Watchmen Movie! What did you think?

[Michael Costello]

Without posting spoilers, I would like to here from anyone who has been able to see the movie already. Did you like it? Hate it?

For me, I loved the look of the movie. The use of living photographs and the time taken to provide historical backstory on the setting and the characters WITHOUT headers. If you failed History in high school you are going to have some difficulty following the timeline of events. If that isn't an issue I think you are well rewarded. I have more to say about blimps later.

[Ryan]

It was very adult...a hard R. I hope parents don't take their kids to this thing thinking it's a typical super hero movie. Lots of full frontal male nudity (CGI), a steamy super hero sex scene, and tons of extreme violence...it's a wonder they didn't earn an NC-17 rating.

I thought it was faithful enough to the graphic novel to make most comic fans happy. There was a lot of humor and a soundtrack that was often goofy and fun...I don't think the director took the material too seriously. He definitely wasn't trying to make an art film. This was a popcorn movie, plain and simple. As Mike says, it pays to know your Vietnam/Cold War history. It probably also helps if you actually lived through the 80's.

[David]

I thought they adapted it very well. The characters were true to form, both in appearance and behavior. Visually, the film was stunning with fantastic special effects, sets, and costumes (not just the hero kind either). I must admit that I was very skeptical of how they could faithfully adapt the book with all of its psychology, historical references, and details, but Snyder pulled it off well. I understand a few things had to be changed or left out for time sake, so I'm not upset about that.

However, I do have a few complaints. First, the nudity in the original book was necessary for the character of Dr. Manhattan, however the film just over played it. It became distracting in its excess. The sex scene was too graphic, especially for the tone of the film at that paticular point. The violence was scaled up from the novel and I thought that wasn't really something that needed to be done. It was hard to remember sometimes that these were normal people. Lastly, some of the slightly important scenes were handled poorly. For instance, I don't want to spoil anything, but one part that should have been kind of sad and a reflection of Nite Owl's emotional attachments was turned into a comedy scene.

Still, despite some flaws, it was a very entertaining film. I hope it does well in the theaters even though it is not a traditional "super hero" film. I hope Alan Moore will get off his high horse some day and watch it to see that not all of his works have been turned into utter trash (i.e. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen).

[Lamont Cranston]

I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised at how well it turned out. Moore’s works generally don’t have a good track record of being adapted to the big screen, and Watchmen is much more complex and thematically dense than some of the flops (LoEG, I’m looking at you). I thought they pared out the plot lines and sequences that might have added a lot of color and detail to the world of Watchmen in the comic, but would have hopelessly bogged down a movie. The opening credit sequence was a brilliant way to bring people up to speed with the alternate history of the story. The people who adapted the comic into a screenplay did an absolutely fantastic job of keeping the core of the story while still making it accessible to people that have not read the comic (and somehow ended up being more cynical than Moore on some points). My wife has never read The Watchmen, but she had no problem following the movie and really enjoyed it as well.

The worst kept secret right now is that the ending of the movie was changed from the ending of the comic, and this is true. However, I think the movie’s ending makes more sense for a variety of reasons than Moore’s original conclusion. I’ll say no more on that point since how the ending was changed is not generally out there yet, but it might be worth a separate discussion thread at some point.

And of course, Moore’s original Cold War themes about trusting your leaders generally, and Reagan and Thatcher specifically, turned out to be profoundly wrong as just three years after the comic was originally published the Berlin Wall fell. The comic and movie are still entertaining, but this conclusion of The Watchmen is just as wrong now as it was then.

[Ryan]

I'm gonna guess the pre-mature ejaculation scene.

[David]

Okay here is the notice for all the whiners that might be out there.

SPOILER

In the book, Dan has erectile dysfunction and the underlying cause is his sense of hopelessness and being powerless to everything that is going on in the world around him. He tells Laurie a little later that everything going on in the news and his feelings of being useless without the suit make him feel worthless and impotent. In the film, they just seem to brush it off as him being unable to get it up. They almost talk about it when he is looking at his old costume, but they just don't explain it the way the book did.

[Lamont Cranston]

Not to get too graphic, but Nite Owl had a problem getting lead into the pencil, not having the gun go off too soon. That’s why the problem is fixed later by getting his mojo back with his in costume antics.

Man, that was a lot of metaphors I mixed up there.

[Lamont Cranston]

Exactly. In the comic, this sequence is clearly akin to when Peter Parker intermittently loses his powers in the second Spiderman movie.

This bit is a spoiler if you haven't read The Watchmen





When Dan stops fighting crime as the Nite Owl he really has no direction to his life. Hence the, uh, performance issues. After once again donning the costume and rescuing those people from the burning building with Laurie, he is reminded of all the good he did, has a purpose again, and things start working once more.

In the movie, it’s a little unclear as to exactly what performance issue he had or why it wasn’t a problem after the rescue scene. In the book, Dan is more explicit about the nature of the problem and that it wasn’t just adrenaline from the action at the fire that fixed it.

[Ryan]

Now see, it's hard to discuss this without getting too graphic, but it seemed to me like they changed it to premature ejaculation. My reasoning is that he's thrusting for a couple seconds there and then he says "damn" and "give me a couple minutes". That made me think that he popped his load, not that he couldn't get it up. This conversation should make it clear that this is not a film for children, regardless.

[Lamont Cranston]

Again, this is Spolierific




Those are the exact lines from the book in the movie, but the movie left out Dan and Laurie's conversation from the next couple of panels.

Dan: I’m sorry, it isn’t you. It’s just . . .
Laurie: Relax, it’s OK. We don’t have to rush things.

(next panel)

Laurie: We’ve got as long as it takes and don’t worry, you’re doing fine

(and in case you still had doubts, the next panel clears it up for you)

Laurie: Still nothing?
Dan: Uh-uh

Plus, the symbolism only works if Dan is suffering from impotence. Get it? He’s impotent in both the bed and in his life without the purpose and direction provided by being a costumed hero. He’s a guy that was basically among the idle rich and really had nothing to do once the Keene Act passed. As Nite Owl, he felt he made a difference in the world. Once he and Laurie rescue those people from the fire he gets this purpose back, and the impotence in both parts of his life is gone.

I agree that the movie wasn’t as explicit about his as it could have been. I don’t know why they didn’t take another 30 seconds and include those extra couple of lines to make this point clear. I mean, it’s not like they were shy about the other sex-related bits.

And no, I didn’t memorize the naughty parts of Watchmen. I looked those lines up.

[David]

There is one page that really sums up the symbolism and kind of spells it out for the reader. Dan is in the basement after his encounter with Laurie. She comes downstairs.

Laurie: Dan? Uh...Hey, are you okay? I mean, you sound upset...

Dan: A Dream. I...I just had a dream is all.

Next Panel.

Dan: W-We were kissing, and then this nuclear bomb, it just...We burned up. We were gone, everything was gone...It's this war, the feeling that it's unavoidable. It makes me feel so powerless.

Next Pane.

Dan (looking down slightly): So impotent.

He goes on about it on the next page, but that really just nails it. Why couldn't they have just stuck those few lines of dialog in to explain things? People are always going on about how movie audiences need things spelled out for them in black and white, so why would the novel be more specific than the film?

But to end this on a high note, I was still very surpised at how much they were able to put in from the source material. They hit most of it right on the head.

[Ryan]

Intent doesn't matter. What matters is perception...and the perception that people had, when talking about that scene, having never read the graphic novel, was that it was a scene about premature ejaculation. I've read the graphic novel...and it still seemed that way to me. It was like the whole theme of impotence was too adult for the film, so they turned it into a comedic scene.

Ah well, at least the best lines from Rorschach's time in prison are still intact.

[Rachel F.]

I thought it was pretty good. Visually it was stunning. The opening sequence was one of my favorite parts; the Bob Dylan song worked really well with it. In fact I greatly enjoyed all of the music throughout. I liked that it was pretty true to the book, and I think the stuff they left out was fine and would have added too much time to an already long film. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the ending, but it wasn't bad.
I do agree with a few of David's points above about the sex and violence though. I found the sex scene to be very graphic and long; it really wasn't that way in the book. It seemed a bit gratuitous, as is Hollywood's way with these things. The violence did seem greatly toned up from the book as well. Some of it was very hard to watch like the prison scene with Rorschach and the three other criminals.
Overall though I liked it, and will probably see it again.