is NOT. No where close. Not even in the same region.

 

[DACrowe]

are you still hanging around here?