Watchmen Movie and your gripes

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

By comparison, according to my husband, Watchmen was transcribed to the screen almost shot-for-shot with the book. When he's done reading, we'll go see the movie again for another comparison.

We, who have read the book, are telling you that it was unsatisfyingly unfaithful. Your husband, as you've said, is not done with the book yet, so why do you take his word over ours? Do you think we would lie to you?

I'm also hoping the directors cut will improve Watchmen somewhat, as apparently the producers forced Snyder to trim the length. 50 extra minutes, including Tales of the Black Freighter, could really help that movie.

[jack_the_knife]

I agree. I think the "news-vendor scenes" would be a decent addition to the film.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

We, who have read the book, are telling you that it was unsatisfyingly unfaithful. Your husband, as you've said, is not done with the book yet, so why do you take his word over ours? Do you think we would lie to you?

Do I trust my husband more than Gnet members? Yes, I would say so. Do I think that you and other Gnet members are lying as far as how unsatisfied they were with the movie? No. Does the fact that Gnet members disliked the movie greatly reduce my enjoyment of the movie? No.

I'm also hoping the directors cut will improve Watchmen somewhat, as apparently the producers forced Snyder to trim the length. 50 extra minutes, including Tales of the Black Freighter, could really help that movie.

That should be interesting indeed.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Do I trust my husband more than Gnet members? Yes, I would say so.

But he hasn't read Watchmen. I would trust your word on the similarity of a book to a movie over that of my own mother if she hadn't even read said book.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

But he hasn't read Watchmen.

He's reading it now. When he's done, I'm sure we'll have a riveting discussion about the differences between the book's ending and the movie's.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

He's reading it now. When he's done, I'm sure we'll have a riveting discussion about the differences between the book's ending and the movie's.

A riveting discussion carried out between you and someone who would marry you? Sounds unlikely.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

A riveting discussion carried out between you and someone who would marry you? Sounds unlikely.

No worries; we weren't going to invite you to it anyways. *wink*

[Godslayer Jillian]

You guys mean Bubastis, right?
I agree. She was entirely inconsequential for the story. They should have cut that out of the story and put something in its stead, or just to make it shorter.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You guys mean Bubastis, right?
I agree. She was entirely inconsequential for the story. They should have cut that out of the story and put something in its stead, or just to make it shorter.

Bubastis sounds right, Jake explained what she was and why she was there, I just couldn't remember the name.

[Godslayer Jillian]

http://pixelatedgeek.com/wp-content/...3/watchmen.png

[KontanKarite]

Did Tam just say that she believes her husband, who hasn't read the book is correct about it being faithful over the statements made by those that's read the book... just because it's her husband?

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Did Tam just say that she believes her husband, who hasn't read the book is correct about it being faithful over the statements made by those that's read the book... just because it's her husband?

No, that is not what Tam just said, actually. Tam respects the fact that certain Gnet members didn't like the movie due to certain differences when compared to the book. Tam has also been discussing said differences with her husband as he reads through the book. Thus far, said husband has not found any major differences between the two that completely change the storyline in any way.

Tam understands that there are, indeed, differences between the two, but will wait to discuss the ending with said husband...and perhaps even read the book herself if she finds it worth her time the second time around...before making a final decision about said differences.

Tam also is tired of typing in third person, and of having to defend her appreciation of a cinematic rewrite of a comic book that will most likely be forgotten this time next year, if not sooner, by most movie-goers out there.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

No, that is not what Tam just said, actually. Tam respects the fact that certain Gnet members didn't like the movie due to certain differences when compared to the book. Tam has also been discussing said differences with her husband as he reads through the book. Thus far, said husband has not found any major differences between the two that completely change the storyline in any way.

A change needn't completely alter the skeleton of the story in order to be profoundly significant. Consider how much differently Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities might have been received had it begun "it was a real good time, but a real bad time also". If your husband truly can't perceive the dramatic difference between Watchmen the comic and Watchmen the film, I feel his stupidity is sufficent to earn him a grievous, unusual punishment, such as condemnation to spend the rest of his life with... Oh wait.

Tam also is tired of typing in third person, and of having to defend her appreciation of a cinematic rewrite of a comic book that will most likely be forgotten this time next year, if not sooner, by most movie-goers out there.

Because the average movie goer is, sadly, a poorly read, soft-headed, god-fearing imbecile like you, this may well be true, but for that same reason, I don't judge the value of anything on the basis of its worth to the average movie goer. Moore and Gibbons' book has been beloved of intelligent people since its publication, and so I imagine that individuals of actual merit will continue to discuss the successes and failings of this adaptation.

[KontanKarite]

Your mother.

[Despanan]

The sad fact of the matter is, dumb people will think the Watchmen movie is a worthy adaptation, because, on the surface, it is.

However, anyone with more than two brain-cells to rub together will notice that, while the plot is indeed intact, the characters themselves and the thesis of the story have been subtly gutted.

Take for instance the assassin's attack on good old Ozymandias. Who gets killed? Not his secretary. She just got shot in the leg. The only causualty is the evil oil executive.

No big deal right? WRONG. The whole goddamn POINT of Watchmen was the moral ambiguity of the characters. Viedt didn't think twice about the death of an innocent person in the book, and that was a major character point, but here it was an evil person who paid the price. Without the moral dilemma, you have no revelation of character, which just waters Ozymandias down.

Similarly, during the prison riot, Rorschach smashes his attacker's head into the toilet, and the (most likely) already dead attacker is electrocuted afterwards instead of Rorschach smashing the toilet and letting his attacker electrocute himself.

Once again, No big deal right? I mean guy is dead, Rorschach killed him with a toilet and electrocution, so it's all cool?

Not in the slightest. In the book this exchange reveals him to be smart and calculating, in the movie he's just an effective and brutal thug.

The movie is positively peppered with shit like this, where you can tell some executive said: "I don't think people will get that. Make it simpler". and it pisses me the fuck off. Not only does it show complete condescension on the part of the studio, but it violates the entire spirit of the book. It's like the difference between a dead body and a living body. THey have the same structure, and the same organs, but at their core they are completely different.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I agree about the scene with Rorschach, but not with that of Ozy
It was obvious that they were trying to put in a little commentary with the whole oil magnates, and though it was too forced, I can forgive them that.
Why would you want them to make Ozymandias look even worse? They already made him look like a calculating man incapable of feelings; most of my friends already discovered he would be the 'bad guy' way in the beginning of the movie.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Viedt didn't think twice about the death of an innocent person in the book,

Ozy was wracked with guilt in the comic-- "I know people think me callous, but I've made myself feel every death. By day I imagine endless faces. By night...Well, I dream, about swimming towards a hideous...no. Never mind. It isn't significant. What's significant is that I know. I know I've struggled across the backs of murdered innocents to save humanity...but someone had to take the weight of that awful necessary crime." A version of this line was spoken in the movie, although there it seemed glazed over and generally less sincere, likely because Goode's performance rendered Adrian a cold, unrelatable personage who seemed to articulate the above as a self-righteous justification of his deeds rather than as the desperate plea for understanding it should have been.
The film's handling of Ozymandias was probably its most disappointing aspect in my eyes, he's my favorite character and really the backbone of the story. I realize he was developed primarily in the prose portions of the comic, but a screenwriter with a bit more imagination could have incorporated some of the key details contained therein-- To omit stuff like "no, I don't mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one" is a travesty.

but here it was an evil person who paid the price. Without the moral dilemma, you have no revelation of character, which just waters Ozymandias down.

That wasn't just some stock oil magnate, but in fact none other than Lee Iacocca. While I agree that the 'energy resources' plot was kind of hamfisted, seeing Lee Iacocca get shot in the head was pretty amusing to me.

[Mr E Nigma]

I read the first 2 pages of this thread, and skimmed most of the 3rd, then read this page.

I've read the novel, granted I read it when I was 10, a year after it was republished in '95. Hah, my parents thought the red on the cover was ketchup, I'm an insanely huge comic book kid. I've read an abundance of comic books and/or graphic novels. Just to give some perspective from a kid who spent a good decade and a half of his life basically just reading comic books 'cause he's a geek which no one found very interesting at school and had no friends.


Honestly, while Watchmen is a good read, it's not as well written (obviously my opinion) as a lot of people make it out to be. The Graphic Novel that is.

I completely understand the concept for the characters and that Allen Moore really didn't give a shit who the characters even were because he wanted their actual character to be that ambiguous, at least as far as personality goes.

You as a reader aren't supposed to realize how the characters would act because they aren't supposed to be open books that you could just figure out. That is one reason I will agree with Jillian about Adrian because I don't like what they did to the character. They seemed to make him too inhumane. But I can let any other alterations about character go, because they weren't that much of a difference.

And whoever scripted this movie and/or the director, for just generally having the movie move along the way it did... was a god damn genius if you ask me. that movie... the way all these watchmen fanatics might want it to be, just like the book, would've been enjoyable to watch. But on the whole, boring as fuck, as far as movies go. They slowed down the fight scenes, and paced them very well and added a bit to them.

I'll say the same as I felt about 300. Graphic novels like this, in their original form are not meant to be on a screen, they aren't meant for visual entertainment. They aren't written that way, much like most books. So when people complain about the movies not being a straight from book adaptation and not doing the book justice... or comic book justice. Honestly what the fuck do they expect? If people cinematized a book the way everyone wants, NO ONE would like it. Not even the fans themselves because most of them have no idea how visual entertainment works, because if they did, they'd realize what they want is something horrifically long, narrated, and boring.

Yes, they altered the movie, yes they did a damn good job of converting that graphic novel into a movie. They aren't just making a movie for you comic book fanatics, they are making a movie for everyone.

And I'd be hard pressed to say it wasn't a god damn job well done.

PS: I'm not angry at anyone who might hate the movie, or who was mildly disappointed by it. I just get annoyed with the simple idea that people have about cinematic book adaptations... I'm just trying to express to everyone why it was made the way it was made and, while I'm not even a person who was sucked into the hype that was this graphic novel, I quite thoroughly enjoyed the cinematic take on this graphic novel.

Also if these same people who gripe about the movie the way they do, liked Iron Man, I'd have to bitch slap them back into their mothers womb.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the Iron Man movie, but I hear people I know who loved Iron Man complain about Watchmen, and I'm like.. yeah way to be hypocrites guys. Why can one movie get away with so much and yet the other one is blasphemed for not being perfect...

[Mr E Nigma]

Fuck that was a lot longer than I thought...