The Official "Watchmen" Fan Rate & Review Thread

[magicangel1989]

It has been confirmed that JEH will be the new Freddy Kruger in the new Nightmare on Elm Street movie(s). Perfect actor!

 

[BlackLantern]

It has been confirmed that JEH will be the new Freddy Kruger in the new Nightmare on Elm Street movie(s). Perfect actor!

Source??

 

[magicangel1989]

LatinoReview.com, Bloody-Disgusting.com, Variety, THR are all reporting this. and coming soon has posted the news up on its website.

 

[Alex Logan]

Yes....I can't believe people are surprised at how small minded and generally dim the general movie watching public is

Yeah, I guess I expected more from the people I know.

^I'm not surprised in a way, these are the people who made the likes of the FF movies, X3, Epic/etc movies successful. But I did expect a higher level of maturity.

See, that's what I'm talking about, let's be just a little more mature.

 

[zeptron]

Crimson, write an extra credit review of Watchmen to your teacher why it is a great film and why people should see it, including him.

Why the hell is a film study teacher dismissing a film because of blue junk? That's pretty close minded.

One of my co-workers did the exact same thing. He said he was gonna go see it, but then he heard about the big blue penis.....

 

[Doctor Jones]

I don't get it. Do they deliberately look for the blue penis?! Just look up it's not hard. You have a penis, you see it everyday.

It must mean you're not comfortable with your sexuality.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

The generation of collective school/sport showers is dead.

 

[JAK®]

Watchmen came up in my film class today. Basically, 5 people told my Professor not to see it, it was too long, or there's a naked blue guy in the movie. Even my professor was like "yea, a friend of mine told me not to see it. I don't intend to. I don't wanna see a blue guy's junk the entire time". I seriously need to wonder: Do these people waste 2 1/2 hours LOOKING for Manhattan's penis? I mean, Jesus Christ! Snyder never draws attention to it. He's just...naked. There aren't any Shumacher extreme crotch close-ups or anything. Deal with it. The worst was when my friend Brian was like "Too much dong in this movie for me. Boy, wasn't Silk Specter hot when she was naked!?", entirely serious. That mentality pisses me off.

Apparently, i was the only one in the class who loved it, wasn't bothered by male nudity and thought it should have been longer. Judging by the reactions people made, i'm the only one who actually "got" the film.

Future film makers of America right here, folks.

Everybody knows only women are allowed to be naked.

 

[jewmaican20]

Maybe it's not as relevant nowadays, but I was disappointed that the drug use was excised out of the movie. Moore had some pretty enlightening thoughts on the nature of addiction, and it's one of those things I liked about the book so much.

I guess it would have been too much to cram in...

The movie seemed to take itself way too seriously, but I'm thinking that's just the translation from the page onto the screen.

And the whole "slo-mo and then speed up" action thing got tired in 300.

aside from those minor complaints? I enjoyed it, and was impressed by the loyalty to the GN. Special effects were stunning.

 

[Leenie]

I was blown away by how many people brought up the blue wang thing. I said: "You saw the film that's the only thing you took from it?" They just didn't get WHY he was naked. Out of all the great things they could have taken from that film it has to be the blue wang. Of course these are same people who bagged on Bale's Batman voice during the movie. I don't get it, are people really that small minded?

In all fairness to the people who have only seen the movie, the movie doesn't explain why he's naked (whereas the graphic novel does). I can completely understand why the part where Manhattan is being told to "commercialize" himself was left out of the movie, though. It was just extra time to add to the movie.

Oh, and to be completely honest, the blue wang jokes make me giggle (c'mon, immature humor makes everyone giggle-- everyone stop pretending you're on a high horse! Haha). It's all in good fun. I just don't like it when people say they hate the movie because of that ONE factor. And after reading about a film professor expressing that same stupidity ... I'm annoyed.

If Doctor Manhattan were a chick, I can guarantee that people wouldn't be talking about the nudity as much. Hell, it already happened! Look at Mystique from the X-Men movies. I don't care what anyone says; that chick was naked (and for no reason at all). Nobody had outrage about that, though.

Double-standard, anyone? It makes me angry.

 

[Z(+)DIAC]

So, after reading through the graphic novel twice this past summer, once a quick read, the second being a more planned-out, vol. by vol. read, I walked away with a better understanding, or at least felt I did, of the Watchman univerise; a universe for the truly dedicated and fanatical comicbook lover genre.

And after all this time, I finally got my lazy ass up and to the theater to see it (I just missed the final IMAX screening last week). I have to say, I was more than definitely pleased with Snyder's interpretation.

I cannot believe the sheer amount of realism, specific symbolism, and care that went into a lot of the props used and locations filmed (both created and natural (though I can't believe there were many of the later). Not to mention all the great nods to fanboys who use the Watchman as their bible, something I wish more filmmakers making such adaptions would not look over.

To be frank, and obviously a no-brainer, there was just too much source material to cover to fit within the time frame given (though I had no idea it ran 3 hours) I still felt a lot was left-out (besides the Black-Freighter side-story). I didn't care for as many characters than I did when I first read through the novel.

Most of all, I was completely pleased with how the ending was handled. If there is one thing I dislike about the graphic novel, was the finale, in which Veidt uses the creature to bring about world-peace. I understand it's a comic, but for a comic to practically found itself on the premise that "superheros" are really just costumed vigilantes with special talents or sources (minus Manhattan), I never bought the creature finale one bit.

Also, I don't necessarily recall in the novel, all characters having super-human strength. I assume this was Snyder's idea to accentuate the "superhero aura" each character has, but nevertheless, I thought it was a bit unnecessary at times.

Overall, I'm quite pleased and cannot wait for a Fanboy Cut Version!

 

[JAK®]

Also, I don't necessarily recall in the novel, all characters having super-human strength. I assume this was Snyder's idea to accentuate the "superhero aura" each character has, but nevertheless, I thought it was a bit unnecessary at times.

They didn't display any super-strength in the movie. It was shot in a way that exaggerated their moves, but it wasn't super-human.

 

[Alex Logan]

In all fairness to the people who have only seen the movie, the movie doesn't explain why he's naked (whereas the graphic novel does). I can completely understand why the part where Manhattan is being told to "commercialize" himself was left out of the movie, though. It was just extra time to add to the movie.

Oh, and to be completely honest, the blue wang jokes make me giggle (c'mon, immature humor makes everyone giggle-- everyone stop pretending you're on a high horse! Haha). It's all in good fun. I just don't like it when people say they hate the movie because of that ONE factor. And after reading about a film professor expressing that same stupidity ... I'm annoyed.

If Doctor Manhattan were a chick, I can guarantee that people wouldn't be talking about the nudity as much. Hell, it already happened! Look at Mystique from the X-Men movies. I don't care what anyone says; that chick was naked (and for no reason at all). Nobody had outrage about that, though.

Double-standard, anyone? It makes me angry.

But come on man, the guy is like a god in the film. People should know that he has no need for clothes.

 

[Z(+)DIAC]

They didn't display any super-strength in the movie. It was shot in a way that exaggerated their moves, but it wasn't super-human.

As was the point I made, you actually quoted it.

I understand why he did it, but it took a bit away from the overall feel of the characters at times...that's all.

Even my gf asked me why every "Superhero" had super-human strength.

 

[Leenie]

But come on man, the guy is like a god in the film. People should know that he has no need for clothes.

Well, this isn't a case where the people should know it. The fact is that they don't.

Color me stupid, but I am not sure if I would have gotten it if I had not been a fan of the graphic novel before seeing the movie. I'm not going to give myself the credit by professing that I would have realized it even without my prior knowledge to the story.

Man, this really makes me wish I knew someone who has seen the movie, but hasn't read the graphic novel. I'd really like to know what they would think of it.

 

[Alex Logan]

Well, this isn't a case where the people should know it. The fact is that they don't.

Color me stupid, but I am not sure if I would have gotten it if I had not been a fan of the graphic novel before seeing the movie. I'm not going to give myself the credit by professing that I would have realized it even without my prior knowledge to the story.

Man, this really makes me wish I knew someone who has seen the movie, but hasn't read the graphic novel. I'd really like to know what they would think of it.

I that's just it, I would have known even if I had not read the novel. I guess I just look at things with greater dept than most people.

I know quite a few people who saw the film that didn't read the novel and they didn't care for it. Eveyone I know that read novel and saw the film loved it.

 

[CaptainClown]

But come on man, the guy is like a god in the film. People should know that he has no need for clothes.

This is the same audience that thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Batman

 

[laudanum09]

I that's just it, I would have known even if I had not read the novel. I guess I just look at things with greater dept than most people.

I know quite a few people who saw the film that didn't read the novel and they didn't care for it. Eveyone I know that read novel and saw the film loved it.

Just watched it for the third time with some co-workers. The pizzaz wore off from the first two, but I still think it's at least a solid A minus of a film. Most of them hated it (too long, boring, incomprehensible, didn't 'get it', etc.) but one of them really enjoyed it and totally 'got it.' She hadn't read the graphic novel and knew nothing about it before the film. So what it boils down to is a matter of taste. If you're a fairly mature individual, like 'talky' films, philosophy and doing the mental work some films ask their audiences to undertake, then you might just enjoy it.

Not everyone would enjoy a Tarkovsky or Jodorwosky flick but a lot of folks do. Its a matter of taste; but also, taste is acquired, as they say. When it comes to films and maybe culture in general, people have acquired the taste for fast pace and relatively simplistic spectacles. I won't bemoan this anymore than I have since I love ***** movies for my own reasons and there really isn't much of a 'golden age' of film-making (or anything as a matter of fact) to return to. There will always be great art made alongside lesser art. It's just that with the Watchmen, it hit a bit too hard I think, and that's unfortunate because you could really see Snyder trying to balance out the existential and minatory nature of the comic's core with the obvious need to re-coop the costs any Watchmen adaptation would require.

I think all the hoop-la and bad press/word of mouth is because people felt (whether consciously or unconsciously) were basically tricked by the costumes, flashiness and the superhero movie renaissance into paying and 'sitting through' (god forbid paying attention to something for 2.5 hours) an excursus on the human condition. I guess some folks just want to eat their popcorn and go home less confused about the world then when they bought their ticket.

 

[JAK®]

You do not need to have read the graphic novel to understand the movie.

 

[Alex Logan]

This is the same audience that thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Batman

True.

Just watched it for the third time with some co-workers. The pizzaz wore off from the first two, but I still think it's at least a solid A minus of a film. Most of them hated it (too long, boring, incomprehensible, didn't 'get it', etc.) but one of them really enjoyed it and totally 'got it.' She hadn't read the graphic novel and knew nothing about it before the film. So what it boils down to is a matter of taste. If you're a fairly mature individual, like 'talky' films, philosophy and doing the mental work some films ask their audiences to undertake, then you might just enjoy it.

Not everyone would enjoy a Tarkovsky or Jodorwosky flick but a lot of folks do. Its a matter of taste; but also, taste is acquired, as they say. When it comes to films and maybe culture in general, people have acquired the taste for fast pace and relatively simplistic spectacles. I won't bemoan this anymore than I have since I love ***** movies for my own reasons and there really isn't much of a 'golden age' of film-making (or anything as a matter of fact) to return to. There will always be great art made alongside lesser art. It's just that with the Watchmen, it hit a bit too hard I think, and that's unfortunate because you could really see Snyder trying to balance out the existential and minatory nature of the comic's core with the obvious need to re-coop the costs any Watchmen adaptation would require.

I think all the hoop-la and bad press/word of mouth is because people felt (whether consciously or unconsciously) were basically tricked by the costumes, flashiness and the superhero movie renaissance into paying and 'sitting through' (god forbid paying attention to something for 2.5 hours) an excursus on the human condition. I guess some folks just want to eat their popcorn and go home less confused about the world then when they bought their ticket.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from.

 

[CaptainClown]

This films big problem imo was that the trailers painted it like a Spider-man type movie but instead it was like a Pride and Prejudice version of Superhero movies.

 

[laudanum09]

This films big problem imo was that the trailers painted it like a Spider-man type movie but instead it was like a Pride and Prejudice version of Superhero movies.

i need to learn how to be more concise like this with my posts.

oh and speaking of Austen, dig this if you haven't:
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, i.e. cheeky gore and high art.

 

[Leenie]

You do not need to have read the graphic novel to understand the movie.

Well, that should have been the movie's goal. Did it end up achieving that goal, though? I can't efficiently answer that question, since I had read the comic tons of times before seeing the movie. That's why I want to talk to people who didn't read the comic prior to seeing the film.

 

[webhead921]

Most of the people I saw the movie with had not read the graphic novel, and they loved the movie. I don't get why a lot of people had a hard time understanding the plot, it is not that complicated. Most of the complexities from the movie come from the character depth and moral dilemmas. I thought the movie was easy to follow, and still was extremely respectful to the source material, which as a fan of the book, was exactly what I wanted. Watchmen is currently the most underrated comic book movie IMO.

 

[JAK®]

Well, that should have been the movie's goal. Did it end up achieving that goal, though? I can't efficiently answer that question, since I had read the comic tons of times before seeing the movie. That's why I want to talk to people who didn't read the comic prior to seeing the film.

All three people who I saw the film with and have not read the novel understood it perfectly.

Fans only worry about non-fans not getting this movie because deep-down fans believe themselves to be more intelligent than them (which couldn't be farther from the truth)