DC Films The Watchmen Movie

[Kevin Smith]

I think that visually the movie looks great and is beautiful.

But the fact that they tried show horning so much in in the time they allotted caused the story to suffer, IMO. It's a daunting task to begin with trying to adapt that book, and I like the movie and think Snyder directed his heart out. But if they were going to go as far as they did, the best thing to do would have been to have done a series of 8 or 12 "episodes", each spanning a little over an hour, either in serialized format or on HBO, this would have allowed them to get everything perfect. The best adaptation of it is still the Motion Comic for me (sans one actor doing all the voices).

I know people say that they got so much of it on the film, some say "too much", but I totally disagree, I don't think that they got enough. There are too many nuances and stories within stories that are missing, particularly with Rorschach and Dr Manhattan's stories. Almost the whole thing with the psychologist and Rorschach is cut out. In the book this all takes place from the psychologist's perspective and we are allowed to see the effect that Kovacs is having on him. In the movie we see none of that.

The book also heavily emphasized that Manhattan's father was a watchmaker and how he pushed his son into going into the field he did, the parallel there to Einstein was fantastic. The movie has none of that.

I know some will say I'm nitpicking but that stuff was the book, man! It told all these stories while slowing telling this big linear one.

Matthew Goode is a great actor but he was terribly miscast as Veidt. They should have had a bigger guy for one thing. But they really needed to build Veidt up more as a "hero". Even in the book when he's on the tv while Dreiberg and Laurie are starting to get busy the first time on the couch Veidt is in the background on television performing stunts, and that's all we know about him until the very end, that he's just this big world renown hero that everyone loves. He comes off as a total good guy you'd never suspect as being the "villain", he's the "purest" and "most perfect" seeming of all the Watchmen until the final Act, when we see all his flaws revealed. The movie had none of that, they made him too ominous and "boogeyman" right from the beginning. Anyone could tell he was the bad guy as soon as they saw him. They even made his uniform primarily black for ****sakes. Even upon reading the book for the first time, and knowing how it ended thanks to someone spoiling it for me in my local comics store, as I read the book I was so sucked in that even though someone told me how it ended there was a point where I did not believe it was Veidt doing it. The mystery was VERY well built in the book.

Needless to say that is not the case in the movie.

And that's another thing, the acting. I don't really feel like they are characters like I did in the book, I feel like I'm watching a play kind of where you're very aware of what you're watching. I very rarely feel engaged by any of them or pulled into their performances. The movie's also a little too melodramatic at times for my taste, especially in areas where the book was not. The best performances were that of Comedian, then Rorschach and Dreiberg are tied for me. Haley was great as Rorschach but I always imagined him sounding like the Question from JLU or more how the guy voiced him in the Motion Comic. That was perfect. Rorschach in the movie is just doing the same gruff raspy voice we're used to hearing for most "hardass" characters in film these days, Baleman 2.0. Akerman was terrible as Silk Spectre. Her acting sucked. I didn't buy Gugino as an old lady at all either....I've seen more believable performances in made for tv movies of young folks playing old folks. She was great as SS1 though. Oddly enough her and Comedian have more chemistry than Wilson and Akerman in this movie. When she shows up in Dreiberg's apartment it's like she just wants to screw. Doesn't come off at all as her character did in the book, IMO.

Dr Manhattan was cool. I thought Crudup did well, but would ave appreciated a more "booming" voice like WE ALL READ HIM AS HAVING. One thing I disliked is the gratuitous amounts of pecker shots we had...in the book it is done very matter of factly. And it isn't in every shot with him. The movie goes out of its way to emphasize to us that he is naked...with big glory shots of his penis. The book handled it tastefully...the movie does not, IMO.

Another thing I disliked was the pointless violence they put in seemingly for nothing more than just the shock value of it (yet removed things like Kovacs and the psychologist and the other things relevant to the story I mentioned). Rorschach chopping a guy up? No. The way he handled this in the book was 100 times better, and I don't care if films have copied it a hundred times after it, Rorschach did it first. It was subtle yet effective, not grotesque and gorey, it was the complete opposite of the child killer scene in the movie. I'd have much preferred to have seen Rorschach allow him to burn up as he left after he lit he and his house on fire than personally stand there and chop his head up. That was just disgusting to me and somewhat out of character for him, even if he was the "cause" of his death either way.

I wasn't wild about the music selection for the movie as I found it took me out of the movie too much as I watched it, particularly the first time viewing it, but I understand the song selection at the same time and think some of it was clever and understand that they were trying to give little nods to parts of the book that were not in the film. The astute comic reader may or may not pick up on this but the average movie goer will be like "okay, why is this song playing?" (re: Valkyrie playing in Vietnam). I appreciate the "nods", but I believe the movie went about this in the wrong way. Zack Snyder isn't Quentin Tarantino.

Now I don't hate the film's ending, because it works in the context of the film, but if they'd have done it exactly like the book as I described up there, it would not have flown, they'd have had to have kept the original alien ending (which was fantastic). The book was perfect in every way and the ending was great. I prefer the book to the movie any day, you become so immersed in it. The movie at times really drags and is hard to watch, IMO. And this is coming from a guy who loves comics and movies so much he comes to a message board to post about them.

All in all, I love Zack Snyder. I think he's a great director. I think MOS is going to be awesome. And I think he did the best he could with Watchmen and I give him an A + for effort, it's a beautiful looking movie, and he did a great job. But I really do hope that Watchmen is revisited one day and particularly in the format which I described up there. I believe that is the only way to do it true justice, short of doing a trilogy which covers 3-4 chapters of the book over a 2 or 2 and a half hour span of a movie. I think it could have been so much more than what it ended up being and would have done much better at the box office if they did it this way. Mostly because regular audiences could have understood it and it would have shown what made the book so great.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The thing regular audiences didn't like or understand about the movie wasn't that they didn't understand the story -- adding more would only throw them further off. It was:

1) Why are they stopping the story for so many side-stories?
2) It was seen as "too artistic" and "character driven" rather than an action film.
3) Why is everyone philosophizing and not fighting?!!!! It's a super hero movie!!!

# 3 came up the MOST often. Meaning the same people who didn't understand the film wouldn't understand an even longer version of said film and in fact it would probably make them question it even more. It had nothing to do with Snyder's direction and everything to do with the story itself to the masses.

Maybe years in the future HBO can, but it would need be years and years into the future to catch up to do something like that on their budget. Right now it's impossible.

 

[The Guard]

Re: The whole Veidt being an "obvious villain" thing...

No he's not. He's obviously serious, and a little darker, and he doesn't like Edward Blake, all things that he has in common with the novel version of the character. He's not obviously the villain in any real sense. He is, however, the most likely of all of them to be the villain as the film goes on and various plot points are revealed, just as he's the most likely of them to be the villain as the story goes on in the novel. Anyone who suggests that he's only portrayed as this perfect hero in the books simply isn't paying attention.

And that's kind of the point. The big twist in WATCHMEN isn't that Veidt is the villain.

That's secondary, and is honestly treated as such in the comic compared to his motives. The big twist in WATCHMEN is the scale of Veidt's plan, and that his actions may well have been neccessary, and that he might have saved the world as a result of them.

 

[Kevin Smith]

The thing regular audiences didn't like or understand about the movie wasn't that they didn't understand the story -- adding more would only throw them further off. It was:

1) Why are they stopping the story for so many side-stories?
2) It was seen as "too artistic" and "character driven" rather than an action film.
3) Why is everyone philosophizing and not fighting?!!!! It's a super hero movie!!!

# 3 came up the MOST often. Meaning the same people who didn't understand the film wouldn't understand an even longer version of said film and in fact it would probably make them question it even more. It had nothing to do with Snyder's direction and everything to do with the story itself to the masses.

Maybe years in the future HBO can, but it would need be years and years into the future to catch up to do something like that on their budget. Right now it's impossible.

Yeah, I know people say that "regular audiences' didn't get it because "it wasn't made for regular audiences" or so they like to say, but I can give someone who is vaguely familiar with comics (Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men) a copy of Watchmen and they can read it start to finish and comprehend it. Regular audiences are by now familiar enough with superhero movies that this film would have and should have made sense to them. They should be abe to understand the deconstruction because they know the language enough by now ya know? That's just my two cents on that anyway... so on that level Watchmen failed as a movie I think, at least in regard to doing what the book did.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Re: The whole Veidt being an "obvious villain" thing...

No he's not. He's obviously serious, and a little darker, and he doesn't like Edward Blake, all things that he has in common with the novel version of the character. He's not obviously the villain in any real sense. He is, however, the most likely of all of them to be the villain as the film goes on and various plot points are revealed, just as he's the most likely of them to be the villain as the story goes on in the novel. Anyone who suggests that he's only portrayed as this perfect hero in the books simply isn't paying attention.

And that's kind of the point. The big twist in WATCHMEN isn't that Veidt is the villain.

That's secondary, and is honestly treated as such in the comic compared to his motives. The big twist in WATCHMEN is the scale of Veidt's plan, and that his actions may well have been neccessary, and that he might have saved the world as a result of them.

That may be secondary, but, and maybe this is just me personally, but I didn't have him pegged as most likely to be the villain from the very start of the book. From the movie I think they almost spell it out. I didn't see him as "dark" in the book, if anything maybe a little conflicted.

I also liked Rorschach going to visit Veidt better than Dreiberg. Because it's like if Rorschach, the conspiracy detective guy who doesn't believe anything goes and warns Veidt, it kind of marks him off in a different way than having Dreiberg do it does. IMO at least.

 

[The Guard]

That may be secondary, but, and maybe this is just me personally, but I didn't have him pegged as most likely to be the villain from the very start of the book. From the movie I think they almost spell it out. I didn't see him as "dark" in the book, if anything maybe a little conflicted.

I don't think anyone is supposed to have him pegged as most likely to be the villain from the very start of the book, but by the time you're a few chapters in, it should be fairly apparent that he'd be one of the main suspects, hence the misdirection used in the middle of the book when he is attacked. You couldn't, as an intelligent reader who is looking at the structure of the story and the characters involved, and what is revealed about them, come to any other conclusion if you paid attention to the book. Nite Owl isn't the mask killer, Rorschach isn't the mask killer, The Comedian certainly wasn't. Sally and Hollis aren't. By the time you figure out its not likely to be Moloch, who else is it going to be out of the people we've been introduced to? Veidt. He's surrounded by various cultures' "death" artifacts. He talks about death more than a little. He's clearly highly intelligent and physically effective, and has issues with Blake.

How do they almost spell it out in the film?

 

[Brain Damage]

I don't think anyone is supposed to have him pegged as most likely to be the villain from the very start of the book, but by the time you're a few chapters in, it should be fairly apparent that he'd be one of the main suspects, hence the misdirection used in the middle of the book when he is attacked. You couldn't, as an intelligent reader who is looking at the structure of the story and the characters involved, and what is revealed about them, come to any other conclusion if you paid attention to the book. Nite Owl isn't the mask killer, Rorschach isn't the mask killer, The Comedian certainly wasn't. Sally and Hollis aren't. By the time you figure out its not likely to be Moloch, who else is it going to be out of the people we've been introduced to? Veidt. He's surrounded by various cultures' "death" artifacts. He talks about death more than a little. He's clearly highly intelligent and physically effective, and has issues with Blake.

How do they almost spell it out in the film?

All of those things you mentioned are present in the book, but they're not heavily focused on them. If you're just following the narrative and not stopping to think about it, there's a very good chance you won't figure out Veidt's the bad guy until quite late into the story. The film meanwhile gives some very blatant hints that Veidt's got a much darker side to him.

Let me give you a comparison example. In the book, when the Comedian burns Veidt's map at the meeting, Veidt is shown looking concerned but certainly not angry. The movie on the other hand has a slow, dramatic zoom in on Veidt's face looking clearly angry.

Both are hints that he is the bad guy, the book just did it with a lot more subtlety.

 

[Shazam]

Guys! The film is only 2 hours! Given the time, this was a home run! No book adaptation is gonna do it 100 percent.

 

[Kevin Smith]

I don't think anyone is supposed to have him pegged as most likely to be the villain from the very start of the book, but by the time you're a few chapters in, it should be fairly apparent that he'd be one of the main suspects, hence the misdirection used in the middle of the book when he is attacked. You couldn't, as an intelligent reader who is looking at the structure of the story and the characters involved, and what is revealed about them, come to any other conclusion if you paid attention to the book.

Well I just took it as someone was offing heroes the first read (without projecting and just reading what was there), and in the book, the cyanide capsule scene was handled MUCH better with the panel layout and how it was drawn than in the movie. It's passable that the would be assassin did in fact commit suicide, but it also works when shown in a flashback that it was Adrian that killed him. You can look at the same part in the book and come to different conclusions without knowing how it ended. In the movie it's very obvious that Veidt forces the cyanide capsule into his mouth at that part and causes his death...just look at the guy's face. He's horrified looking. The book is much more subtle. And you don't realize Adrian is the villain until a few chapters in, his true nature seems less benevolent. But that's the question - IS he a "good" guy or is not? That's something the audience should be juggling. Well intentioned, maybe, but looking at his actions you can't really say that. Or can you? The interviews and memos in between helped create a conflicted character, IMO, instead of a stark ominous boogeyamn like the movie did, IMO. It also questioned whether or not he was insane and who would be able to tell if the smartest man in the world had lost his mind or not? I liked that aspect, because people had never been able to fully comprehend his level of intellect. That's something the movie missed as well...I guess the film portrayed him less dimensional if put that way.

Also what Manhattan says to Adrian at the end ("end") is great in the book - "Nothing ever ends". It works because it is coming from Jon who Adrian reveres as being "godlike", so it causes him to ponder and maybe even doubt. It's much less effective coming from Laurie to Dan in the movie, IMO. It's like...Adrian was the person to have said that to. He's the character that we, as the audience, recognize needs to hear it the most because it applies to him more so than any other character because he thought he could solve all the world's problems.

So much of the greatness of Watchmen is because of its little details and nuances, the book is built up on them and that's essentially, to me, what makes the story. To not have those things, to change even a few of them, it loses its potency and then you're telling a different story. They're that important, IMO.

How do they almost spell it out in the film?

Brain Damage said what I was going to say haha. t:

(And I'm definitely nit picking here but I liked how in the ending of the book Dan and Laurie had different identities. There's even an "Incredibles" level to that in a way, IMO, haha. It's just such a great book man. You can't mess with it. I like this movie but it certainly didn't do it justice, IMO)

 

[Kevin Smith]

All of those things you mentioned are present in the book, but they're not heavily focused on them. If you're just following the narrative and not stopping to think about it, there's a very good chance you won't figure out Veidt's the bad guy until quite late into the story. The film meanwhile gives some very blatant hints that Veidt's got a much darker side to him.

Let me give you a comparison example. In the book, when the Comedian burns Veidt's map at the meeting, Veidt is shown looking concerned but certainly not angry. The movie on the other hand has a slow, dramatic zoom in on Veidt's face looking clearly angry.

Both are hints that he is the bad guy, the book just did it with a lot more subtlety.

That's exactly what I mean. Things like that. It's pretty much spelled out, IMO.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Yeah, I know people say that "regular audiences' didn't get it because "it wasn't made for regular audiences" or so they like to say, but I can give someone who is vaguely familiar with comics (Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men) a copy of Watchmen and they can read it start to finish and comprehend it.

Once again, you're not getting it at all dude. People DO understand the story. What didn't catch on is when people see a superhero MOVIE they want to see them fight - not philosophize and THAT is what it's performance at box office taught us. It has nothing at all do with them "not getting it." Because, believe me - they got it. They just begged the question, "where is all the action?!!!" When mass audiences pay money for a superhero film - they want to see large spectacular action sequences and in those terms - this film had none (or rather they were extraordinarly FAST what was there). That angered the masses that it was a "talking" movie rather than an "action" movie severely narrowing its target audience. And you think more talking would help? It would hurt it.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Once again, you're not getting it at all dude. People DO understand the story. What didn't catch on is when people see a superhero MOVIE they want to see them fight - not philosophize and THAT is what it's performance at box office taught us. It has nothing at all do with them "not getting it." Because, believe me - they got it. They just begged the question, "where is all the action?!!!"

If they were expecting a non stop action romp then they did not get it is all I am saying. Perhaps audiences went into it with the wrong idea. Maybe it had to do with the advertising...I'm trying to remember, was it touted as an action film with emphasis on that in every spot they released?

Maybe the error is in touting it as an action movie then?

And if the box office performance is truly because of the "lack of action" and not because the story wasn't enjoyable enough or interesting or intriguing enough to get people to tell their friends "hey, you gotta see this!" or at least warrant a repeat viewing then maybe the place to do this adaptation truly truly was on HBO or something broke up into segments.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Advertising would not at all get the film more of a turn out than it did. More serious going movie audiences would not be more interested in seeing a film about "costumed heroes talking" because they'd believe it to be silly. Whereas the action audiences didn't like it because it wasn't action-packed like ALL the rest of the superhero films.

WATCHMEN got its money from:
A) Comic fans who understood it and liked it for that
B) Academics who've read it, understood it, and liked it

But that is an EXTREMELY narrow audience. It would have never gotten more money than it did. We over-estimated how the masses would respond to superheroes philosophizing. Academics love it because of the writing. Comic fans because of the revealing. But, that does little else for the masses at large.

You could have the same EXACT translation from the comic - the same number of people would turn up.

HBO CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S WAY TOO EXPENSIVE <- bolding because this has come up a lot. Maybe in 20 years, but not today.

 

[Kevin Smith]

I think you can have a good movie that has a great story that interests people and have it do well at the box office, just as well at least, as 2 hours of mindless action and things blowing up, if done right.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Not when it's about superheroes talking.

The crowd that doesn't go to superhero movies will see it as a "silly film" even if it's more serious.

And the only non-action film that has EVER got that high were biblical epics or romance films. Or just mid-range -- comedies. ADDING kids films.

You're severely over-estimating it with the masses like we all did. Like academics did, like fans did, like the studio did. We love it. But it's a cult property. In comics it did well because you're restricted to people who already read comics or somebody who would read a comic. And it branched off into academia. But movies is a completely different ballgame. The performance and reception of one doesn't reflect so in a different medium.

 

[Kevin Smith]

You could have the same EXACT translation from the comic - the same number of people would turn up.

You really think so man? And the book itself was more than just philosophizing, it was deconstructing superheroes. It was commentary on them and the "reality" of them. It took place in the real world as much as it could. This was something different and something that had never been done before at the time it came out.

However, the movie is also different from the book because the movie has to deal with the effects that the book has already had on pop culture. For instance, most of those themes have already been explored in modern superhero movies in the mainstream now because of Watchmen. People don't realize how much has stemmed from that series that's a part of mainstream superheroes today. It's like Stanley Kubrick's films Full Metal Jacket and Clockwork Orange, so much of what's in those movies we've seen done in other movies to an extent now, but that's only because of those movies. Someone unaware of this or who grew up in a post Kubrick world is kind of oblivious to this and therefore less accepting of the original works because they've already seen it done in so many things before - they don't have the appreciation for them.

That's how a lot of people feel towards the original Star Wars movie that have never seen it and just see it for the first time...I notice that more and more. Forgive me for ranting there and if I got off subject a bit haha.

HBO CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S WAY TOO EXPENSIVE <- bolding because this has come up a lot. Maybe in 20 years, but not today.

I always thought using the film's budget but doing it as like serialized once a month would have been cool. Could have been revolutionary, maybe even revived the serial haha. Who knows. But yeah I agree man HBO is a little ways off yet.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Not when it's about superheroes talking.

The crowd that doesn't go to superhero movies will see it as a "silly film" even if it's more serious.

And the only non-action film that has EVER got that high were biblical epics or romance films. Or just mid-range -- comedies. ADDING kids films.

You're severely over-estimating it with the masses like we all did. Like academics did, like fans did, like the studio did. We love it. But it's a cult property. In comics it did well because you're restricted to people who already read comics or somebody who would read a comic. And it branched off into academia. But movies is a completely different ballgame. The performance and reception of one doesn't reflect so in a different medium.

True story. Yeah I guess I'm going to have to agree with you there. But what about movies like Forrest Gump and things? I compare it to that because of the political overtones and stuff...granted Gump probably has more of a "heart" than Watchmen does at its core, but I still think how you tell a story has a lot to do with it. I think it's a right blend of both action and story honestly. Who knows. Maybe Watchmen just didn't have it to begin with....?

 

[Ultimatehero]

Deconstructing heroes means absolutely nothing to the masses.

So most of the themes have effected comic books and comic book films, that means absolutely nothing to the masses. And people don't care.

You can never have a film's budget for a TV event. It would spell bankruptcy.

I'm sorry to be blunt here. I don't like what I'm saying any more than you. I hate to trump this card, but I work in the industry - it's my job to know these things. And while these things are important to fans they don't matter at all to mass audiences. Fans always think that they're voice is the most vocal - it's not. It amounts to just 10%. The rest is common-place middle-class America who have never picked up a comic in their life. They wouldn't know. They wouldn't care. All they want is to be entertained. And a superhero film where the superheroes didn't fight and just talked rubbed them the wrong way - adding more talking would just scare them off.

Forest Gump = he didn't run around in a costume.

When you're talking OLDER audiences, they are going to see the Watchmen as a general comic film no matter how serious it is. You have lots of people running around in costumes. It has nothing to do with anything except that it's still a superhero film. And one that has no action basically in it.

Look at Nolan's franchise - those make BIG bucks. But, they're also a lot more serious and a lot more grounded than WATCHMEN ever was - so that draws in older crowds not to mention name recognition. It also has a lot more action. You're bound for a larger turn-out.

 

[Kevin Smith]

I think that because the world may already know the "message" of Watchmen because they've already seen it in other movies and things before (the things I mentioned), because of the book's impact on pop culture/media that you could maybe attribute that to the film's lesser "success"....?

Like if superheroes were still in the "camp" that they were in the 60s and 70s as far as movies go, and Watchmen brought something completely new and unheard of as far as mainstream audiences go to the table, do you think the film would have performed better (grossed more I should day)?

 

[Ultimatehero]

If this came out in the 80s -- maybe -- because then it would be seen as 'revolutionary' because that was before Nolan came along or Singer came along or hell, Burton came along. After Burton - I'd say slightly less turn-out than Batman. But that would be cashing in on revolutionary that might have dispelled the "it's a film where super heroes talk!" notion in people's heads and it would have been a lot more relevant. While it works in the comics, people are used to that -- in the comics -- however bringing it to the MASSES is going to be harder.

As it stands the film got ALL of the fans and then some.

I'm working on an awesome kids property right now that a studio is looking to make into a big-budget film. But, I also know if the property is kept as it is now despite having a lot of action in it - it has a strong potential to do badly at the box office since the main character is 12 years old and the film would cost 150+ million to make. Because while it might do good on television, it won't be a repeat performance on the silver screen. And thus, right now I'm working at trying to find those middle grounds. Of what will drive the masses to see it that will make it successful while still making it what the fans of the show will expect and love to see. Basically just adapting the animated version wouldn't work because film-wise that audience would really be narrow in comparisons due to it going after a much wider audience.

Just -- basically -- you have to keep in mind that success in one form doesn't equate the same success in another.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Deconstructing heroes means absolutely nothing to the masses.

So most of the themes have effected comic books and comic book films, that means absolutely nothing to the masses. And people don't care.

I disagree I think it means everything to them. How many Star Wars ripoffs came since the 70s? How many of them performed as well as SW did? Part of the success of SW was that it was something that audiences of the 70s hadn't seen before...in just about every way. So much of Watchmen people have already absorbed through other superhero films so seeing Watchmen explore already down trodden territory isn't going to "wow" them so much.

You can never have a film's budget for a TV event. It would spell bankruptcy.

I'm sorry to be blunt here. I don't like what I'm saying any more than you. I hate to trump this card, but I work in the industry - it's my job to know these things. And while these things are important to fans they don't matter at all to mass audiences. Fans always think that they're voice is the most vocal - it's not. It amounts to just 10%. The rest is common-place middle-class America who have never picked up a comic in their life. They wouldn't know. They wouldn't care. All they want is to be entertained. And a superhero film where the superheroes didn't fight and just talked rubbed them the wrong way - adding more talking would just scare them off.

You're saying the substance and the context of the conversations, making them more well rounded, etc, would have done nothing for the movie as far as getting more people to see it goes?

"See Watchmen! Come see the most interesting conversation ever!"

...Does not really put asses in seats is what you're saying. I get that.

Forest Gump = he didn't run around in a costume.

Lol.

When you're talking OLDER audiences, they are going to see the Watchmen as a general comic film no matter how serious it is. You have lots of people running around in costumes. It has nothing to do with anything except that it's still a superhero film. And one that has no action basically in it.

Look at Nolan's franchise - those make BIG bucks. But, they're also a lot more serious and a lot more grounded than WATCHMEN ever was - so that draws in older crowds not to mention name recognition. It also has a lot more action. You're bound for a larger turn-out.

Batman is also a household name and has been so since his inception. Almost anything Batman is always guaranteed to make money. Watchmen is not. Watchmen's more of an "obscure" send up of Batman. For that reason alone it's less likely it will perform as well as any Batman film. It's kind of an unfair comparison in that regard. I think more people would show up for 2 hours of Batman or Bruce Wayne talking (RE: TDKR ) than they ever would for characters they've never heard of.

But I get it. You're saying because it has superheroes and costumes people automatically think and expect a certain thing from it, and they did not get that upon viewing Watchmen, and that's the reason for its box office results.

 

[Kevin Smith]

If this came out in the 80s -- maybe -- because then it would be seen as 'revolutionary' because that was before Nolan came along or Singer came along or hell, Burton came along. After Burton - I'd say slightly less turn-out than Batman. But that would be cashing in on revolutionary that might have dispelled the "it's a film where super heroes talk!" notion in people's heads and it would have been a lot more relevant. While it works in the comics, people are used to that -- in the comics -- however bringing it to the MASSES is going to be harder.

As it stands the film got ALL of the fans and then some.

I'm working on an awesome kids property right now that a studio is looking to make into a big-budget film. But, I also know if the property is kept as it is now despite having a lot of action in it - it has a strong potential to do badly at the box office since the main character is 12 years old and the film would cost 150+ million to make. Because while it might do good on television, it won't be a repeat performance on the silver screen. And thus, right now I'm working at trying to find those middle grounds. Of what will drive the masses to see it that will make it successful while still making it what the fans of the show will expect and love to see. Basically just adapting the animated version wouldn't work because film-wise that audience would really be narrow in comparisons due to it going after a much wider audience.

Just -- basically -- you have to keep in mind that success in one form doesn't equate the same success in another.

I think you just have to scale it accordingly you know? Like whatever appeals about those characters in say a tv show, just tap into that and do it with movie vocabulary.

Good luck with your project, btw, man!

For some reason when I read that I thought of Teen Titans and Shazam haha...but good luck, man.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Exactly. And while the deconstruction would mean more, that doesn't say it would equate more profits. If it was before Burton's Batman - possibly, but that's because then it would be seriously radically new and different.

With that other project I'm basically using the elements the fans love. Just aging the character to be 14 years old rather than 12. And completely changing who the mentor is to draw attention to it. Previously, although this might give it away, the mentor was a John Goodman grandfatherly type - while it's now a Bruce Willis type. So Bruce Willis being a supporting actor in an action movie with a 14 year old will likely make more than the same exact movie with John Goodman being a supporting actor in an action movie to a 12 year old.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

While I loved the theatrical cut, the DC just tops it in every way, adding in some important scene's, like the end of Hollis really adds to the story and the journey the characters go on, the DC is in my top 5 comic book movies even today, its superb the best possible adaptation of the book to a movie we will ever see IMO.

The acting was superb for the most part as well, JEH, JDM, Crudup, Wilson and the guy who played Hollis were all great, while IMO the others were all at least good. The action, while some of it was unnecessary, I enjoyed what we got, and the effects were superb. The movie had real emotion involved too, which is what a good movie needs.

 

[The Guard]

Yeah, I know people say that "regular audiences' didn't get it because "it wasn't made for regular audiences" or so they like to say, but I can give someone who is vaguely familiar with comics (Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men) a copy of Watchmen and they can read it start to finish and comprehend it. Regular audiences are by now familiar enough with superhero movies that this film would have and should have made sense to them. They should be abe to understand the deconstruction because they know the language enough by now ya know? That's just my two cents on that anyway... so on that level Watchmen failed as a movie I think, at least in regard to doing what the book did.

Its not the story that people don&#8217;t get. It&#8217;s pretty clear that most people don&#8217;t understand what the movie is doing, in terms of its deconstruction of superhero lore. They simply don&#8217;t grasp it. They should, but many didn&#8217;t, including critics.

Many people don&#8217;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.

That may be secondary, but, and maybe this is just me personally, but I didn't have him pegged as most likely to be the villain from the very start of the book. From the movie I think they almost spell it out. I didn't see him as "dark" in the book, if anything maybe a little conflicted.

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&#8217;s brooding like, the whole time.

The next time we meet him, he&#8217;s talking about death to his assistant.

&#8220;Dark&#8221; may be the wrong word to use, but he&#8217;s certainly portrayed as a somewhat somber and contemplative fellow, which is how the film portrays him as well.

All of those things you mentioned are present in the book, but they're not heavily focused on them.

Yes they are focused on in the book. Nearly as much as any other aspects of the makeup of his character.

If you're just following the narrative and not stopping to think about it, there's a very good chance you won't figure out Veidt's the bad guy until quite late into the story. The film meanwhile gives some very blatant hints that Veidt's got a much darker side to him.

Likewise, in the film, if you&#8217;re just following the narrative, there&#8217;d be no reason to really suspect Veidt in Blake&#8217;s death. A serious moment does not an &#8220;Aha! He&#8217;s the killer&#8221; moment make.

In the book and in the film, anyone who&#8217;s actually trying to unravel the mystery would probably suspect him. It&#8217;s meant to be that way. The story is structured so this will be the case, and people have seen enough "secretly evil businessmen" over the years to suspect something like that if they're looking for it.

Let me give you a comparison example. In the book, when the Comedian burns Veidt's map at the meeting, Veidt is shown looking concerned but certainly not angry. The movie on the other hand has a slow, dramatic zoom in on Veidt's face looking clearly angry.

I don't think that's accurate.

It's not a slow zoom in, it's a fairly abrupt pan, isn't it?

Ozymandias is portrayed as calm and collected throughout the meeting. The only reason he looks &#8220;angry&#8221;, as you put it, is that his domino mask &#8220;hoods&#8221; his eyes a bit. But he&#8217;s actually rather expressionless through most of that scene. Maybe mildly annoyed with Blake after he says his piece, but he&#8217;s certainly not &#8220;angry&#8221; in the shot with the map burning behind him. He appears to be rather calm, though he&#8217;s obviously thinking about what Blake said.

How is that &#8220;spelling out&#8221; that someone is a villain? Nothing inherent in his appearance suggests that he&#8217;s a bad guy.

Well I just took it as someone was offing heroes the first read (without projecting and just reading what was there), and in the book, the cyanide capsule scene was handled MUCH better with the panel layout and how it was drawn than in the movie. It's passable that the would be assassin did in fact commit suicide, but it also works when shown in a flashback that it was Adrian that killed him. You can look at the same part in the book and come to different conclusions without knowing how it ended. In the movie it's very obvious that Veidt forces the cyanide capsule into his mouth at that part and causes his death...just look at the guy's face. He's horrified looking. The book is much more subtle.

I&#8217;m not sure what you mean by the book handled the sequence better with the panel layout&#8230;it&#8217;s a different media to begin with.

Still, the movie handles the cyanide capsule sequence about the same as the book did. It&#8217;s certainly not &#8220;very obvious&#8221; 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&#8217;s fingers are shown inside the guy&#8217;s mouth, where in the film, he&#8217;s got his hand sort of shoved sideways between the guy&#8217;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&#8217;s portrayal of the dying man. He looks terrified there, too. And he should. He's dying of cyanide.

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&#8217;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&#8217;s in the book).

And you don't realize Adrian is the villain until a few chapters in, his true nature seems less benevolent. But that's the question - IS he a "good" guy or is not? That's something the audience should be juggling. Well intentioned, maybe, but looking at his actions you can't really say that. Or can you? The interviews and memos in between helped create a conflicted character, IMO, instead of a stark ominous boogeyamn like the movie did, IMO. It also questioned whether or not he was insane and who would be able to tell if the smartest man in the world had lost his mind or not? I liked that aspect, because people had never been able to fully comprehend his level of intellect. That's something the movie missed as well...I guess the film portrayed him less dimensional if put that way.

Of course it portrayed him with less dimension. It&#8217;s a movie adaption. It doesn&#8217;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&#8217;s personality and character are intact in the film.
I think it&#8217;s pretty clear that by the end of the movie, you&#8217;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&#8217;t understand why he&#8217;s done what he&#8217;s done or what he&#8217;s doing until he explains his plan to them.

Also what Manhattan says to Adrian at the end ("end") is great in the book - "Nothing ever ends". It works because it is coming from Jon who Adrian reveres as being "godlike", so it causes him to ponder and maybe even doubt. It's much less effective coming from Laurie to Dan in the movie, IMO. It's like...Adrian was the person to have said that to. He's the character that we, as the audience, recognize needs to hear it the most because it applies to him more so than any other character because he thought he could solve all the world's problems.

Yeah, I missed that moment between Jon and Adrian, too.

So much of the greatness of Watchmen is because of its little details and nuances, the book is built up on them and that's essentially, to me, what makes the story. To not have those things, to change even a few of them, it loses its potency and then you're telling a different story. They're that important, IMO.

Yes, they&#8217;re that important. And many of them are in the film.