Watchmen Movie is Terrible

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So, When Watchmen came out as a film, I saw it. I was a little confused by it and none of the over the top violence felt right to me. But I enjoyed it for being a neat looking film.

Until now.

During my English Class, we were required to read the comic version of Watchmen. I enjoyed it immensely, since I could see just how every little thing in the comic was intertwined. Upon retrospect, the changes to the film version totally wreck the cohesion.

I also care even less for the extreme violence in the film after reading the book. Yes, the book is violent and especially gritty for the time when it was published, but really, the mountains of blood in the movie just seem forced.

I didn't like Watchmen because it bored me. I was watching it with my brother and sister who were both really excited to see it, and I couldn't have been more bored. Of course, we'd just watched Kick-Ass which is a very different type of movie so it may have just been coming off of that high.

As someone who knows nothing about the original story of Watchmen or anything beyond the scope of the movie I saw, I didn't care anything for the characters and couldn't have cared less about the story itself.

Watch Transformers 3 if you think that Watchmen is the only bad 'superhero' movie.

Well I haven't read the graphic novel so I can't really comment.

However, even if I did I still think the film has the best opening credits in any film I have ever seen.

Because my rebuttal is spoilerific as your argument,

The blood and everything was, I felt, perfectly faithful to the book.

That being said, yes, the novel's better, but the movie is far far from bad. To me anyways

The comic IS much better than the movie. They changed a bunch of things that made me nerd rage, like

I also agree about the ending, I hated how they changed that.

I still liked the movie because as far as comic movies go, it was rather well done and had a larger appeal than simply comic readers.

Didn't watch it, trailer bored me. Seriously, why was everyone so excited by it? I just thought it looked nice.

I think you're looking at it wrong. Watchmen was always considered to be one of those "Unfilmable Films", and I think that, really, the movie we got was the best it could possibly have been.

johnzaku:
Because my rebuttal is spoilerific as your argument,

The blood and everything was, I felt, perfectly faithful to the book.

For me the best part of the movie was like the first 10 minutes, the rest was kinda crap, the special effects were cool and the woman who played the silk specter looked hot (couldn't act worth a damn though) but the rest of the film was just was kinda meh.

Spoilers throughout the following reply.

I haven't seen the movie, but I just kind of assumed that it'd be like that. Walter Chaw explained the Watchmen film thusly: It can play the notes but it doesn't know the music.

I understand the decision not to use the squid monster, since that'd look a lot sillier on-camera than it did on the page. But besides the Comedian problem you mentioned, there's also the fact that he hit a ton of cities instead of just New York, and pinned it on Manhattan.

I don't think that the USSR or any of the other countries would've stopped seeing Manhattan as an American force just because he went to Mars. If they thought he attacked them, they would see it as an American attack and retaliate. The result would be the opposite of what Veidt was trying.

There's also the softening of Rorschach's spiel when he's talking to the psychiatrist. I'm a Christian, and even so I would rather 'Schach just be allowed to be the nihilistic atheist he was in the book. They tinkered Rorschach to be a little more acceptable to Americans, which is ironic because he was always supposed to be the worst parts of Americanism.

ChupathingyX:
Well I haven't read the graphic novel so I can't really comment.

However, even if I did I still think the film has the best opening credits in any film I have ever seen.

Soviet Heavy:
So, When Watchmen came out as a film, I saw it. I was a little confused by it and none of the over the top violence felt right to me. But I enjoyed it for being a neat looking film.

Until now.

During my English Class, we were required to read the comic version of Watchmen. I enjoyed it immensely, since I could see just how every little thing in the comic was intertwined. Upon retrospect, the changes to the film version totally wreck the cohesion.

I also care even less for the extreme violence in the film after reading the book. Yes, the book is violent and especially gritty for the time when it was published, but really, the mountains of blood in the movie just seem forced.

This is EXACTLY how I feel about the movie Fight Club. I HATED it. I could not find one redeeming feature in it. I don't particularly care for the book much either, but comparing the two of them its like offering me a choice: Would I rather eat a big pile of steamy offal OR would you like a slightly stale cracker? To me its a no brainer, cracker please!

johnzaku:
Because my rebuttal is spoilerific as your argument,

The blood and everything was, I felt, perfectly faithful to the book.

Read my reply to see a problem with the removal of

Freaky Lou:
Spoilers throughout the following reply.

I haven't seen the movie, but I just kind of assumed that it'd be like that. Walter Chaw explained the Watchmen film thusly: It can play the notes but it doesn't know the music.

I understand the decision not to use the squid monster, since that'd look a lot sillier on-camera than it did on the page. But besides the Comedian problem you mentioned, there's also the fact that he hit a ton of cities instead of just New York, and pinned it on Manhattan.

I don't think that the USSR or any of the other countries would've stopped seeing Manhattan as an American force just because he went to Mars. If they thought he attacked them, they would see it as an American attack and retaliate. The result would be the opposite of what Veidt was trying.

There's also the softening of Rorschach's spiel when he's talking to the psychiatrist. I'm a Christian, and even so I would rather 'Schach just be allowed to be the nihilistic atheist he was in the book. They tinkered Rorschach to be a little more acceptable to Americans, which is ironic because he was always supposed to be the worst parts of Americanism.

Exactly. Rorschach was born of the accumulated filth of America. He was the personification of all their evil. And then ironically, his views were proven true in the end, when his psychiatrist adopted Rorschach's world view, and died trying to stop two people from fighting.

2ndblackjedi:

Soviet Heavy:
Exactly. Rorschach was born of the accumulated filth of America. He was the personification of all their evil. And then ironically, his views were proven true in the end, when his psychiatrist adopted Rorschach's world view, and died trying to stop two people from fighting.

On top of that, Bubastis doesn't make any sense now. =/

I liked the movie and I have read the comic book. *looks at collector's edition nearby* I didn't like the comic book ending of a squid monster. It just didn't seem right.

To be honest I always thought the squid was a bit silly to begin with. The book does a remarkable job justifying it but it still always ended up feeling extremely abrupt and treading into territory the story hadn't covered up to that point. The new ending takes everything that was ever important about the original and grounds it in a believable thread that runs through the entire film. Like someone else already pointed out, it's not like anyone knew Manhattan was leaving anyways.

Freaky Lou:

There's also the softening of Rorschach's spiel when he's talking to the psychiatrist. I'm a Christian, and even so I would rather 'Schach just be allowed to be the nihilistic atheist he was in the book. They tinkered Rorschach to be a little more acceptable to Americans, which is ironic because he was always supposed to be the worst parts of Americanism.

Maybe I just haven't read it recently enough, but I don't remember there being any particularly noticeable changes to his philosophy or outlook on the world. A few bits of dropped dialogue in the conversations perhaps, but that always happens.

In any case, if you people want to see what a bad Watchmen film really looks like go look up the original script from the 80s. You'll forgive everything the new one adjusted instantly.

EDIT - Plus, the squid relied on the clone of a psychic's brain. I like the idea of keeping everything weird about this world localized to Manhattan himself, it feels more relevant and powerful that way.

Mike Richards:
Maybe I just haven't read it recently enough, but I don't remember there being any particularly noticeable changes to his philosophy or outlook on the world. A few bits of dropped dialogue in the conversations perhaps, but that always happens.

In any case, if you people want to see what a bad Watchmen film really looks like go look up the original script from the 80s. You'll forgive everything the new one adjusted instantly.

The changes are relatively subtle, but they are important. The overall message ceases to be "There is no god, no destiny, no higher meaning, nothing. The world consists of nothing besides us and our filth and decadence, and drifts rudderless." and becomes "It's not God's fault that the world is like this. It's ours." which is a more Christian way of looking at things.

As for the 80's script, I haven't seen it, but I'm sure it's not pretty.

Freaky Lou:

Mike Richards:
Maybe I just haven't read it recently enough, but I don't remember there being any particularly noticeable changes to his philosophy or outlook on the world. A few bits of dropped dialogue in the conversations perhaps, but that always happens.

In any case, if you people want to see what a bad Watchmen film really looks like go look up the original script from the 80s. You'll forgive everything the new one adjusted instantly.

The changes are relatively subtle, but they are important. The overall message ceases to be "There is no god, no destiny, no higher meaning, nothing. The world consists of nothing besides us and our filth and decadence, and drifts rudderless." and becomes "It's not God's fault that the world is like this. It's ours." which is a more Christian way of looking at things.

As for the 80's script, I haven't seen it, but I'm sure it's not pretty.

Fair enough. I got the same impression both ways but I suppose I can see how it could be misinterpreted in the movie.

And here's the link for the '89 script in case anyone's interested. Pay close attention to the ending, it's an even bigger departure then removing the squid.

http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/wtchmn.txt

Mike Richards:
To be honest I always thought the squid was a bit silly to begin with. The book does a remarkable job justifying it but it still always ended up feeling extremely abrupt and treading into territory the story hadn't covered up to that point. The new ending takes everything that was ever important about the original and grounds it in a believable thread that runs through the entire film. Like someone else already pointed out, it's not like anyone knew Manhattan was leaving anyways.

The squid might have been abrupt, but the hints towards how it is entirely plausible within the context of the story are everywhere, especially with Bubastis.

Mike Richards:
And here's the link for the '89 script in case anyone's interested. Pay close attention to the ending, it's an even bigger departure then removing the squid.

http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/wtchmn.txt

Oh geez. Time travel. I'm glad this didn't happen.

Removing the giant squid was not the only thing that was wrong with the movie. The main thing wrong with the movie is that it is too faithful to the source material. Even though it did not make it into the movie, Zack Snyder filmed every scene in the comic book and in the director's cut, the so called "important" scene is restored. There is even a version that replaced the Black Freighter and the Rorsach segments where they appeared in the comic book, if you are interested.

The main thing wrong with the movie is that it is not an adaptation of the original source material. What Zack Snyder made was a motion comic, only with a bigger budget. He did not change a bloody thing and treated everything in Alan More's work like it was important. I know that the Internet loved that approach, but answer honestly: How many people actually watched the movie new? According to IMDB, barely enough to break even. Compare that to something like Spiderman and the Dark Knight, movies that made their studios massive bank.

A lot of you don't understand what an adaptation really means. An adaptation means that you take the material and change things around to make a coherent story. Like it or not, not everything from that book is important enough to make it into the movie. If that means leaving certain subplots out of the movie, so be it. And no, leaving that giant squid on the cutting room floor does not meant it was adapted. It just means that it was left out because of time.

Was there enough material in the Watchmen to make a movie? Sure, but the focus needed to change to two or three characters. Maybe Rorsach, Nite-Owl and the Silk Spectre could have been the focus of the piece, and more time devoted to Ozymandias. Knowing how Manhatten was created was not important to the movie, neither is that segment on Mars. The Comedian could have been removed entirely, as well as anything having to do with the previous generation.

If those changes were going to piss you off, then you just had to deal with it. You are not the important demographic. You would have seen it anyway and Hollywood already had your money. The people in Hollywood need to worry about the 90 percent that could potentially see it. They are not going to look at things that are not written for them.

By your description the novel version sounds retarded.

Soviet Heavy:
Off-topic Discussion: Watchmen Movie is Terrible

Pretty much, and for the reasons you explained.

Soviet Heavy:
So, When Watchmen came out as a film, I saw it. I was a little confused by it and none of the over the top violence felt right to me. But I enjoyed it for being a neat looking film.

Until now.

During my English Class, we were required to read the comic version of Watchmen. I enjoyed it immensely, since I could see just how every little thing in the comic was intertwined. Upon retrospect, the changes to the film version totally wreck the cohesion.

You read watchmen for English?
Lucky.
Anyway, the changes to the movie were awful however I don't think the general public would have approved of a giant squid thing destroying New York, and I don't think that the majority of the sales (dvd and tickets) came from people who had read the comic.

Im not putting in spoiler bubbles. If you haven't seen Watchmen by now in any form you're a terrible person and shame on you.

Soviet Heavy:

During my English Class, we were required to read the comic version of Watchmen. I enjoyed it immensely, since I could see just how every little thing in the comic was intertwined. Upon retrospect, the changes to the film version totally wreck the cohesion.

Hi, welcome to several years ago...

Have you ever seen a book turned into a movie before? Is this some new experience for you? They cannot ALWAYS throw in every detail from the books. They had to remove/change a few things so people wouldn't be sitting in the movie theater for 4 hours, though I gladly would have. They needed to shorten the film plot to make it reasonable, so they turned Black Freighter into an animated short movie and changed a few things to take out an hour of explanation. Sad, but these things happen.

My friends and I read and were into Watchmen YEARS before the movie was even a notion. So quit your QQing because I doubt you could even fully understand the subtle themes of the book.

Viral_Lola:
I liked the movie and I have read the comic book. *looks at collector's edition nearby* I didn't like the comic book ending of a squid monster. It just didn't seem right.

Its not supposed to be some random 'squid monster'. Ozymandias created the thing to fake an alien attack on the earth. He saw that the only way to create peace was to unite the world with a common tragedy. When an attack is made against a country, that country stands together...only Ozymandias had to attack on a global scale. He couldn't use ANY conventional weapon because one country would just assume its an enemy, but if he was able to fool the world into thinking an outside force threatened the world as a whole, then nations from all over would stand together and put away their old differences. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

This was changed from alien to Dr. Manhattan in the movie because they couldn't fit in the explanation of his gene laboratory/experiments. The only reason they threw Ozy's pet in the movie was for the diehard fans of the graphic novel. But the change STILL fits the theme set up by the main plot. Everyone knows Dr. Manhattan is an ace-in-the-hole for any country. But if the world believed he was an enemy to everyone, they would unite together to fight a powerful foe which threatened everyone.

As stated by others, Watchmen was originally believed to be un-filmable for MANY reasons. The movie was incredible. If Soviet is unhappy because he thinks they did a sub-par job of creating a movie, then I ask him to give it a try.

Wushu Panda:
Im not putting in spoiler bubbles. If you haven't seen Watchmen by now in any form you're a terrible person and shame on you.

Soviet Heavy:

During my English Class, we were required to read the comic version of Watchmen. I enjoyed it immensely, since I could see just how every little thing in the comic was intertwined. Upon retrospect, the changes to the film version totally wreck the cohesion.

Hi, welcome to several years ago...

Have you ever seen a book turned into a movie before? Is this some new experience for you? They cannot ALWAYS throw in every detail from the books. They had to remove/change a few things so people wouldn't be sitting in the movie theater for 4 hours, though I gladly would have. They needed to shorten the film plot to make it reasonable, so they turned Black Freighter into an animated short movie and changed a few things to take out an hour of explanation. Sad, but these things happen.

My friends and I read and were into Watchmen YEARS before the movie was even a notion. So quit your QQing because I doubt you could even fully understand the subtle themes of the book.

High, how's the view from your high horse up there? I read the novel, and I GOT the themes they were going for. Is it my fault if I had never read the fucking thing before now? It came out before I was born for christ's sake.

My point isn't that they didn't adapt the novel faithfully, but that the changes they did make were detrimental to the story. I also love how you say that if I didn't like the movie, I should just make it myself. How about YOU do that then? If its so simple for me to do it, then why not you as well?

No shit movies that adapt novels make changes, but most of the time, they are to save on time or to remove extraneous plotlines in order to keep the pacing proper. But the genetic engineering was a theme in the novel that was very subtly used, keeping the squid as a surprise. Instead, they go with the free energy reactors being super nukes so that they could make a bunch of take thats to the goddamn oil industry. Was that needed in the movie?

***SPOILER WARNING*** (Cause I don't know how to make those fancy spoiler bar thingies)

OP, everything you just described as not making sense... makes sense. You ask why the comedian falls out of faith with Ozy? Because he finds out Ozy is gonna blow up a bunch of cities. And in my opinion, making the Dr. an enemy of earth rather than fake aliens is a much better and concise plot move. It doesn't matter if he moves to another galaxy, because the people of earth will not know that. The people of earth will fear an omnipotent godhead, even if he isn't there. What I like about using the Dr. is that it takes out the small element of Deus Ex Machina that the squid had. I mean sure there were hints throughout the story (which could not have been portrayed in the movie anyways), but it still felt like coming out of left field with a giant tentacle monster.

As for Dr. Manhattan being an American symbol, I'm sure that the Russians would INSTANTLY send their nukes out to America even after they see that America was half to hell, because obviously blowing up most American cities is just part of the capitalistic plot to destabilize the motherland! Yeah, they wouldn't shoot anything.

Wushu Panda:
Im not putting in spoiler bubbles. If you haven't seen Watchmen by now in any form you're a terrible person and shame on you.

Soviet Heavy:

During my English Class, we were required to read the comic version of Watchmen. I enjoyed it immensely, since I could see just how every little thing in the comic was intertwined. Upon retrospect, the changes to the film version totally wreck the cohesion.

Hi, welcome to several years ago...

Have you ever seen a book turned into a movie before? Is this some new experience for you? They cannot ALWAYS throw in every detail from the books. They had to remove/change a few things so people wouldn't be sitting in the movie theater for 4 hours, though I gladly would have. They needed to shorten the film plot to make it reasonable, so they turned Black Freighter into an animated short movie and changed a few things to take out an hour of explanation. Sad, but these things happen.

My friends and I read and were into Watchmen YEARS before the movie was even a notion. So quit your QQing because I doubt you could even fully understand the subtle themes of the book.

Viral_Lola:
I liked the movie and I have read the comic book. *looks at collector's edition nearby* I didn't like the comic book ending of a squid monster. It just didn't seem right.

Its not supposed to be some random 'squid monster'. Ozymandias created the thing to fake an alien attack on the earth. He saw that the only way to create peace was to unite the world with a common tragedy. When an attack is made against a country, that country stands together...only Ozymandias had to attack on a global scale. He couldn't use ANY conventional weapon because one country would just assume its an enemy, but if he was able to fool the world into thinking an outside force threatened the world as a whole, then nations from all over would stand together and put away their old differences. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

This was changed from alien to Dr. Manhattan in the movie because they couldn't fit in the explanation of his gene laboratory/experiments. The only reason they threw Ozy's pet in the movie was for the diehard fans of the graphic novel. But the change STILL fits the theme set up by the main plot. Everyone knows Dr. Manhattan is an ace-in-the-hole for any country. But if the world believed he was an enemy to everyone, they would unite together to fight a powerful foe which threatened everyone.

As stated by others, Watchmen was originally believed to be un-filmable for MANY reasons. The movie was incredible. If Soviet is unhappy because he thinks they did a sub-par job of creating a movie, then I ask him to give it a try.

I know it wasn't a random squid monster but I didn't like it. That's just my personal opinion.

johnzaku:
Because my rebuttal is spoilerific as your argument,

The blood and everything was, I felt, perfectly faithful to the book.

That being said, yes, the novel's better, but the movie is far far from bad. To me anyways

I couldn't help but notice, Soviet, that you have not replied to this gentleman. I bring this up because he is correct.

'That one change', as you say, changes nothing at all. Going by your description of the comic, the Comedian has the exact same role, and is killed for the exact same reason.

The only valid part of your argument is that

The Watchmen movie is awful because Snyder is a vapid hack of a director. It's all glossy surfaces and gratuitous displays of action set pieces. He's a filmmaker in the Michael Bay school. Same voyeuristic sensibility.

And while I would never demand a page-by-page adaptation of any literary source (that would be madness), I found it infuriating how utterly Snyder failed to grasp how the rapport between Rorschach and his therapist is pretty much the emotional heart of the piece.
Rorschach's nihilism initially overwhelms the latter, bringing him to the edge of existential despair - a brink from which he manages to pull himself away in favour of a more open-eyed and humanistic mindset. Rorschach is essentially rendered a weaker character, as when faced with the same soul crushing realisation, he opted for the conclusion that people had no intrinsic worth.

- In Snyder's hands it all turned into little more than a "man Rorschach so cool" segue.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked