Watchmen - DC Animated Movie

[Joe Von Zombie]

I read the book first. The theatrical cut was bad, almost Daredevil theatrical cut level bad. But, it saw a noticeable improvement when it became extended to four hours. Mostly due to being able to include more of the source material.

I only named one of the director’s films: All In The Family arc that similarly wasn’t good.

The rest of the output was DC animation which these days rarely gets things right especially in terms of telling classic multi-part stories.

Let me ask this, do you still trust Sony with Spider-Man related films that aren’t Spider-Man or Venom? Or has their output spoken for itself? Same deal here.

The Long Halloween was perfectly fine. Crisis was a mess, but its Crisis, its going to be mess.

 

[Cap2024]

The Long Halloween was perfectly fine. Crisis was a mess, but its Crisis, its going to be mess.

Did you see the movie first?

The Long Halloween would be one of the exceptions, and unfortunately rarities in a long list of misses. Especially of classic arcs.

Crisis can be good in capable hands. They fell apart for the same reason the Death of Superman trilogy fell apart - plain out badly made. If I was to guess someone left the company that was there back when the company had more well received films than not.

Book first.

DC animation film department isn’t what it used to be. The over the top tone of some of the stated scenes and abysmal visuals that tarnish the art are red flags that this is bound to be more of the same.

I’m viewing it the same way most right now are viewing Kraven. The studio unfortunately just doesn’t have a good track record anymore.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

The Long Halloween would be one of the exceptions, and unfortunately rarities in a long list of misses. Especially of classic arcs.

Crisis can be good in capable hands. They fell apart for the same reason the Death of Superman trilogy fell apart - plain out badly made. If I was to guess someone left the company that was there back when the company had more well received films than not.

Book first.

DC animation film department isn’t what it used to be. The over the top tone of some of the stated scenes and abysmal visuals that tarnish the art are red flags that this is bound to be more of the same.

I’m viewing it the same way most right now are viewing Kraven. The studio unfortunately just doesn’t have a good track record anymore.

The only thing that's really different about the director’s cut is the Black Freighter is added back in and you see the death of Hollis Mason. It doesn't change the piss poor representation of Rorschach or Ozymandias.

Ive said this before in this thread but the original comic is one the few pieces of media that legitimately lives up to the hype. Its an incredibly important book to me. I understand your skepticism, but the bar has been set so low by the previous adaptation that all I need them to do is get theses characters right. Rorschach was so misrepresented by the original film, he's a meme now.

 

[Cap2024]

The only thing that's really different about the director’s cut is the Black Freighter is added back in and you see the death of Hollis Mason. It doesn't change the piss poor representation of Rorschach or Ozymandias.

Ive said this before in this thread but the original comic is one the few pieces of media that legitimately lives up to the hype. Its an incredibly important book to me. I understand your skepticism, but the bar has been set so low by the previous adaptation that all I need them to do is get theses characters right. Rorschach was so misrepresented by the original film, he's a meme now.

The theatrical was 2 hr 45 minutes. The director’s cut after that was 3 hr 6 minutes. The ultimate cut is 3 hr 35 minutes which includes the 26 minutes Black Freighter (including credits) and additional extended material that isn’t B.F.

The original comic is the best, especially out of every version of the tale. Which is why the way DC animated b-dized it (which is telling from tarnishing the art to the over the top tone of the trailer) is really irksome.

Adding: Both of these elements I’m pointing out are red flags that it’s being treated like a corporate product, rather than putting the art first, which is the last thing Watchmen should be. They did this style due to placing more emphasis on attracting younger gens by a more modern animation style over remaining reverent to the source material. That’s telling.

As said, it reeks of being unfortunately at the same low standard that most DC animated film has been for a while now.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

The theatrical was 2 hr 45 minutes. The director’s cut after that was 3 hr 6 minutes. The ultimate cut is 3 hr 35 minutes which includes the 26 minutes Black Freighter (including credits) and additional extended material that isn’t B.F.

Semantics. My point still stands. Two of the most important players in the story are laughably misrepresented in the original film. The films problems still exist, it's just longer depending the cut.

Furthermore, Snyders film is just as corporately cynical as you're claiming this film is. I'd argue even more so if you account for the multiple cuts and merchandise. One could even argue that hiring Snyder to begin with was corporately cynical considering his previous adaptation before Watchmen was pro military nationalist crap.

If I can say they rectified these issues despite the film looking cheap, it'll be a win for me personally.

 

[Cap2024]

Semantics. My point still stands. Two of the most important players in the story are laughably misrepresented in the original film. The films problems still exist, it's just longer depending the cut.

Furthermore, Snyders film is just as corporately cynical as you're claiming this film is. I'd argue even more so if you account for the multiple cuts and merchandise. One could even argue that hiring Snyder to begin with was corporately cynical considering his previous adaptation before Watchmen was pro military nationalist crap.

If I can say they rectified these issues despite the film looking cheap, it'll be a win for me personally.

I wouldn’t consider them misrepresented. I’d consider how some audience members choose to see Rorschach as being incorrect in the same that some audience members choose to incorrectly perceive Homelander. Audiences coming away with the wrong impression of the character happened both from those who read the comic and saw the film.

You stated your issue with Ozymandias was that he came across as gay while completely ignoring that in the comic book Rorschach states that he is “possibly a homosexual.” Those undertones to the character were from the source material.

I’d say at the time it was one of the riskier comic book films to make. Thus, even why Christopher Nolan stated that when it first came out it was ahead of its time.

As said, the animated version looks like absolute garbage to me and I won’t be surprised at all when the reviews match those of the recent Crisis and Death of Superman films.

Adrian isn't portrayed as a gay stereotype

For a character whose dating life is never portrayed, at least to my memory, it’s clear that there were obvious signs to detect. Rorschach never came across to me as someone who would detect the subtlest gay guy.

If it’s an issue with the misguided “bad guy” (everyone is) is presumed to be gay, as a bi guy - I can understand not liking that trope. But, it’s been there since the beginning. Thus, just saying he seems like a gay stereotype doesn’t offer much.

Comic panel:

View attachment IMG_7608.webp

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

I wouldn’t consider them misrepresented. I’d consider how some audience members choose to see Rorschach as being incorrect in the same that some audience members choose to incorrectly perceive Homelander. Audiences coming away with the wrong impression of the character happened both from those who read the comic and saw the film.

You stated your issue with Ozymandias was that he came across as gay while completely ignoring that in the comic book Rorschach states that he is “possibly a homosexual.” Those undertones to the character were from the source material.

I’d say at the time it was one of the riskier comic book films to make. Thus, even why Christopher Nolan stated that when it first came out it was ahead of its time.

As said, the animated version looks like absolute garbage to me and I won’t be surprised at all when the reviews match those of the recent Crisis and Death of Superman films.



For a character whose dating life is never portrayed, at least to my memory, it’s clear that there were obvious signs to detect. Rorschach never came across to me as someone who would detect the subtlest gay guy.

If it’s an issue with the misguided “bad guy” (everyone is) is presumed to be gay, as a bi guy - I can understand not liking that trope. But, it’s been there since the beginning. Thus, just saying he seems like a gay stereotype doesn’t offer much.

Comic panel:

View attachment 96724

Dude, I'm a gay man. It's not that he's portrayed as gay. It's that he's being portrayed as gay in the most reductive, stereotypical way imaginable where he isn't the book. Goode's performance is borderline offensive which isn't surprising considering the director.

Rorschach is 100% misrepresented. Sure, a handful of readers may have misconstrued the character while reading the book, evidence would suggest Snyder is one of them if he's even read the book. Making Rorschach a hyper stylized edgelord badass is a complete contradiction what's on those pages. The prison sequence in the book that exists to show the reader that Rorschach is completely full of **** and just a serial killer who uses crime fighting to justify his own violent behavior is played for laughs in the original movie.

 

[Karelia]

Curious, what do you guys feel is different between the graphic novel Rorschach & Snyder's adaptation?

As far as I can tell, and I've watched interviews from before the Watchmen film came out, he has always been the favorite character by large. He's almost always front and center for anything Watchmen related when it's not the bloody smiley face.

He dealt with abuse as a child, no real father figure, bullied as a child because of his mother's profession. You see the moment he snaps/has a psychological breakdown with the Blair Roche investigation. He's the best written character in the book, and has the coolest character design with the best dialogue/quotable lines.

Doesn't mean everyone who likes the character agrees with what he is saying. Some may partially, some may fully, or not at all... Doesn't stop him from being the most interesting to read about.

I'm going to still watch this animated film, but I do wish this was given the budget it deserved. It does sound like the writers are doing their best to adapt it faithfully.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Curious, what do you guys feel is different between the graphic novel Rorschach & Snyder's adaptation?

As far as I can tell, and I've watched interviews from before the Watchmen film came out, he has always been the favorite character by large. He's almost always front and center for anything Watchmen related when it's not the bloody smiley face.

He dealt with abuse as a child, no real father figure, bullied as a child because of his mother's profession. You see the moment he snaps/has a psychological breakdown with the Blair Roche investigation. He's the best written character in the book, and has the coolest character design with the best dialogue/quotable lines.

Doesn't mean everyone who likes the character agrees with what he is saying. Some may partially, some may fully, or not at all... Doesn't stop him from being the most interesting to read about.

I'm going to still watch this animated film, but I do wish this was given the budget it deserved. It does sound like the writers are doing their best to adapt it faithfully.

Rorschach is a literal Rorschach test as character. You can tell a lot about person with how they interpret him.You can also recognize that a character is well written while also understanding the intentions of the author. His traumas are deliberately lame excuses to justify his extreme actions. He would have started killing people regardless of the Roche case in my opinion. Like Frank Castle, he does it because he likes it. The trauma just validates it for him.

I grew up under similar circumstances as Walter and I don't go around killing people. I go to therapy twice a week and take my meds accordingly.

 

[Pennywise]

How is this more edgy than Snyders mess exactly? Rorschach here sounds like an 8th graders impression of Batman which is perfect for the character, Adrian isn't portrayed as a gay stereotype, I highly doubt we're gonna see Laurie get railed to Leonard Cohen... Have you actually seen Snyders movie?

Warmed up on Rorschach’s voice somewhat, I haven’t seen Snyder’s film since 2009 and don’t remember much of Haley’s Rorschach, but his voice is described by Laurie as monotone in the novel so thought they would go that route. Just threw me off when I first heard it.

Still, even though I would prefer 2D, some shots look good and others look weird. Will give it a shot, you can tell everyone working on it cares about doing it justice. Just the comic and HBO show set a really high bar.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Warmed up on Rorschach’s voice somewhat, I haven’t seen Snyder’s film since 2009 and don’t remember much of Haley’s Rorschach, but his voice is described by Laurie as monotone in the novel so thought they would go that route. Just threw me off when I first heard it.

Still, even though I would prefer 2D, some shots look good and others look weird. Will give it a shot, you can tell everyone working on it cares about doing it justice. Just the comic and HBO show set a really high bar.

Absolutely. The guy who voices the characters in the Watchmen motion comics actually does a true monotone Rorschach.

 

[Cap2024]

Dude, I'm a gay man. It's not that he's portrayed as gay. It's that he's being portrayed as gay in the most reductive, stereotypical way imaginable where he isn't the book. Goode's performance is borderline offensive which isn't surprising considering the director.

Rorschach is 100% misrepresented. Sure, a handful of readers may have misconstrued the character while reading the book, evidence would suggest Snyder is one of them if he's even read the book. Making Rorschach a hyper stylized edgelord badass is a complete contradiction what's on those pages. The prison sequence in the book that exists to show the reader that Rorschach is completely full of **** and just a serial killer who uses crime fighting to justify his own violent behavior is played for laughs in the original movie.

I never saw Ozzy as a negative stereotypical gay guy. I’ve always seen Ozzy as being the same Ozzy as was in the book. A heavily pampered egomaniac who only ever really cared about himself despite saying otherwise. The guy literally surrounds himself with his own merchandise, visually that’s a major red flag that he’s narcissistic to the extreme. I wouldn’t say that’s a “gay stereotype,” rather a narcissist in the same way that Trump (the gold rooms, etc) and others are drawn to trying to make themself seem larger than life. You’re going to need to be a lot more detailed other than simply saying “he’s a negative gay stereotype.”

Per Snyder being “homophobic,” that wouldn’t describe someone who wrote and tried to get made a gay love story blockbuster centered on one of history’s most known queer couples (link). That’s something a homophobe clearly wouldn’t do.

People have even called gay filmmakers Ryan Murphy and John Logan “homophobes” for portrayals of evil queer people (there are bad queer people too) or for simply making a horror film centered on queer people. To me Ozzy being bad and gay doesn’t make him a “negative stereotype,” just Ozzy being Ozzy.

Snyder is also on record as saying the homoerotic subtext between the men in ‘300’ was there on purpose rather than incidental. That he kept in mind that they were lovers throughout filming and wanted that to come through on the screen.

Since people all the way back then even spoke a lot about the homoerotic subtext of the film: mission accomplished.

“It was important to make sure there was a visceral sexuality to the way the [Spartan] men actually interacted. Regardless of whether you acknowledge it, it’s there.”

Zack Snyder Wrote a '300' Sequel — It's an Epic Gay Love Story

This is the Snyder Cut we really want to see!

www.out.com

Again, you are using your view of Rorschach in the film whereas it’s rather obvious that he isn’t a good guy in the film. Elsewhere those who did watch the film rather than the book first have repeatedly said they didn’t find him likable in the film due to the way he carried himself in the same way he was depicted in the book: as a sadistic psychopathic murderer. Your argument there is basically projection, “I felt like Rorschach was an “edge lord bad ass” in the film, thus Zach must have felt the same and therefore he didn’t get it.”

If there is a “critique” there - it’s that on the surface each of the Watchmen (especially in their own scenes) were usually depicted as they view themselves and the subtext was very subtle or hidden for some audiences because of that (while - still being there since otherwise there wouldn’t be people who have and haven’t read the book first that have the same outlook on the film as on the book).

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

I never saw Ozzy as a negative stereotypical gay guy. I’ve always seen Ozzy as being the same Ozzy as was in the book. A heavily pampered egomaniac who only ever really cared about himself despite saying otherwise. The guy literally surrounds himself with his own merchandise, visually that’s a major red flag that he’s narcissistic to the extreme. I wouldn’t say that’s a “gay stereotype,” rather a narcissist in the same way that Trump (the gold rooms, etc) and others are drawn to trying to make themself seem larger than life. You’re going to need to be a lot more detailed other than simply saying “he’s a negative gay stereotype.”

Per Snyder being “homophobic,” that wouldn’t describe someone who wrote and tried to get made a gay love story blockbuster centered on one of history’s most known queer couples (link). That’s something a homophobe clearly wouldn’t do.

People have even called gay filmmakers Ryan Murphy and John Logan “homophobes” for portrayals of evil queer people (there are bad queer people too) or for simply making a horror film centered on queer people. To me Ozzy being bad and gay doesn’t make him a “negative stereotype,” just Ozzy being Ozzy.

Snyder is also on record as saying the homoerotic subtext between the men in ‘300’ was there on purpose rather than incidental. That he kept in mind that they were lovers throughout filming and wanted that to come through on the screen.

Since people all the way back then even spoke a lot about the homoerotic subtext of the film: mission accomplished.

“It was important to make sure there was a visceral sexuality to the way the [Spartan] men actually interacted. Regardless of whether you acknowledge it, it’s there.”

Zack Snyder Wrote a '300' Sequel — It's an Epic Gay Love Story

This is the Snyder Cut we really want to see!

www.out.com

Again, you are using your view of Rorschach in the film whereas it’s rather obvious that he isn’t a good guy in the film. Elsewhere those who did watch the film rather than the book first have repeatedly said they didn’t find him likable in the film due to the way he carried himself in the same way he was depicted in the book: as a sadistic psychopathic murderer. Your argument there is basically projection, “I felt like Rorschach was an “edge lord bad ass” in the film, thus Zach must have felt the same and therefore he didn’t get it.”

If there is a “critique” there - it’s that on the surface each of the Watchmen (especially in their own scenes) were depicted as they view themselves and the subtext was very subtle or hidden for some audiences because of that (while - still being there since otherwise there wouldn’t be people who have and haven’t read the book first that have the same outlook on the film as on the book).

He's literally played soft spoken and effeminate. It's nice to see that see folks are still blind to stereotypical queer coding in 2024.

Zack Snyder's statement about his potential 300 sequel seems more like an admission of the original's faults and him now approaching the material from an older wiser perspective which is commendable considering he wrote it during the pandemic. People are allowed to change but that doesn't magically change the content of the original 300.

The "projection" argument doesn't explain Haley's ridiculous performance, the nonsensical slow motion, or the ramped up violence for the sake of it.

 

[Cap2024]

He's literally played soft spoken and effeminate. It's nice to see that see folks are still blind to stereotypical queer coding in 2024.

Zack Snyder's statement about his potential 300 sequel seems more like an admission of the original's faults and him now approaching the material from an older wiser perspective which is commendable considering he wrote it during the pandemic. People are allowed to change but that doesn't magically change the content of the original 300.

The "projection" argument doesn't explain Haley's ridiculous performance, the nonsensical slow motion, or the ramped up violence for the sake of it.

So simply being soft spoken and effeminate is a negative gay stereotype? What?

You do know that there actually are soft spoken and effeminate gay guys right and there is nothing wrong with those traits?

Not to mention, from being in the film industry - there are so many soft spoken and effeminate straight guys that I don't see those traits as being inherently gay. Most often found in gay guys? Yes. But that, if I had to guess, has more to do with toxic masculinity and many straight guys often trying to appear as straight as they can.

No wonder I couldn't get what you were trying to "get at" when you simply said there was a negative stereotype because you clearly and unfortunately view "soft spoken and effeminate" as negative traits whereas I don't at all.

Not to mention, per voice and mannerisms (?) - it's a book. To my knowledge, the book never stated in what tone of voice Ozzy spoke in nor how he moved (?) due it being still audio-less panels. What you heard and saw in your head therefore isn't what everyone did.

You're just talking about the sequel whereas as I have shown - he is on record for approaching the first film that way as well. The homoerotic subtext regarding the movie was always there, in part because it was meant to be and filmed that way.

Projection since you viewed Rorsarch as an "edge lord bad ass" whereas many others who viewed the film see him as a deranged psychopathic murderer. That comes down to your perspective on the character in the film.

As said, the film came from more of an angle of surface layer usually how the Watchmen view themselves. Whether or not Alan Moore's intentions got through for many viewers because the original material is so powerful that Zach couldn't obscure it to the point that it didn't come through or that Zach knew it was there is anyone's guess.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

So simply being soft spoken and effeminate is a negative gay stereotype? What?

It only has been for the last 100 years of cinema lol. Its also being applied to a character who doesn't have either of those traits in the source material.

 

[Cap2024]

It only has been for the last 100 years of cinema lol.

Stereotype? Yes. Viewing soft spoken and effeminate as being negative traits and offensive is on you.

How do you react when you see soft spoken and effeminate gay guys in real life? Are you one of those gay "bros" that unfortunately shakes their heads in shame at flamboyant gay guys or something? Since that's what it's starting to sound like.

 

[Karelia]

Complaining about Rorschach's voice is interesting... Because I feel Alan Moore knows what he would sound like better than anyone, and he did a voice over for some Rorschach dialogue. Curious, what you think about it.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Stereotype? Yes. Viewing soft spoken and effeminate as being negative traits is on you.

When it's applied to a character that is neither of those things in the book, it's a negative stereotype. He HAS to be effeminate so the audience knows he's gay.

 

[Cap2024]

When it's applied to a character that is neither of those things in the book, it's a negative stereotype. He HAS to be effeminate so the audience knows he's gay.

As said - it's a book where you couldn't see how he moved nor hear how he spoke.

Unless I completely forgot that the book described both aspects of Ozzy?

Otherwise how one hears and visualizes him was largely left up to the reader's imagination.

Per myself, I never imagined him that differently than he was in the film (adding: that is to say how his "look" changed in the end of the film to highlight that he's a bad guy). That's not because he's gay, but rather because he wanted to give off an aura of elegance, grace, and flow due to his image clearly being everything to him.

Did you envision him as hyper masculine or something? Or bland?

 

[Cap2024]

Complaining about Rorschach's voice is interesting... Because I feel Alan Moore knows what he would sound like better than anyone, and he did a voice over for some Rorschach dialogue. Curious, what you think about it.

Not what I heard. Nor was the film for that matter. I always imagined a classic film noir style voice rather than a British brawler (that's the best way I know how to describe it; almost akin to Ray Winstone). As a New Yorker and with the story taking place in Manhattan, he sounds way too British for me. As said, classic film noir.

If I was to guess, Rorschach grew up fascinated by film noir movies and always dreamed of being one of the detectives in them right down to viewing the world around him and everyone as having a seedy underbelly (thus his -what comes across to me as - hyper paranoia). It's how one who desires to live in that world would probably view life.

 

[Karelia]

Not what I heard. Nor was the film for that matter. I always imagined a classic film noir style voice rather than a British brawler (that's the best way I know how to describe it). As a New Yorker and with the story taking place in Manhattan, he sounds way too British for me. As said, classic film noir.

If I was to guess, Rorschach grew up fascinated by film noir movies and always dreamed of being one of the detectives in them right down to viewing the world around him and everyone as having a seedy underbelly (thus his -what comes across to me as - hyper paranoia). It's how one who desires to live in that world would probably view life.

Well, I was more talking about the tone Alan Moore used while reading, I didn't expect him to try and do an American accent. He does use a more grovel sounding voice, similar to Jackie Earle Hayley's voice in the movie.

I kinda like that idea you have about him growing up maybe watching noir films and being fascinated with them. It's an interesting idea!

 

[Cap2024]

Well, I was more talking about the tone Alan Moore used while reading, I didn't expect him to try and do an American accent. He does use a more grovel sounding voice, similar to Jackie Earle Hayley's voice in the movie.

I kinda like that idea you have about him growing up maybe watching noir films and being fascinated with them. It's an interesting idea!

That's all Moore, if I was to say. The cadence Rorschach speaks in in the book was practically lifted from film noir movies. I'm just interpreting from him being the only one within the Watchmen world to speak and carry himself like that - that those films is where he got it from.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Complaining about Rorschach's voice is interesting... Because I feel Alan Moore knows what he would sound like better than anyone, and he did a voice over for some Rorschach dialogue. Curious, what you think about it.

This is more of a low monotone version of Moores natural speaking voice. There's almost none of Haleys ridiculous growl here.

As said - it's a book where you couldn't see how he moved nor hear how he spoke.

Unless I completely forgot that the book described both aspects of Ozzy?

Otherwise how one hears and visualizes him was largely left up to the reader's imagination.

Per myself, I never imagined him that differently than he was in the film. That's not because he's gay, but rather because he wanted to give off an aura of elegance, grace, and flow due to his image clearly being everything to him.

Did you envision him as hyper masculine or something? Or bland?

I envision Ozy as a someone who's both secure and incredibly insecure at the same time and with his Pharoah living God namesake would seemingly suggest he would deliberately go out of his way to hide any aspect of himself that could be perceived as weakness. I can't remember if the book addresses his voice either. If it does, it'll be in one of the prose sections.

 

[Cap2024]

This is more of a low monotone version of Moores natural speaking voice. There's almost none of Haleys ridiculous growl here.

I envision Ozy as a someone who's both secure and incredibly insecure at the same time and with his Pharoah living God namesake would seemingly suggest he would deliberately go out of his way to hide any aspect of himself that could be perceived as weakness. I can't remember if the book addresses his voice either. If it does, it'll be in one of the prose sections.

To me if Ozzy was an animal he’d either be a fox or a snake. Almost reminiscent of Kaa from Jungle Book. A sense of grace and sensuality to lure people in.

A slightly more effeminate Patrick Bateman. If I was to guess Ozzy was modeled after the 1980s NYC Yuppies especially those who put on an aura of elegance to heighten their self-aggrandizement.

 

[Karelia]

I guess I just don't feel Rorschach's voice in the movie is that ridiculous lol. It works for me. The voice in the new animated movie is growing on me though.