Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Watchmen Watched

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the because-i-can dept.

Movies 489

In a blatant attempt to make my movie-going a valid business expense, I'm putting together some notes on Watchmen, and providing a place for you all to discuss it. The first thing I want to say is that I had high hopes: If you ask any serious comic book nerd what the most important book is, they will probably give you one of two answers, and "Watchmen" is the right one. So really Snyder, the director of 300, could only do wrong. Fortunately for me, he was very true to the book: just like 300, many sequences are shot-for-shot from the comics. Some stuff didn't make it, and the new ending has a different meaning to me (one that really isn't as satisfying, but is certainly cleaner). But what I can't say is if it was a good movie or not. I sorta wish I could get an impartial opinion of someone who isn't a nutty fan of the book to tell me how it stands as a movie. I imagine a bit slow, wordy and maybe a bit confusing in parts. I'll leave full reviews to others, but I enjoyed the picture and suspect you will too.

cancel ×

489 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095097)

SNAPE KILS DUMBL-

wait fuck, nevermind...

Re:First post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096227)

I'm still angry about Dr. Manhattan killing Rorshach.

Dr. Manhattan is the token spoiled, bitchy, only-child-emo-kid-who-thinks-nobody-understands-him character of the story.

Re:First post (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096397)

SNAPE KILS DUMBL-

wait fuck, nevermind...

He does?

Well there's a another movie I don't need to see.

M$ Windoze Sucks (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095109)

M$ Windoze just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the malware servers that you M$ addicts use to distribute pr0n and personal information across teh intarwebs, but the average computer user is sick of spending months reinstalling M$ Windoze and then hours reinstalling non-free software so that they can get a workable machine to check their mail with just to get it pwned once again in a few weeks, especially not when they can get a workable GNU/Linux machine that already does its job perfectly well and is backed by freedom, stability, and security; as opposed to M$ Windoze which is only supported by M$ and char-throwing execs. The last thing I want is a chair-throwing fucktard providing me my OS which can be pwned in a mere minutes.

Send me! (3, Funny)

the4thdimension (1151939) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095113)

Never read the comics or books, Send me to see it on the /. dime and I will give you an opinion on how it was just as a movie. =P

Re:Send me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095167)

... Do you take paypal? ;)

Re:Send me! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095705)

Same here..I'd never heard of Watchmen before the movie ads started showing.

Something about killing superheroes?

Re:Send me! (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095723)

Then let me spoil it for you: The comic book was amazing. Great artwork and mood, plenty of little bits of foreshadowing and symbolism, great "fleshing out" of the characters with plenty of introspection and investigation of the human condition, all fleshed out through the interesting "intermissions" between chapters. All in all very good except -

The hamhandedly written plan of Ozymandias. That plot kludge was worse than that time Anakin skywalker killed Amidala because he wanted to save her. LOL WUT? And the psychic "brain monster" was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen - did the artists draw inspiration from Ren and Stimpy? [tripod.com]

I've heard that that part was mostly rectified in the movie, so I'm looking forward to watching it.

Missing the point (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095969)

The brain monster wasn't important, the reasoning behind it and Ozymandias' "ends justify the means" altitude is.

Re:Missing the point (2, Informative)

Greyor (714722) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096323)

And besides, the alien seemed to me to be a Lovecraft reference (Cthulhu [wikipedia.org] anyone?) -- which, if you've read any of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Alan Moore is fond of. I was a bit annoyed that they changed the ending for that reason, but oh well. It worked as well as it could have. I loved the movie personally.

Re:Send me! (1)

RicoX9 (558353) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096201)

I read it last year. I got it. I did not find it awe-inspiring or even particularly well written. It's a decent story, but not more so than many others I have read. Certainly not good enough to make a Top 100 books of all time list like it says on the cover.

I look forward to the movie though. I don't think a movie adaptation can hurt this one.

Re:Send me! (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096393)

I never bothered to read the comix, just went in a different direction.

But I WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!! Hell Yea!

I'll let you know... Don't need to pay me, I can afford my own ticket and popcorn...

I think you jumped the gun a little. (4, Insightful)

default luser (529332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095141)

You want replies from people who aren't huge fans, but you posted this before most people get off work today. Only a true fan would skip work/school to watch a movie.

I've not read the book (I just finished chapter 1), and I'm seeing it tonight at 9:30; if you still want the viewpoint of a non-obsessed fan, check back tomorrow for my reply to this post.

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (4, Funny)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095515)

CmdrTaco doesn't work you insensitive clod.

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (5, Funny)

drewvr6 (1400341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095663)

Can I get this from torrent already? I'm not cheap. I just like to tie a couple slashdot topics together when I can.

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (2, Interesting)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096133)

Well, I must admit that I'm cheap though. Not that I can't spare the few dimes to see this in the theater, but I'd rather download this one and see it in the comfort of my own home.

No insanely marked up drinks and popcorn, no talking chicks behind you. No, just you and the movie. And you can go pee if you want to. Just hit 'pause' on VLC.

Yeah, I'm cheap. Or, rather, I don't like to fill the coffers of the local theaters for a sub-par performance (crap focus and crap sound) compared to the flawless experience at home. I believe in rewarding the makers of stuff. I
don't believe in rewarding brokers of stuff.

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096251)

God forbid you wait a month till it's released on DVD and watch it legally.

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (1)

drewvr6 (1400341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096273)

I don't believe in rewarding brokers of stuff. Good point. Less innovation is to be found in Hollywood. Sequels and remakes and rip-offs, oh my! p.s. You're much more honest than I am too.

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096419)

no talking chicks behind you...No, just you and the movie.

Wow, somebody needs to get laid and/or has no friends. The theater is about the theater experience, dude. I take it that you've never rounded up a bunch of buddies and snuck in your own candy and flasks of booze for the most enjoyable theater experience possible? And don't forget that there are a lot of single girlies who get wet at the sight of bad boys enjoying themselves.

The only things you should have to buy are extra-large soft-drinks for mixing and passing-around. And that's if you don't own a CamelBak!

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096583)

Try going to a competent theater (they exist), and don't buy a drink or popcorn. If the clientele at one theater talks a lot, stop going there and try one across town instead.

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (1)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095775)

You want replies from people who aren't huge fans, but you posted this before most people get off work today. Only a true fan would skip work/school to watch a movie.

He has no work, you insensitive clod!

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (3, Interesting)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095779)

I went to see the midnight release in IMax and thought it was amazing. I was worried about the changed ending, but after seeing it, it works very well. The cinematography and choice of music was spot on and even though a lot of people bitched about the slow-mo fighting I thought it looked cool. Had one person with us who hadn't read the books and she thought the movie was "good" and she enjoyed it. I wouldn't call myself a huge fan by any stretch (the first time I read the comic was only a few months ago), but I did enjoy the comic and I think they did a good job on the movie. Oh, and yes I did go to work today, I'm just a bit tired now is all.

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (2, Interesting)

Chruisan (1040302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096005)

Ditto on the Midnight show. It looked really cool in the trailers. I have never read the comic. I was a little lost, and some of it seemed pretty drawn out. Visually awesome/beautiful. Good story, but don't go into it thinking black and white/good and bad. More like a distopian society that doesn't care about right and wrong anymore. Some very dark themes in the story.

I'm going to have to read the comic, sorry graphic novel, now.

Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096557)

Was the showing on IMAX letterbox (35mm film with a zoom lens to fill the middle 60% of the imax screen) or crop/pan&scan (4:3 film filling 95% of the imax screen)? I stopped seeing non-IMAX movies on widescreen because they seemed to be in random formats. If they advertised which was which then I would know which ones to go see, but it is a complete mystery right up to the moment the movie starts.

I'm confused... (2, Funny)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095153)

Where's the link to TFA?

Re:I'm confused... (1)

Ninnle Labs, LLC (1486095) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095177)

There is no article. This is just a post by Rob giving his opinion of the movie.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095697)

Well in this case you should ask about TFT, and I guess you could look for it in mininova.

Re:I'm confused... (5, Informative)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095787)

It took some searching, but here's the link to TFA [slashdot.org] .

Re:I'm confused... (1)

ballwall (629887) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096129)

Infinite recursion hurts my brain.

what's the other one? (2, Interesting)

mckwant (65143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095187)

Graphic novel dilettante here, just curious. Sandman?

Re:what's the other one? (1)

pdabbadabba (720526) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095495)

I would think so.

Warning to all mods: joke alert (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095687)

Judging by the summary it might be 300 - not that I was aware that was ever a comic.

Re:Warning to all mods: joke alert (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096019)

It was a graphic novel, but that's not the "other answer" he was referring to. The only reason 300 was mentioned was because Snyder directed it. It was an important graphic novel, but not even in the same league as Watchmen. Yes, the other possibility is Sandman.

300 was more in the league of "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" or "Sin City". Which is to say important, but not seminal.

Re:what's the other one? (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095707)

Graphic novel dilettante here, just curious. Sandman?

Sandman makes sense, but it's a series in ten volumes. Watchmen is a one-off. Personally I'd guess you'd get three answers if you asked around the nerd population: Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and The Dark Knight Returns.

Death, the High Cost of Living (1)

huckamania (533052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096089)

I always wanted to see this one up on the screen. For those that don't know, Death was a recurring figure in Sandman.

Re:what's the other one? (1)

dhermann (648219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095883)

V for Vendetta, most likely. Although Maus should really be interchangeable with either of them, if we're discussing "importance".

Re:what's the other one? (1)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095959)

Dark Knight Returns

It's just been reviewed - not good (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095191)

I just saw the BBC review on their NEWS TV channel (review available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/review/7926222.stm [bbc.co.uk] ), one word springs to mind: turkey

Not very "Family Friendly" either (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095767)

Too much graphic sex and foul language.

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095889)

lolwut? That's my favorite thing about the movie. It wasn't made for 10 year old kids.

Now I want to see it even more.

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (5, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095947)

Too much graphic sex and foul language.

It's rated R for a reason, and several plot summaries I've read use words like "dystopian" and "gritty" so it boggles the mind how so many people are upset the movie isn't "family friendly", like they somehow expect an R rated movie to have fluffy bunnies farting rainbows or something.

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (5, Funny)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096025)

they somehow expect an R rated movie to have fluffy bunnies farting rainbows or something.

Sooner or later someone will make a highly disturbing R rated movie with bunnies who fart rainbows and you'll eat those words.

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096205)

It should co-star Bruce Campbell and Nathan Fillion.

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (4, Funny)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096237)

Happy Tree Friends?

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096301)

Happy Tree Friends?

That's it!

Happy Tree Friends the movie!

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096183)

They probably heard it was based on a comic book and assumed that comics = family friendly. News for parents: Watchmen is not The Avengers or The Justice League. Watchmen is what those comics would be like if they were in real life. And real life is not family unfriendly.

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096339)

it boggles the mind how so many people are upset the movie isn't "family friendly"

It's just that some people are of the misconception that comicbook+superheroes="entertainment for kids". It doesn't matter how many times you tell people that this isn't the case.

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (2, Funny)

electricprof (1410233) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096495)

I believe that fluffy bunnies farting rainbows would currently receive an "R" for graphic depiction of greenhouse gases.

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (1)

JeanPaulBob (585149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096555)

It's rated R for a reason, and several plot summaries I've read use words like "dystopian" and "gritty" so it boggles the mind how so many people are upset the movie isn't "family friendly", like they somehow expect an R rated movie to have fluffy bunnies farting rainbows or something.

Well, this particular AC didn't sound upset. He just commented.

But yeah, the proper response to "Hmm, this R-rated movie isn't family friendly" would be "Duh!"

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096607)

like they somehow expect an R rated movie to have fluffy bunnies farting rainbows

Of course not!
That would earn the movie an X rating.

Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (5, Insightful)

ildon (413912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096223)

You're right. I see an "R" rating and immediately think "family friendly".

Re:It's just been reviewed - not good (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095887)

Newsnight Review think everything that anyone has heard of is a turkey though; they only like films that are very obscure and hugely pretentious - if they can find one that's not in English then it's a bonus.

Re:It's just been reviewed - not good (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096023)

After seeing this movie, anyone who thinks it's a turkey is either a moron or saw a different movie than I did, and if the lines I saw are anything to go by I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Notwatchmen (5, Funny)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095201)

I have not read the book, nor seen the movie. It was great! How's that for an untainted opinion?

A good review from a non fanboi (4, Informative)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095489)

Roger Ebert [suntimes.com]

Re:A good review from a non fanboi (3, Informative)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095737)

A few other interesting reviews:

Onion AV Club review. [avclub.com]
Massawyrm's review [aintitcool.com] (which I was surprised at.)

Re:A good review from a non fanboi (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095901)

*snort* Yeah, maybe back in the 80's I'd have given that review some credence. The fact is he's gone soft; I like the old beat-down Ebert trading body-blows with Siskel, but the post-sickly man he's become makes me doubt pretty much anything he writes these days. I have a feeling Siskel is looking down from Heaven (or up from Hell as the case may be) and slowly shaking his head at the drivel passing as critical review from Ebert's withered, watered-down, like-everything style.

It's too bad but the fact remains: Ebert needs to be put down like a sick animal.

=Smidge=

Re:A good review from a non fanboi (1)

shma (863063) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096381)

And a bad review [chicagotribune.com] from a non-fanboy, whichever suits your preference.

Ebert, since his unfortunate brush with death, seems to have had an spiritual awakening and realized that every movie is beautiful in its own way. A great outlook perhaps, but not very useful for a critic.

There are plenty of other [metacritic.com] reviews out there, both kind and unkind, if you wish to read them (be warned: many have spoilers).

Business expense? (1)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095535)

In a blatant attempt to make my movie-going a valid business expense,...

To get reimbursed from the parent company, to increase Slashdot's losses or all the above?

Re:Business expense? (1)

lastchance_000 (847415) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095673)

Taxes.

Re:Business expense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096445)

Probably for write-off purposes.

Who watches The Watchmen watchers? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095623)

You should be shot at your next audit for submitting the worst movie review ever.

I can't say is if it was a good movie or not

Then what are you doing here to add editorial value beyond letting the reader/posters do ALL the heavy lifting?

This continues the sad state of the Slashdot editorial. This goes beyond phoning it in.

Re:Who watches The Watchmen watchers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095667)

This goes beyond phoning it in.

You're right, judging by his formatting I would say he was lynxing it in.

Re:Who watches The Watchmen watchers? (0, Troll)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095733)

No kidding. I think this was basically a, "HAHA, I saw the movie and you probably didn't. And by the way, you sucker subscribers even paid for my popcorn and gas to drive to the theater."

Where? (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095647)

I'm putting together some notes on Watchmen, and providing a place for you all to discuss it.

Where is this place you speak of? I don't see a link or anything...
Oh, wait...

Your sig... (1)

Grog6 (85859) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095807)

To :"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

I would reply:

But it sure is satisfyingly final.

Never Read it, but (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095699)

Alan Moore's Judge Dredd was a major part of my staple fiction diet during my youth. Those stories were dark, amusing, insightful, prophetic, and downright nasty and callous in places.

All in all excellent stuff, with some stories that still make me dig out my collection.
Yup, still got every one up in my loft, as bought from the newsagent each week as they came out.

Never read Watchment though, to be honest I hadn't heard of it till this movie. My main fascination is SF pulp from the fifties and sixties though, so I kind of hang out elsewhere in the SF biosphere.

How does it compare to Judge Dredd? (anyone who thinks I mean that godawful film needn't reply..)

Re:Never Read it, but (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096143)

john Wagner's Judge Dredd

Fixed that for you.

How does it compare to Judge Dredd?

Very well. For all the love I have for JD, he's an interesting character (and concept) poorly served by a large number of rote and repetitive plots as well as being almost completely misunderstood by the fanbase.

Re:Never Read it, but (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096261)

He co-wrote it. I have the comics here.

Re:Never Read it, but (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096417)

I have the comics here.

Better pull them out, then. You may be thinking of Alan Grant, but John Wagner wrote most of it solo.

Re:Never Read it, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096185)

Um... Moore never had anything to do with Dredd. He did write some things which appeared in 2000AD alongside Dredd, such as Halo Jones and DR & Quinch.

Sorry, that wasn't Alan Moore (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096293)

Alan Moore did some work for 2000 A.D. (the magazine that featured Judge Dredd), some of it famous, but I'm not sure that he ever wrote a Judge Dredd story. Most of the famous Judge Dredd story arcs were written by Judge Dredd co-creator John Wagner.

This will do terribly at the box office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095715)

Afterall, who watches the watchmen?

Re:This will do terribly at the box office (1)

dhermann (648219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095937)

It's like there's nothing you can do about that joke. It's coming, and you just have to stand there.

Re:This will do terribly at the box office (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096267)

h/t for the West Wing reference

Blue penis (4, Funny)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095717)

15 minutes of oblique tit vs. 45 minutes of full frontal blue dong. Feminism is out of control.

Re:Blue penis (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095735)

sorry, I meant 15 seconds

Re:Blue penis (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096147)

sorry, I meant 15 seconds

It is 3:06 PM. You will be making a mistake twelve minutes ago.

The ending is ruined though (2, Interesting)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095729)

They ditched the giant squid in the end and blamed everything on Dr. Manhattan instead. The people who made the movie claimed that part had the same effect as the book. Really that's nothing like the book, and it misses the whole point. Makes me wonder what mook decided that'd be a better ending than the original.

Re:The ending is ruined though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095981)

Hmm, personally I always though the giant squid thing was stupid myself.

Re:The ending is ruined though (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096211)

the entire premise is that people have to unite against the aliens in order to not blow themselves apart. The methods being debated is a simple ends vs means question. The squid may have been a bit silly, but it had to be alien.

The hero was victorious, but not acting hero-like, and in fact was the antagonist.

If that is ripped out for cleanliness, then it is settled for me, I am not going to watch this film.

Re:The ending is ruined though (3, Interesting)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096111)

I agree totally. The original ending galvanized humanity into working together and would eventually lead them into space and exploration searching for a reason as to why this occurred. This new ending basically put the fear of a angry new god into them. I would rather we expanded into space to learn then to cower in fear of a vengeful god should I develop something he might not like me having. I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

One thing gives me hope (4, Informative)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095763)

I've seen a lot of book-to-movie attempts. Some are watchable, like Lord of the Rings. Some are not, like Dune. I can't help myself. I'm nitpicky. Occasionally very nitpicky.

But I'm keeping high hopes that The Watchmen will not be too far off the mark. Why you ask?

Because Kevin Smith liked it. [slashfilm.com]

Let's face it - he's probably a bigger comic book geek than almost all of us. And if it passes muster with him, it may just be great.

Here's my spoiler free rundown (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27095799)

I read the graphic novel one week and watched the Motion Comic before I saw the movie this morning at 12:00 AM. Here are a few notes:

a. The movie has a long runtime: Watchmen covers a lot of material. I think I left the theatre at 3:00 AM. Make sure you have the endurance to enjoy the entire film.

b. Watchmen can be confusing: The movie can be a bit of a challenge to follow if you are not familiar with the graphic novel. I had to explain parts of the movie to a friend who had never read the comic 10 times, namely information regarding the Minutemen and the Crimestoppers, and the differences between the two generations. The movie does a good job of giving a backstory, but it can be a lot to keep track of.

c. There's nudity. If you read the graphic novel, you know what to expect. Come in with a mature mindset, and you will do a good job. Come with a theatre of teenagers and you will get some silly snickers during some serious scenes. Anyone familiar with the comic should know which of thes I am refering to.

d. Careful if you watched the Watchmen Motion Comic: If your first experience was with the Watchmen Motion Comic, you may be disappointed at some parts. Namely because the WMC will have you expecting voices to be in a certain way. After reading the graphic novel, I watched the WMC and I associated the voice of Dr. Manhattan with my images of him. I was a bit upset hearing the voice actor for Manhattan. He did a good job on his performance, though.

e. Don't come into this expecting 300: This is a crime thriller, not a beat-em-up movie. Sure, it has some good violence and action if that's what one is looking for, however, the real meat and bones is in the storyline and how it deconstructs the superhero concept.

That's about it. They did as good of a job as was possible considering time, budget, and fanboy limitations.

That's about it...

my non fanbooy review. (3, Interesting)

YoungComputerTech69 (1262044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095815)

Have never read a single one of the comics, nor even read many comics in general, and I thought the movie was F#$%^^& awesome. Rorschach's lines felt kinda forced into the movie for the first 1/3 is the only complaint I can think of, but it didn't hurt the movie. Also although they do have sex scenes galore it felt like they belonged in the movie unlike most movies nowadays where they just suddenly go off plot for a gratuitous sex scene to help the movie sell. Although Dr. Manhattan didn't need to be showing off quite so much. [I saw it in the morning so I wouldn't have to deal with crowds, my work hours are flexible]

My Review (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095817)

Watchmen sucks.
There are a few fans on the internet. They did their damnedest to hype this thing up because they have nothing better to do. They claimed the movie would be great.

All indications point to it sucking hard, while making you watch unnecessarily long slow-mo, sex, and blue-sausage-for-no-reason scenes.
All indications point to it being too damn long, too damn emo. If you're wondering, yes, this is an accurate representation of the source material, though some stuff was obviously trimmed.

The movie sucks for two reasons. The source material, let's face it, is trash. The director is also trash. No amount of internet hype from the fans will save it.

If you consider Watchmen an important comic, you're a tool. If you're handing out awards for the most "important" comic, that of course goes to Superman. Comic book nerds will always bitch about their favorites, they'll always be trying to reconcile the horrible writing and multiple universes, and they'll always be a bunch of rabble.
Casual comic fans (the kind who no longer read comics because it's impossible to keep up with the multiple universes and other shit, the kind who see the trailer for Wolverine and wonder why he has bone claws, not knowing it was sloppily retconned in later) will see Watchmen as an emo piece of shit and will warn others to stay far away. They will compare it to more "traditional" comic book movies such as Spiderman, Superman, and X-Men. As such, Watchmen will be a failure at the box office.

Watchmen non-fan (3, Insightful)

mknewman (557587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095819)

I am a non-fan (ducks). Over the years I have heard all the hype about how important it is, Time 100 Top Novels, etc. 2 weeks ago I bought it, read it, and then found the script for the movie on the 'net and read that too. I didn't like the book. In reality, it's not a book but just 12 comics pasted together with a bit of fluff inserted that really didn't have anything to do with the plot. The whole "Graphic Novel" thing just doesn't do it for me, I read comics as a kid, this is no different. The characters are weakly written, because of the format there is very little real information on a page (I especially remember the one page with 4 or 5 panels with only the words "Ahhhhhhh" or similar. The plot itself wasn't bad but the ending in the 'novel' was totally weak, and from what I read in the script should be very much better in the movie. The whole pirate subtext was awful. I would have been much happier without reading it. I understand that it's going to come out this summer in the extended DVD edition. Oh, and the whole manic depressive omnipotent mass murderer in love with a human was just ridiculous. Ok, now with all the bashing out of the way I'll say that I have high hopes for the movie as a visual implementation of the book, and must say that I think the book must be a perfect ready-built storyboard for the movie. From what I read Zach Snyder lived with a copy under his arm and so for once, mostly, the novelist and artist's vision are going to be implemented as they intended. So, yes, I will go see it, I'll probobly even like it, but I've given my copy of the book away. BTW, I'm not the only one that just isn't feeling it: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/popvox/archive/2009/03/04/don-t-believe-the-watchmen-hype-really-don-t.aspx [newsweek.com]

Re:Watchmen non-fan (4, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096533)

Watchmen is like Star Wars. You must experience it at age 18 or younger to appreciate it. Youre just too old. To adults, the characters are unrealistic, the plot is uninteresting, the love story silly, the ending illogical, and the tough guy machismo boring. To kids and teens its nectar of the gods. Its firmly in the realm of nostalgic stuff.

Growing up sucks, eh?

Faithful representation of source material (2, Insightful)

dctoastman (995251) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095847)

Ultimately, Watchmen was a faithful representation of the source material. You can read the book and base your opinion of whether or not you will enjoy the movie on your opinion of the book.

I found that the actors portraying Nite Owl II, Rorschach, and Dr. Manhattan were excellent in their roles. There were so many little atmospheric touches, I missed them all (looking through the credits, you'll see acknowledgments and thanks for use of clips from various shows and movies, I didn't see half of those in the movie itself).

your first mistake... (1)

inerlogic (695302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095941)

was having high hopes.....

we all should know better by now....

Saw it at 12:01 (4, Informative)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27095993)

Very faithful except for the ending which is still faithful to the idea of the ending.

There were a few scenes in the first hour that were a little loose or slow. that's not it.
Here it is: The movie had a great sound track but a lousy score. The background "emotion" music (that made star wars great) was average. the sound track was the biggest change in the "feel" of the novel to me.

The characters were great except veigt was about 20 pounds too light imho.

There is a lot of stuff there for the fan which is meaningless to someone who hasn't read the comic first. It's not bad- it just doesn't connect emotionally because you see some secondary characters or scenes without the 30 panels of buildup you got in the comic.

Some things were the same as the comic but came across a LOT differently.
Never has so much swinging male private parts been on display. Much more impact when it's swinging around than on the printed page.
The sex scenes had a lot more impact and were more *real* than many sex scenes in many other movies. the awkwardness of it is frequently dropped from "hollywood reality". it was amazing. this added a lot ot the suspension of disbelief for the rest of the film.
The violence was extreme. In the panel, it's one thing-- on the screen- it's disturbing. This is not a kid's movie even if they edit out the nudity.

Was very satisfied- understood the edits and changes that were made. Recommend it- but you'll get more out of it if you read the graphic novel first.

And what is with hendrix being the new SF catch song...

WATCHMAN READER vs NEWBIE review (3, Insightful)

gordm (562752) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096003)

I've read it but asked a friend who hadn't read WATCHMEN to see the movie with me so we could review it. Our discussion is the video at the end of this review (the review focuses more on Alan Moore not wanting to see the movie than our different experiences watching it). http://r4nt.com/article/watchmen-the-what-is-alans-problem-review/ [r4nt.com] ...and the video itself can be found at either location (use blip for CC license)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY7fCCmUxs8 [youtube.com] http://blip.tv/file/1844574/ [blip.tv] In a nutshell he never read it, but he is a comic geek, and he loved it and is seeing it again today. I HAD read the comic but don't consider myself a comic guy. I also loved it. Certainly the most interesting Alan Moore adaptation yet. In terms of quality, to ME its the best, followed by FFROM HELL and V FOR VENDETTA. He was never confused during the screening, and never felt anything was missing. Nor did I. Obviously stuff IS missing, and a longer version is coming. But it stands on its own as an excellent movie.

Overall: Loved It (1)

BobReturns (1424847) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096083)

In general I loved the movie, excellent soundtrack, almost as good as the graphic novel.

3 Issues However:
1: Where was my squid
2: Because of the lack of squid, the comedian's finding out of Ozzys plan didn't work too well, it's not as clear as it is in the novel how he found out about it.
3: I felt Ozzy could have been fleshed out a lot more - they showed very little of his backstory or motivations.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096107)

It was a really really good movie. Followed the Comic very closely for most portions, the new ending was a twist, it lead to the same end-game, but just a different method of getting there. They did leave off a lot, but since it's a movie they had to, stuff like the newsstand sequences, and a few back stories. There were a few points that were pointless, IE the sex scenes, and a lot of man-ass, scenes that when you buy it you will most likely skip over.

Out of 100, I'd give it something like an 85, Very good adaptation, good visuals, but some things could have been left out.

Re:Great (1)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096485)

I haven't see it yet, but I really liked the newstand sequences for the emotional pull to NYC, although in a post-9/11 world it may all too easy to absorb this tragedy in. And I never really saw a point for Doc Manhattan's Bluetooth dongle in the novel, I'd hoped he'd at least keep his briefs on for the film.

Looking forward to it (4, Informative)

steveha (103154) | more than 5 years ago | (#27096177)

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to see it as soon as I can. I was hoping this wouldn't get screwed up, and signs indicate that it hasn't.

The surest way to screw it up would have been to get Tim Burton [imdb.com] or Paul Verhoeven [imdb.com] to direct it; they don't seem to be able to make a movie based on a book without wanting to change things and put their own fingerprints on it. (I'd love to watch a Starship Troopers [wikipedia.org] movie. Too bad we didn't actually get one [sff.net] .)

Everyone agrees that a perfect, 100% faithful adaptation is impossible, unless you do it as a miniseries that is around 12 hours long. The best we can hope for is that the screenwriter and director do a good job of streamlining the story and keeping the important parts intact. Kevin Smith [slashfilm.com] says that this has been done.

I've read several reviews, and they illustrate how impossible it is to walk the tightrope. The movie keeps large chunks of the original dialog intact, and reviews have complained about dialog-heavy, boring long scenes. As a fan of Alan Moore's writing, I'm expecting that I will like or love these "boring" scenes. You can't please everyone.

I read an interview with the director, Zack Snyder. He said the movie studios pushed on him to cut some of the more shocking scenes, such as a rape, and a scene where a pregnant woman gets shot; but the scenes were important to the story, and he got them kept in. In the book, the alienation of Dr. Manhatten is shown visually in the way he stops bothering to wear clothes; this is kept as well. The pirate-themed side story would have made the movie too long... but they filmed it anyway and it will be available as its own feature on DVD.

I read that Zack Snyder gave each actor a copy of the graphic novel, and authorized them to edit their characters' dialog to more closely match the graphic novel. I have real hope that this movie will make me happy as a Watchmen fan.

P.S. Alan Moore is not happy with it, but as far as I can tell, he is automatically not happy with any attempt to turn his work into a movie. You could get Peter Jackson with an unlimited budget, and he still would not be happy. I read that they offered to have him help with the adaptation, but he declined. (Which makes perfect sense... that way he can complain about everything, and no one can say "well, you had the power to change that, why didn't you?")

steveha

This movie will be critically acclaimed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096429)

I haven't even seen the film, but I know this for a certainty. Why? Because most movie reviewers are gay. This movie has discovered that the way to a reviewers heart is not to titillate the teenage boys in the audience with partial female nudity, but to find a way to dangle a little dongle on the screen.
This strategy appears to be working. Reviewers are enthralled with the film even though they fully admit how boring and long-winded it is. There's just something about it that they can't quite put their finger on...although they would certainly like to :-)

You answered your own question! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27096439)

In spite of your fanboy perspective, you write:
"what I can't say is if it was a good movie or not."
"I imagine a bit slow, wordy and maybe a bit confusing in parts."

i.e. It's not a good movie.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>