WWTBAM Bored

We saw Watchmen today, and I enjoyed it very much. The ending was changed a bit, and some things were left out (i.e. the Pirate comic story) and others condensed (i.e. Rorschach's sessions with the prison shrink), but overall, I thought it was a good adaptation from the graphic novel.

I went to an art class right after getting out of the movie, and I found myself identifying with Dr. Manhattan. I was wearing what he wore most of the movie (nothing), and I found my thoughts sounded a lot like his monologues from the book and movie (things like, "I have been in the pose 37 minutes; in 13 more minutes I will get up and stretch," etc.).

I had planned to see it tonight, but now that I find myself in economy mode, I think I'll wait for a matinee tomorrow morning. --Bob

I should also say that Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach was perfect casting; he did a great job.

danielh41 wrote:We saw Watchmen today, and I enjoyed it very much. The ending was changed a bit, and some things were left out (i.e. the Pirate comic story) and others condensed (i.e. Rorschach's sessions with the prison shrink), but overall, I thought it was a good adaptation from the graphic novel.

I went to an art class right after getting out of the movie, and I found myself identifying with Dr. Manhattan. I was wearing what he wore most of the movie (nothing), and I found my thoughts sounded a lot like his monologues from the book and movie (things like, "I have been in the pose 37 minutes; in 13 more minutes I will get up and stretch," etc.).

Hmm. Possible Ewww.

I know I mentioned this before, but in case you missed it....

They're releasing the Black Freighter story as a separate animated DVD (I'm guessing to coincide with the DVD/Blu-ray release of "Watchmen").

I'm hoping to see the movie tomorrow afternoon as well.

I saw Watchmen yesterday evening. It got terrible reviews in our local fishwrapper but I thought it was an excellent screen adaptation of the graphic novel. WARNING: the word "graphic" applies to the movie in more ways than one. It's also a long movie, which was one of the reasons the reviewer downgraded it.

Spoiler

First off, the "big change" that fanboys have complained about isn't that significant (although I don't see the reason for making it).

Spoiler

Rather than conjuring up an alien invasion, Adrian Veidt uses the same energy that created Dr. Manhatten in order to put the blame on him; the end result is the same.

Spoiler

One of my sons who went with me to the movie said it was like watching a Blue Man Group porno. Let's just say that there's a lot of blue wookus to be seen, and Dr. Manhatten's "package" is as godlike as the rest of him. To balance it out there are several scenes with a nude Silk Spectre II and one fairly graphic sex scene featuring the aforementioned Silk Spectre and Nite Owl II.

Best line in the movie (IMO) - Rorcshach, after being set up on a murder charge and put in prison, encounters one of the criminals that he put into prison. The criminal says, "Now you're in here with us," to which Rorschach replies, "I'm not in here with you - you're in here with me."

I saw the film today and thought it was terrific, albeit admittedly extremely violent (body parts get hacked off on a number of occasions and arms and legs get rather graphically broken), as well as getting to see the "Blue Bomber" on a number of occasions (making one wonder whether Billy Crudup had any FX assistance a la Dirk Diggler).

I especially like the way the action scenes were scripted. There was some quite artistic use of fast and slow motion photography, but the main thing I enjoyed was the fact that the film does not use the rapid fire blink-of-an-eye editing scheme that so many action films use today so that audiences (1) can't tell what's going on onscreen, (2) can't appreciate the effects or stunt work involved, and (3) get a nasty headache trying to do (1) and (2) anyway. You see people getting punched or kicked and you can easily follow every fight scene (and every broken body part).

As for the ending, I'm at a loss to see why audiences are upset about "changing" the original. It seems to me that the only people who would be upset are overgrown pre-teenage boys who treat the original text as gospel.

Spoiler

I don't care how good or how expensive you make the CGI (and the overall level of effects in this film were quite good). A giant squid, which was the agent of destruction in the comic, would have come across as completely silly and destroyed the mood of the film. In a comic book, everything is animated, but in a film, most of what's onscreen does appear real and a giant squid destroys the illusion.

Plus, by making Dr. Manhattan the apparent villain, the film taps into our 2009 psyche which makes a "terrorist" attack, albeit by a blue skinned guy with super powers, more easy to swallow and a more plausible unifying event than a giant squid attacking New York City (or even other cities if they'd shipped in multiple squids). The change in the storyline also makes Manhattan into more of a noble, tragic figure (he knows he's not to blame but he has to leave to maintain the cover story). And the film's ultimate twist, the discovery of the journal which presumably will spoil the plot, is still as effective.

All in all, this is the best film of the year (and I'm limiting myself to 2009 releases, not 2008 holdovers I've seen this year) by far.

This clip from the recent German movie about Hitler has been used a number of times for spoofs, but this one is downright hilarious. Hitler does not like the new ending of the Watchmen movie. Needless to say, if you haven't seen the film, this clip contains some huge spoilers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhHema5PNg

Excellent film, quite beautiful and sometimes lyrical. The performances of Manhattan, Nite Owl and Rorscach are tremendous. I thought Veidt needed a more charismatic actor--think how a Ralph Fiennes would be on a more equal footing with Dr. manhattan than Matthew Goode was. The Silk Specter looked great--her acting was weak. And some of the songs are too on-the nose for my tastes. But the movie is dense,and absorbing and funny, with one of the best title sequences I've sen in the last 20 years. And the special effects make this worth a trip to the cineplex!

I caught a matinee today. I had a great time. The story was as good as I remembered it, and I really loved the sound track, too. Jackie Earle Haley as Rohrschach was particularly effective. --Bob

I saw this afternoon. I've never read the graphic novel, but after reading the original ending here, I think the movie ending is better.

Spoiler

How come Ozymadias, who is billed as the smartest man on earth, also appears to be the strongest and have the best reflexes?

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I saw this afternoon. I've never read the graphic novel, but after reading the original ending here, I think the movie ending is better.

Spoiler

How come Ozymadias, who is billed as the smartest man on earth, also appears to be the strongest and have the best reflexes?

Spoiler

Because he knows what you're going to do before you do it?

--Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I saw this afternoon. I've never read the graphic novel, but after reading the original ending here, I think the movie ending is better.

Spoiler

How come Ozymadias, who is billed as the smartest man on earth, also appears to be the strongest and have the best reflexes?

Spoiler

Because he knows what you're going to do before you do it?

--Bob

Cool! If there's a sequel, they ought to make it about him becoming a contestant on Jeopardy!

TheConfessor wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I saw this afternoon. I've never read the graphic novel, but after reading the original ending here, I think the movie ending is better.

Spoiler

How come Ozymadias, who is billed as the smartest man on earth, also appears to be the strongest and have the best reflexes?

Spoiler

Because he knows what you're going to do before you do it?

--Bob

Cool! If there's a sequel, they ought to make it about him becoming a contestant on Jeopardy!

I think he should post on the bored instead of MBFFB.

I saw it yesterday. I never read the graphic novels, but I'm guessing the movie gave me a good sense of the milieu.

Spoiler

Just the fact that Nixon was elected to five terms as president says volumes.

The movie definitely earns its R rating; I hope parents with kids who might ordinarily enjoy comic book-inspired films take note!

silverscreenselect wrote:I saw the film today and thought it was terrific, albeit admittedly extremely violent (body parts get hacked off on a number of occasions and arms and legs get rather graphically broken), as well as getting to see the "Blue Bomber" on a number of occasions (making one wonder whether Billy Crudup had any FX assistance a la Dirk Diggler).

I especially like the way the action scenes were scripted. There was some quite artistic use of fast and slow motion photography, but the main thing I enjoyed was the fact that the film does not use the rapid fire blink-of-an-eye editing scheme that so many action films use today so that audiences (1) can't tell what's going on onscreen, (2) can't appreciate the effects or stunt work involved, and (3) get a nasty headache trying to do (1) and (2) anyway. You see people getting punched or kicked and you can easily follow every fight scene (and every broken body part).

As for the ending, I'm at a loss to see why audiences are upset about "changing" the original. It seems to me that the only people who would be upset are overgrown pre-teenage boys who treat the original text as gospel.

Spoiler

I don't care how good or how expensive you make the CGI (and the overall level of effects in this film were quite good). A giant squid, which was the agent of destruction in the comic, would have come across as completely silly and destroyed the mood of the film. In a comic book, everything is animated, but in a film, most of what's onscreen does appear real and a giant squid destroys the illusion.

Plus, by making Dr. Manhattan the apparent villain, the film taps into our 2009 psyche which makes a "terrorist" attack, albeit by a blue skinned guy with super powers, more easy to swallow and a more plausible unifying event than a giant squid attacking New York City (or even other cities if they'd shipped in multiple squids). The change in the storyline also makes Manhattan into more of a noble, tragic figure (he knows he's not to blame but he has to leave to maintain the cover story). And the film's ultimate twist, the discovery of the journal which presumably will spoil the plot, is still as effective.

All in all, this is the best film of the year (and I'm limiting myself to 2009 releases, not 2008 holdovers I've seen this year) by far.

Spoiler

I don't object to the lack of giant squids - it's the overall motivation. In the novel Veidt makes people believe that the squid are precursors to an alien invasion, which seems much more likely to unite the world's populace than the threat of a single individual, especially when that individual decides to leave the scene for good. Once it's clear that Dr. M is gone, things would go back to "normal", whereas the unspecified alien invasion would last longer. But that's must MHO.

earendel wrote:

Spoiler

I don't object to the lack of giant squids - it's the overall motivation. In the novel Veidt makes people believe that the squid are precursors to an alien invasion, which seems much more likely to unite the world's populace than the threat of a single individual, especially when that individual decides to leave the scene for good. Once it's clear that Dr. M is gone, things would go back to "normal", whereas the unspecified alien invasion would last longer. But that's must MHO.

Spoiler

Movies, like books (and comic books) are a product of their times. Although Watchmen the movie is set in 1985, the screenwriters were aware that audiences were viewing it with 21st century sensibilities. In 1985, President Reagan was able to get significant support for a Star Wars weapon system designed to protect us from "them." Well, there's not a whole lot of difference between a "them" in Moscow and a "them" from Mars. In 2009, what worries us is not an attack from the outside, but rather one from the inside, whether by Osama bin Laden or Dr. Manhattan.

Leaving that aside, a giant squid is still hokey, turning the movie into something out of Ray Harryhausen and, no matter how well it was done, probably spoiling the mood. This ending (and also the changes in the characters of Nite Owl and Silk Spectre, who decide to resume their crime fighting careers) is somewhat more upbeat than the book and for the mainstream audiences, a little feeling of optimism is necessary in order to avoid a major box office disaster.

In this particular case I don't care, but I really hate it when a film adaptation is substantially different from the book. For instance, the film A Beautiful Mind is 99% fiction and left many things out that would have made the story more interesting.

Bob Juch wrote:In this particular case I don't care, but I really hate it when a film adaptation is substantially different from the book. For instance, the film A Beautiful Mind is 99% fiction and left many things out that would have made the story more interesting.

Sometimes, though, changes have to be made. I was prepared to hate LOTR because I knew Peter Jackson would have to make substantive changes in order to make a filmable (or watchable) product. And the first time I saw the movies I did not like what he had done. But then I realized that those changes - mostly omissions - made it a movie, and if I could enjoy it on that level it would in no way detract from my enjoyment of the books. Now I can watch the DVDs and not <grumble>® at Jackson's artistic license.

earendel wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:In this particular case I don't care, but I really hate it when a film adaptation is substantially different from the book. For instance, the film A Beautiful Mind is 99% fiction and left many things out that would have made the story more interesting.

Sometimes, though, changes have to be made. I was prepared to hate LOTR because I knew Peter Jackson would have to make substantive changes in order to make a filmable (or watchable) product. And the first time I saw the movies I did not like what he had done. But then I realized that those changes - mostly omissions - made it a movie, and if I could enjoy it on that level it would in no way detract from my enjoyment of the books. Now I can watch the DVDs and not <grumble>® at Jackson's artistic license.

I have no problem with cutting parts, just when the scriptwriter makes up a totally different storyline when there's nothing wrong with the original. Akiva Goldsman seems to be unable to merely adapt a book.

Bob Juch wrote:

earendel wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:In this particular case I don't care, but I really hate it when a film adaptation is substantially different from the book. For instance, the film A Beautiful Mind is 99% fiction and left many things out that would have made the story more interesting.

Sometimes, though, changes have to be made. I was prepared to hate LOTR because I knew Peter Jackson would have to make substantive changes in order to make a filmable (or watchable) product. And the first time I saw the movies I did not like what he had done. But then I realized that those changes - mostly omissions - made it a movie, and if I could enjoy it on that level it would in no way detract from my enjoyment of the books. Now I can watch the DVDs and not <grumble>® at Jackson's artistic license.

I have no problem with cutting parts, just when the scriptwriter makes up a totally different storyline when there's nothing wrong with the original. Akiva Goldsman seems to be unable to merely adapt a book.

Or adds a scene where it's unnecessary or even illogical. That's my primary complaint about the last three Harry Potter movies (the secondary one is Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore). I can deal with taking out sections that don't advance the plot for time constraints, one of Jackson's rationales for some of his LOTR cuts, but then don't put things in that weren't there in the first place. The dragon-fighting scene in Goblet of Fire bugs the heck out of me for that reason.

Bob Juch wrote:

earendel wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:In this particular case I don't care, but I really hate it when a film adaptation is substantially different from the book. For instance, the film A Beautiful Mind is 99% fiction and left many things out that would have made the story more interesting.

Sometimes, though, changes have to be made. I was prepared to hate LOTR because I knew Peter Jackson would have to make substantive changes in order to make a filmable (or watchable) product. And the first time I saw the movies I did not like what he had done. But then I realized that those changes - mostly omissions - made it a movie, and if I could enjoy it on that level it would in no way detract from my enjoyment of the books. Now I can watch the DVDs and not <grumble>® at Jackson's artistic license.

I have no problem with cutting parts, just when the scriptwriter makes up a totally different storyline when there's nothing wrong with the original. Akiva Goldsman seems to be unable to merely adapt a book.

You mean the Akiva Goldsman who wrote the screenplay for the disaster known as Batman & Robin? I still can't believe that he has a career after that one, much less won an Academy Award...

Of the 21 replies in this thread so far, only one was written by a female -- Beebs, to say "Eeeww." This hereby is submitted as statistical evidence that we have discovered the ultimate Movie That Only Guys Want To See.

Yes, I know a few of you may have seen it with your wives or girlfriends, and they said that they liked it. Count yourself blessed. You indeed have found somebody who loves you enough to put up with the movies to which you drag her. She was faking it -- perhaps for the first time, perhaps not.

If you are a single man considering asking a date to this film, do not do so, unless you've already changed your mind about her appeal and figure this is a good excuse to avoid seeing her again in the future.

If you want to see it, go and enjoy! Go alone, however, or with your best male buddy since back in the day of your junior high school Audio-Visual Club. The rest of us thank you.

silvercamaro wrote:Of the 21 replies in this thread so far, only one was written by a female -- Beebs, to say "Eeeww." This hereby is submitted as statistical evidence that we have discovered the ultimate Movie That Only Guys Want To See.

Yes, I know a few of you may have seen it with your wives or girlfriends, and they said that they liked it. Count yourself blessed. You indeed have found somebody who loves you enough to put up with the movies to which you drag her. She was faking it -- perhaps for the first time, perhaps not.

If you are a single man considering asking a date to this film, do not do so, unless you've already changed your mind about her appeal and figure this is a good excuse to avoid seeing her again in the future.

If you want to see it, go and enjoy! Go alone, however, or with your best male buddy since back in the day of your junior high school Audio-Visual Club. The rest of us thank you.

Well, I must be really lucky then since my wife took the time to read my copy of the graphic novel before we went to see the movie. And yes, she wants to go see it again with me.

MarleysGh0st wrote:I saw it yesterday. I never read the graphic novels, but I'm guessing the movie gave me a good sense of the milieu.

Spoiler

Just the fact that Nixon was elected to five terms as president says volumes.

The movie definitely earns its R rating; I hope parents with kids who might ordinarily enjoy comic book-inspired films take note!

Maddie read the graphic novel and wanted to see the movie. Emma wasn't interested. After some debate, we decided to let Maddie see the movie, knowing that she would be seeing a lot of the CGI blue penis and a sex scene.