Ready to be jealous? I just saw Watchmen

[Cavlaw]

I read the book recently and enjoyed it. I'm not a huge graphic novel fan, but I picked up "The Dark Knight Returns" maybe 15 years ago and liked it, so when I heard "Watchmen" was even better I had to give it a go.

I'm now fairly excited to see the movie, whereas beforehand I had no interest in it. If it's good, I anticipate picking up the DVD to see the director's cut and the "Tales of the Black Freighter" feature.

I'll probably catch a matinee tomorrow morning, and will report back with my thoughts.

[2535Miles]

--Jason "I'd be interested in hearing about someone seeing the movie and then reading the book-- Brevity, you up for this?" Evans

I haven't read the book yet. But, like the guys on your radio show, I did some research and was really familiar with the history of the graphic novel. It's on my book wishlist now.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. We went to the IMAX Late Show (2:00 AM this morning) and it was packed! Even though I haven't read the graphic novel, I feel like this was a great transition from print to film. The story was fantastic and I'm really looking forward to picking up the graphic novel.

The interesting thing my buddy and I noticed was all of the people commenting on the rating as we walked out of the theatre. A lot of them, my buddy included, felt like the movie deserved a NC-17 rating. Ignoring the blatant discrepancies and lack of oversight by the MPAA, I found myself starting to agree with my buddy. The violence was graphic, but I felt like it was necessary. Can anyone comment on the level of gore and violence in the novel?

P.S. Great plug for Duke Jason!!!

[JasonEvans]

I haven't read the book yet. But, like the guys on your radio show, I did some research and was really familiar with the history of the graphic novel. It's on my book wishlist now.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. We went to the IMAX Late Show (2:00 AM this morning) and it was packed! Even though I haven't read the graphic novel, I feel like this was a great transition from print to film. The story was fantastic and I'm really looking forward to picking up the graphic novel.

The interesting thing my buddy and I noticed was all of the people commenting on the rating as we walked out of the theatre. A lot of them, my buddy included, felt like the movie deserved a NC-17 rating. Ignoring the blatant discrepancies and lack of oversight by the MPAA, I found myself starting to agree with my buddy. The violence was graphic, but I felt like it was necessary. Can anyone comment on the level of gore and violence in the novel?

P.S. Great plug for Duke Jason!!!

Thanks for listening to my radio appearance. It is a fun gig. I am surprised how many friends around town tell me they hear it when they are riding in their cars and the such. I nailed all my on-air Oscar picks a couple weeks ago, which was nice

As for the film's rating-- I think NC-17 would be a bit much. The sex is not gratuitous, in my opinion. There is really only one steamy sex scene. The male full-frontal nudity is not pervasive and does not seem sexual. So, I do not see it being NC-17 based on the sex.

Yes, it is gory at times, but it is certainly no worse than most horror films these days. I don't see the gore as being any worse than Saw or Hostel or even a Friday the 13th type film. In fact, I found the blood to be used in a mostly tasteful fashion-- it helped tell the story. It was not just there to titillate and shock the audience. For example, at the end of the most violence scene in the movie-- the prison scene-- the blood that comes out of the bathroom door is 100% necessary to understanding that scene. Heck, one could almost praise the movie for not showing us more of what happened in the bathroom that caused the blood.

Anyway, I think R is 100% the correct rating for this film. NC-17 would have been an outrageous rating.

--Jason "eager to hear what others who saw it felt about it" Evans

[2535Miles]

Thanks for listening to my radio appearance. It is a fun gig. I am surprised how many friends around town tell me they hear it when they are riding in their cars and the such. I nailed all my on-air Oscar picks a couple weeks ago, which was nice

As for the film's rating-- I think NC-17 would be a bit much. The sex is not gratuitous, in my opinion. There is really only one steamy sex scene. The male full-frontal nudity is not pervasive and does not seem sexual. So, I do not see it being NC-17 based on the sex.

Yes, it is gory at times, but it is certainly no worse than most horror films these days. I don't see the gore as being any worse than Saw or Hostel or even a Friday the 13th type film. In fact, I found the blood to be used in a mostly tasteful fashion-- it helped tell the story. It was not just there to titillate and shock the audience. For example, at the end of the most violence scene in the movie-- the prison scene-- the blood that comes out of the bathroom door is 100% necessary to understanding that scene. Heck, one could almost praise the movie for not showing us more of what happened in the bathroom that caused the blood.

Anyway, I think R is 100% the correct rating for this film. NC-17 would have been an outrageous rating.

--Jason "eager to hear what others who saw it felt about it" Evans

I definitely agree that the sex scenes and the full-frontal nudity do nothing to warrant a NC17 rating. For this movie, I think the violence would be the only reason to even consider the NC17 rating. Hollywood seems willing to accept graphic violence as a perfectly normal, every day activity that any child should be able to watch with the accompaniment of a legal guardian. Movies like Saw and Hostel disturb me greatly and I think their R ratings are more suspect that Watchmens. Yet, I had the feeling that most of the violence was adapted from the novel and quite necessary to the story and character development. See the Comedian's flashback scenes with Silk Spectre; it may be difficult to watch, but it was a crucial part of the story.

So I agree that NC17 is a bit much for this movie and I'm not leaving towards agreeing with my buddy anymore.

[JasonEvans]

55 million for the opening weekend-- not nearly as much as I had expected. I figured it would be more like 65 or 70... at least. This flick is gonna come up well short of $200 million, I bet.

I am disappointed that more of the "fanboys" on the DBR have not chimed in. Didn't anyone else see this over the weekend? Come on people!! The most anticipated movie of the year so far!

-Jason

[BD80]

... The crowd was laughing out loud several times ...

... I am disappointed that more of the "fanboys" on the DBR have not chimed in. Didn't anyone else see this over the weekend? Come on people!! The most anticipated movie of the year so far!

Great movie! Didn't read the graphic novel, but read up enough to understand the premise and the characters. Still don't understand what the machine on Mars was. I am old enough to have appreciated many of the Easter eggs, such as Warhol's showing of Ozymandias illustrations/paintings with Truman Capote in attendance, but am also so old that the term "fanboy" seems pejorative.

My teenage sons and I loved the movie, but I was enraged at some of the shortcuts - like Veidt using the easily hacked "Ramses II" as a password on his computer! Using "12345" would at least have made me laugh.

I appreciated the bits of levity thrown in, but felt too often that I was the only one laughing. I greatly enjoyed the development of the characters and their motivation for being "heroes." The ending was an interesting twist to that development. I am anxious now to read the graphic novel to enjoy the original ending.

I recommend the movie highly, with the caution that it is graphically violent. I for one believe that science fiction or fantasy can be great fiction, and don't automatically lump them into a category with comics. This has a good story and it is well told in a very visually stimulating fashion.

Does anyone know if there is a list compiling the easter eggs from the movie? I get a bit annoyed trying to catch then all while I am trying to follow the plot. I will go back to see the movie again - this time in IMAX - and see how many more I can catch.

[brevity]

Using "12345" would at least have made me laugh.

"1-2-3-4-5? That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!"

(Sorry, saw Spaceballs over the weekend.)

Jason: if I happen to find myself in a bookstore, I'll take a look. But I wasn't willing to pay for the movie -- early screenings are free -- so I doubt I'd seek out the source material. Sorry.

[JasonEvans]

My teenage sons and I loved the movie, but I was enraged at some of the shortcuts - like Veidt using the easily hacked "Ramses II" as a password on his computer! Using "12345" would at least have made me laugh.

Recall that the movie takes place in the mid-1980s, before complex passwords and cyber security were real issues in society. Plus, I am not sure that Veidt did not want to be discovered. The "smartest man in the world" has real ego issues

The object on Mars was the inside of a watch. Dr. Manhattan's father was a watch maker and forced his son to study watch repair techniques. As a result, the young Jon Osterman became very good at seeing how things worked and putting them together from a bunch of different pieces. As a result, when his body is torn into a million little pieces by the "Intrinsic Field thingy" his consciousness is able to figure out how to put himself back together. At the end, when Veidt tricks him into another Intrinsic Field thing and taers him apart again, he quips, "learning how to reassemble myself was one of my first tricks," when he reappears as a giant and grabs Adrian.

My favorite "easter egg" moment was The Comedian putting the gun away on the grassy knoll. Nice!

--Jason "here is a question-- which character did you like best, who was the hero of the story?" Evans

[Cavlaw]

Still haven't seen it, was tied up this weekend. Planning on a Saturday matinee. We'll see.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I finally got to see Watchmen, and as one of the long-time fanboys who was more than apprehensive, I'm happy to say that I came away very impressed. Obviously Snyder went to great lengths to make the movie as faithful to the book as possible. In fact, I'd echo the sentiments I've heard from others that, if anything, he went too far. The Onion folks suggested that he seemed to use the panels of the book as almost a storyboard, and I think there's some truth in that. We lost a lot of the "film vocabulary" in terms of lenses/camera moves, etc. in favor of forcing actors to replicate specific panels.

I felt that Watchmen had some amazing setpieces: Dr. Manhattan's origin, the funeral, and the opening (set to "The Times They Are A-Changin'") all blew me away. I'd also join Jason in saying that the new ending was, IMO, better than Moore's original. Once more folks have had a chance to see the movie we can hash that out some more.

Some of the performances were a bit wooden (Malin Ackerman, I'm looking at you) but I thought that Crudup and especially Haley were masterful (Christian Bale, that is how you rasp without sounding like Cookie Monster). The slow-motion fight scenes felt a bit played out to me (it was cool in 300 and V for Vendetta, but didn't add much here).

Unfortunately, I think Watchmen is stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of length and we sort of got the worst of both worlds. Watchmen is just too long for the average moviegoer who has no investment in the work/characters and I'm not surprised that there have been complaints about it feeling cold and disjointed.

OTOH, viewers familiar with the book are probably going to miss the reported hour that was cut. A lot of folks have hit the missing scenes/themes, but I'd add The New Frontiersman, the "Jupiter" family's ethnicity, a lot of the older generation (Hooded Justice's fate, all the original Nite Owl's stuff including his end, and Captain Metropolis), and the origin of Rorschach's mask. Heck, I really missed the documentary interludes.

Overall, I probably won't see it in theaters again, but am eagerly anticipating the Director's Cut DVD. I am very happy with what Snyder has done, but I'm not sure it has the commercial appeal to either drag in new viewers (too long and confusing) or drum up repeat viewings by fanboys like me (too much missing, why not wait for the "real" version on DVD?) Still, Watchmen has been a Hollywood White Whale for decades and it was wonderful to see it realized on screen. Hopefully it makes enough in theaters and convinces enough folks to check out the book and then buy the DVD. Great works like this need to be made and I hope the numbers add up for the studios so that they will continue to be.

[bjornolf]

I am a fan of the few graphic novels that I have read, but I haven't gotten a chance to check out "Watchmen" yet. I am in line at my library, and if I like it, I'll pick it up at Books-A-Million. I don't get out to movies as much as I'd like, and it sounds like the DVD is going to have SO much more. I'll probably wait for the Blu-Ray and go watch it on my friends 12 foot screen.

[JasonEvans]

Resurrecting an old thread for this news...

Damon Lindelhoff is doing a Watchmen series for HBO. Color me excited! The movie has not aged well for me, perhaps because I now hate Zach Snyder for what he has done to the DC movies, but I am eager for a TV series with a nice budget that can tell the story over a little more time.

[bjornolf]

Resurrecting an old thread for this news...

Damon Lindelhoff is doing a Watchmen series for HBO. Color me excited! The movie has not aged well for me, perhaps because I now hate Zach Snyder for what he has done to the DC movies, but I am eager for a TV series with a nice budget that can tell the story over a little more time.

That DOES sound cool. Who’s going to be in it?

[FerryFor50]

Resurrecting an old thread for this news...

Damon Lindelhoff is doing a Watchmen series for HBO. Color me excited! The movie has not aged well for me, perhaps because I now hate Zach Snyder for what he has done to the DC movies, but I am eager for a TV series with a nice budget that can tell the story over a little more time.

I still like the movie, despite Malin Ackerman’s weak acting and Zach Snyder.

That said, the Watchmen has had a bit of a revival with the DC New 52 reboot, where that universe meets the Batman/Flash universe.

768AB6A5-386E-4648-8AEF-BB625ECE92C1.jpg

[Matches]

Watchmen is so quintessentially a comic book, and a story that is so much ABOUT comic books, that I feel like adapting it into other media misses the point. The movie was more or less a shot-by-shot recreation of the comic and IMO didn't work at all.

Doomsday Clock (the current comic series where the Watchmen characters are in the DC Universe) is pretty cool so far though. Batman and Rorschach interacting (albeit a new Rorschach) has been cool.

[Kdogg]

Somewhere in a town in England, Alan Moore is praying at the alter of his snake god to curse the production.

I love comic books. I love comic book movies. I love comic book tv shows but sometimes I wish they would leave some properties alone.

[JasonEvans]

Somewhere in a town in England, Alan Moore is praying at the alter of his snake god to curse the production.

What makes you think Alan Moore wants this to fail? Has he vocally spoken out against the movie or the proposed TV show?

[CameronBornAndBred]

What makes you think Alan Moore wants this to fail? Has he vocally spoken out against the movie or the proposed TV show?

He loathed the movie. Famously. Before and after it was made.

Alan Moore on ‘Watchmen’ movie: ‘I will be spitting venom all over it.’

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/uncat...an-moore-on-w/

[left_hook_lacey]

Your view is correct. The book makes it quite clear that the costumed fighters are not heroes, but merely regular people who have taken on this role in society. Most of them are in peak physical condition and are extremely well trained in the martial arts or something like that -- plus they have a lot of experience at fighting so they kick some butt -- but they do not have "superpowers."

In other words, they are more Batman than Spiderman or Superman.

Oh, except for Dr. Manhattan -- who is so powerful it is almost annoying. The book does a better job than the movie of explaining his visions of the future and how to resolve that with the overall ending.

--Jason "I'd be interested in hearing about someone seeing the movie and then reading the book-- Brevity, you up for this?" Evans

So, it's like Kick-I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this., for grown ups?

[Matches]

So, it's like Kick-I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this., for grown ups?

Eh. I see how you could get that, but not really. KA is kind of a weird revenge fantasy. Watchmen is a deconstruction of the entire concept of superheroes. It really examines what kind of people would choose to dress up in costumes and engage in vigilante activities, and what sort of impact their activities would have on the world. It's not just that Watchmen is smarter or more mature than KA (though it definitely is) - Watchmen is commenting on a genre or medium in a way that KA does not attempt.