# Watchmen Movie - 24 mins. screened for press, and they love it



## sakeido (Oct 3, 2008)

The movie is clocking in at two hours, forty five minutes right now. 

ROTTEN TOMATOES: The Net Reacts to 25 Minutes of Watchmen Footage

...the press loved it, it seems! That article links to some firsthand reports from people who were there. March couldn't come soon enough!


----------



## Decipher (Oct 3, 2008)

Dude, it's killing me to see this movie. Looks like I'll have to read the book yet again just to try and get by.......


----------



## Nick (Oct 3, 2008)

wasnt this axed after a legal battle for the rights to it by a tv network and a movie company?


----------



## HighGain510 (Oct 3, 2008)

I am REALLY looking forward to seeing this when it comes out!!!


----------



## sakeido (Oct 3, 2008)

Nick said:


> wasnt this axed after a legal battle for the rights to it by a tv network and a movie company?



Nope. The lawsuit doesn't proceed until January and with any luck will not delay the release of the movie.


----------



## Holy Katana (Oct 3, 2008)

It's going to be so awesome. All of my friends think it's stupid looking, but the dumb costumes are intentional. None of them have read the graphic novel.


----------



## lefty robb (Oct 3, 2008)

I had the biggest geekgasm during the trailor at Dark Knight. My Buddies and I can't wait for this movie, its totally going to pwn.


----------



## thadood (Oct 5, 2008)

The anticipation is killing me! Ugh! What a fucking tease.


----------



## Pauly (Oct 5, 2008)

See avatar, lol. CAN'T WAIT.


----------



## Decipher (Feb 27, 2009)

I think everyone needs a friendly reminder that this movie is coming out in a WEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hairychris (Feb 27, 2009)

My very nice ex-flatmate has got us tickets for this the Monday after it's released... iMax! 

I'm a bit more nervous then he is about what's been left out or altered. The clips seem to show that in look the film's very close to the book (the Dr Manhattan stuff looks like 100&#37; win) but I'm not sure about what'll be done with the sub stories and the event.


----------



## sakeido (Feb 27, 2009)

The ending was changed. I don't know what it was changed to, but the reviewers who have commented on it said that it ties things up better, cuts out all the extra story so it saves time in the movie, that type of thing.


----------



## bulb (Feb 27, 2009)

i have heard there were some rather needless changes made to adrain veidt's character, but yeah im going to see this one way or another, i have a feeling it will be good, nowhere near the book of course, that goes without saying, but good still, and im glad its going to be long, i honestly wished they had just made a high budget hbo style miniseries out of it so they could get the whole story in haha along with all the subplots and side stories...


----------



## silentrage (Feb 27, 2009)

What is this Watchmen stuff, I feel like I'm missing out on some epicness.


----------



## Holy Katana (Feb 27, 2009)

I'm about to die. All of my friends are going nuts about it, and begging me to lend them my copy, since I guess it's sold out everywhere. We're planning on going next weekend.

I've been waiting far too long for this movie, although certainly not as long as a lot of you guys, since I'm only 17.


----------



## Pauly (Mar 3, 2009)

IMAX tickets this Sat night/Sun morning at 1.15am, only time we could get great seats! Excited. Will be an uncut DVD version that's longer, much like with LOTR, and will also include the Black Freighter stuff. GAWD I'M EXCITED!


----------



## lefty robb (Mar 3, 2009)

Pauly said:


> IMAX tickets this Sat night/Sun morning at 1.15am, only time we could get great seats! Excited. Will be an uncut DVD version that's longer, much like with LOTR, and will also include the Black Freighter stuff. GAWD I'M EXCITED!




argh your killing me, the only IMAX theater near me is 45 min away


----------



## Naren (Mar 4, 2009)

I hope this is released simultaneously worldwide because I want to see this soon. I love the graphic novel.


----------



## Pauly (Mar 5, 2009)

lefty robb said:


> argh your killing me, the only IMAX theater near me is 45 min away



Find a way there! We'll be getting the night bus back from London at 4am but we don't care CUZ WE R 1337!


----------



## MFB (Mar 5, 2009)

lefty robb said:


> argh your killing me, the only IMAX theater near me is 45 min away


 
Wouldn't the nearest one be the one in Stoneham or Reading? There's a Jordan's furniture right near there but I don't think it's a 45 minutes drive from there to Worcester


----------



## technomancer (Mar 5, 2009)

It's not playing at the OMNIMAX here :sigh:

On the bright side I've got tickets for the opening show tomorrow afternoon


----------



## sakeido (Mar 6, 2009)

Pauly said:


> IMAX tickets this Sat night/Sun morning at 1.15am, only time we could get great seats! Excited. Will be an uncut DVD version that's longer, much like with LOTR, and will also include the Black Freighter stuff. GAWD I'M EXCITED!



From what I've heard the Director's Cut DVD is already slated for a June/July release and runs 3 hours and 10 minutes


----------



## technomancer (Mar 6, 2009)

sakeido said:


> From what I've heard the Director's Cut DVD is already slated for a June/July release and runs 3 hours and 10 minutes



Just got back from the theater a bit ago. I liked it, though they did mangle the ending 

They obviously cut a ton of shit they filmed out, so I'm really looking forward to seeing the director's cut


----------



## philkilla (Mar 6, 2009)

I've never read the novel..and I really didn't know much about the story before I saw it...but I think it was fucking awesome.

Very cool movie. 

There was a lot of glowing blue guy cock though...not cool...lol


----------



## sakeido (Mar 7, 2009)

technomancer said:


> Just got back from the theater a bit ago. I liked it, though they did mangle the ending
> 
> They obviously cut a ton of shit they filmed out, so I'm really looking forward to seeing the director's cut



The ending worked pretty well I thought, I liked the new plot device, but the switching around of the dialogue could have been a bit better. But the rest of the movie... sweet jesus that was something else


----------



## robotsatemygma (Mar 7, 2009)

Huh... I didn't like the movie at all. Even from the 1st few minutes. 

Almost all the quarks I liked about the comic were not present in the movie. The Black Freighter side story syncing in and out of the main story was one of my favorite things about the novel, but I figured it wouldn't appear at all in the movie. Glad they used the newspaper guy and the black kid as extras though.

One thing I noticed is Rorschach never used "I or Me" in his journal entries in the comics, and throughout the movie he uses it. This kinda irked me as it added to his black and white view as I and Me is somewhat of a grey area. 




Spoiler



The Comedian father story... My understanding is Miss Jupiter get's pregnant from the rape, not gets raped and goes back a few years later for a quickie. I thought this was truly one of the drastic character developments in the comic that made it so gritty and edgy.



The ending was too different for me to like it. Maybe I'm too much of a fanboy to enjoy the movie for what it was. 

Also some of the acting was really terrible, especially Night Owl II and what's her face. Jupiter. 

But I do have to admit, this movie does closely follow the original story, just some of the spinoffs are a little saddening. 

End rant.


----------



## Groff (Mar 7, 2009)

I saw the movie yesterday afternoon, I have to say I was quite impressed.

I don't have an extensive knowledge of the graphic novel or anything, so I only had a vague idea of what to expect going in. For the record, i'm not a comic book/graphic novel person, never was. So I was hesitant to go see this movie. I'm glad I did!


----------



## lefty robb (Mar 7, 2009)

MFB said:


> Wouldn't the nearest one be the one in Stoneham or Reading? There's a Jordan's furniture right near there but I don't think it's a 45 minutes drive from there to Worcester




its 30-45 min from here depending on traffic, and I got tickets for sunday night for the natick jordans.


----------



## HamBungler (Mar 7, 2009)

robotsatemygma said:


> Huh... I didn't like the movie at all. Even from the 1st few minutes.
> 
> Almost all the quarks I liked about the comic were not present in the movie. The Black Freighter side story syncing in and out of the main story was one of my favorite things about the novel, but I figured it wouldn't appear at all in the movie. Glad they used the newspaper guy and the black kid as extras though.
> 
> ...



Most of that stuff will be fixed in the director's cut, they just couldn't fit it all in.



Spoiler



For the record, that's exactly what happened. Sally first got raped by Comedian, but then a couple years later they basically just did it for the hell of it. I thought that was made pretty clear in the comic. The whole point of that is that people do strange things and the products of that can be something extraordinary.



I honestly really liked the movie, some bits did make me mad, and I think the ending from the comic fits better and could have been very possible in movie context, although it would be really gory and difficult. All in all I was rather impressed though and remained pretty faithful.


----------



## technomancer (Mar 7, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> Most of that stuff will be fixed in the director's cut, they just couldn't fit it all in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are correct on the spoiler material, the movie was identical to the comic for that plot point.

Also the whole Black Freighter plot line was filmed and should be in the director's cut. I saw a making of thing earlier in the week and they went into how they got an animation studio to do the BF pieces etc so they're definitely out there.

I wasn't overjoyed with the new ending, but it did work in context. Overall I really enjoyed the whole thing  More importantly my wife, who hasn't read the graphic novel yet, saw it with me and she liked it. I think this is a bigger comment on the film than my opinion because I've had a hard time looking at it as a movie on its own rather than an adaptation of the comic.


----------



## sakeido (Mar 7, 2009)

Really the new ending is the best way to do things for a movie, since it just uses the main characters instead of introducing a bunch of peripheral ones.. the old ending would have required a bunch of extra scenes earlier in the flick to set it up, and since the movie is already so long, I didn't miss them. If they had gone with the alien, it would have just been a little too ridiculous. That part I didn't mind, but changing around all the lines in the end and adding the Owl's little beating of Ozymandias was dumb.


----------



## HamBungler (Mar 7, 2009)

sakeido said:


> Really the new ending is the best way to do things for a movie, since it just uses the main characters instead of introducing a bunch of peripheral ones.. the old ending would have required a bunch of extra scenes earlier in the flick to set it up, and since the movie is already so long, I didn't miss them. If they had gone with the alien, it would have just been a little too ridiculous. That part I didn't mind, but changing around all the lines in the end and adding the Owl's little beating of Ozymandias was dumb.



I dunno, I just found it made The Comedian's craziness near the end of his life less plausible, as that sort of thing is certainly horrifying, but not as horrifying as a gigantic psychic alien monstrosity, IMO. I agree though, for the most part it worked and probably easier for the audience to understand and cheaper for the studio to make it, though I'll still always prefer the comic version.


----------



## Pauly (Mar 8, 2009)

Man. That. Was. Epic.

Try and see it at a decent screen if you can, not just because IMAX made Dr. M's dong 6ft tall. It wasn't perfect, by any means; some of the more emotional stuff wasn't acted especially well (looking at you Laurie!), Ozzy doesn't get enough screen time, some of it felt a little jumpy like bits were cut (which they were, extended 3 hour plus edition ftw), the sex scene is straight out of a Red Shoe Diaries (remember those?!) episode, Nixon was a little too much like The Simpsons version of him for me not to laugh at his voice and fake nose every time he pops up, Silk Spectre I really doesn't look 67 even with all the make-up.... but man. I creamed.

Oh and it had Starship Troopers levels of gore, which was weird. Totally loved the 80's soundtrack and visuals.

Really, really good. Obvs graphic novel is better but as for making something 'unfilmable' filmable, Zack did wonderful job and it's definitely one of the more unique films I've seen in a while. My friend loved it to and he had no idea what it was all about before the end.


----------



## technomancer (Mar 8, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> I dunno, I just found it made The Comedian's craziness near the end of his life less plausible, as that sort of thing is certainly horrifying, but not as horrifying as a gigantic psychic alien monstrosity, IMO. I agree though, for the most part it worked and probably easier for the audience to understand and cheaper for the studio to make it, though I'll still always prefer the comic version.



Yup Comedian's reaction was my main problem with the revised ending. Overall it was a great film though 



Spoiler



In the movie a man that had shot and killed a woman pregnant with his own child snapped because he realized a group was giving people cancer? That was just really lame and the one thing that didn't work for me


----------



## JakeRI (Mar 8, 2009)

this movie was really good, really artistic


----------



## lefty robb (Mar 9, 2009)

OMG this movie pwns, I just saw it at Imax and I loved it, the GF loved it too, she was sitting next to a few gay guys who kept snickering and cheering at the giant blue cock.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Mar 9, 2009)

Yeah, there certainly was an abundance of blue cock, especially when there was like 5 on screen. The first scene with him in it, it looks like they won't pan that low and show you, then BAM, they hit you with it


----------



## Nick (Mar 9, 2009)

i saw this on saturday. had read the graphic novel beforhand and i enjoyed the film just as much. I actually think the movie ending was better and deffinetly not as random!


----------



## petereanima (Mar 9, 2009)

i have never read the graphic novel, but i think the movie is awesome. it has all i need for good entertainment - brutal action, "uncorrect" jokes, and a nice amount of latex-sex. 

and yeah, we also had some of these "hihihi, look, a cock tihihihihi" idiots around us. they shut up when one of my friends said "yeah, its a cock.... now you know how big it should be and can shut the fuck up".


----------



## sakeido (Mar 9, 2009)

Saw it again in IMAX last night, but it will probably be the last time I see this one in theaters... it is just too long. Same thing happened with me and all the Lord of the Rings movies - love them, absolutely love them, but it is just such an ordeal watching one because they are so bloody long.

Visually, I didn't think the IMAX was a big step up.. not like the Dark Knight was, not even close. But sound-wise... Jesus. They really flexed the Imax sound system's muscle.. when the glass palace on Mars comes down was crazy.


----------



## Pauly (Mar 9, 2009)

I thought it whizzed by, I can definitely see myself bumming the uncut version several times on BluRay.

Also I'm now officially an IMAX nerd. I hope Terminator Salvation gets the treatment and I've heard Transformers 2 will be both IMAX and 3d. Sweeeet!


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Mar 9, 2009)

No IMAX around here  Closest one I think is like 3 hours away on the way to Nova Scotia, unless there's one hidden in Moncton I don't know about, but even then, that's 1.5 hours away.


----------



## lefty robb (Mar 9, 2009)

sakeido said:


> Visually, I didn't think the IMAX was a big step up.. not like the Dark Knight was, not even close. But sound-wise... Jesus. They really flexed the Imax sound system's muscle.. when the glass palace on Mars comes down was crazy.




The Imax I went to has 13,000 watts of Dolby and individual buttkickers in all the seats, it was sick. There was a little into before the movie about them and they said its one of only 2 imax theaters with buttkickers and temperpedic foam seats. I started doing the Peter Griffin "Butt Scratcher" gag but replaced it with "buttkicker!" and everyone started to laugh, young crowd.

I can't believe people brought there kids to see that movie though, I was like WTF? awesome parents!.


----------



## hairychris (Mar 10, 2009)

technomancer said:


> Yup Comedian's reaction was my main problem with the revised ending. Overall it was a great film though
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, that's not the point...


Spoiler



The Comedian found out about the Event, _not_ the cancer - millions of deaths were far greater then any mayhem that he'd committed himself. He was cracking so Viedt offed him before he'd talk any more.



Anyhoo, IMAX was fun. Faithful movie but a lot was missed out. The new ending makes sense as the Black Freighter stuff was left out


Spoiler



but it has the effect of forcing Manhattan's departure, rather then the original where he is not implicated in the Event and he just walks away....



Jury's out, in a sense, but it's well worth watching. I definitely want to see the director's cut.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Mar 10, 2009)

I really enjoyed it. I was a bit scared of it when I saw it was 3 hours long but it really flew by. There was one strange thing though that bothered me.


Spoiler



Why didn't they cover Jon's penis all the time?  If they were going for a certain look then why the hell did they do it at sometimes and not others? It just seemed really sporadic.


----------



## sakeido (Mar 10, 2009)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> I really enjoyed it. I was a bit scared of it when I saw it was 3 hours long but it really flew by. There was one strange thing though that bothered me.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



Since its jumping back and forwards in time, it seems random in the movie.. but in the comic, he basically starts out wearing a full jump suit but as time goes by he starts to care less and less about people, so he wears less of his outfit before eventually he just starts going buck ass naked all the time since he just doesn't care what people think.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Mar 10, 2009)

They didn't convey the time change very well and it got really confusing because of that. I just didn't want to look at it.


----------



## ohio_eric (Mar 10, 2009)

I know I'm in a minority but I really hated the Watchmen movie. It was rushed, excessively violent and made numerous unnecessary changes to the original story. It was the first time I've ever left a theater wanting my money back.


----------



## Clydefrog (Mar 10, 2009)

YOU DON'T GET IT
NONE OF YOU DO
I'M NOT LOCKED IN HERE WITH YOU
YOU'RE LOCKED IN HERE WITH ME!

-best line of the movie


----------



## liquidcow (Mar 11, 2009)

ohio_eric said:


> I know I'm in a minority but I really hated the Watchmen movie. It was rushed, excessively violent and made numerous unnecessary changes to the original story. It was the first time I've ever left a theater wanting my money back.



I didn't hate it but I agree with most of your points. The violence (or the stuff that took it up to 18 at least) was totally un-necessary and seemed to be there just to make the film more 'adult', which of course it did in only a superficial way. When it came to making the film mature in terms of the themes, Snyder just didn't seem to know what to do.

My problem with the story was more that, like a lot of people are saying, they stuck too closely to the book. What I mean is that they were so concerned with putting the major stand-out scenes from the comic book in there, keeping it as close to the comic as possible and all that, that they didn't seem to consider whether those scenes worked in the context of a stand alone feature. So it jumped around from scene to scene, almost like a clip show of scenes from the comic, without any narrative drive. Even though I've read the comic twice, I still found myself wondering where it was going at points. I personally think a much looser adaptation would have been better, one that made sense by itself. If anything, these extras that they're releasing on DVD - the Under The Hood documentary and the webisode things - just show that the movie doesn't work on its own.


----------



## Nick (Mar 11, 2009)

ohio_eric said:


> I know I'm in a minority but I really hated the Watchmen movie. It was rushed, excessively violent and made numerous unnecessary changes to the original story. It was the first time I've ever left a theater wanting my money back.





liquidcow said:


> I didn't hate it but I agree with most of your points. The violence (or the stuff that took it up to 18 at least) was totally un-necessary and seemed to be there just to make the film more 'adult', which of course it did in only a superficial way. When it came to making the film mature in terms of the themes, Snyder just didn't seem to know what to do.
> 
> My problem with the story was more that, like a lot of people are saying, they stuck too closely to the book. What I mean is that they were so concerned with putting the major stand-out scenes from the comic book in there, keeping it as close to the comic as possible and all that, that they didn't seem to consider whether those scenes worked in the context of a stand alone feature. So it jumped around from scene to scene, almost like a clip show of scenes from the comic, without any narrative drive. Even though I've read the comic twice, I still found myself wondering where it was going at points. I personally think a much looser adaptation would have been better, one that made sense by itself. If anything, these extras that they're releasing on DVD - the Under The Hood documentary and the webisode things - just show that the movie doesn't work on its own.



i really cant disagree more.

i dunno if you guys are expecting the director to offer you a major role in the movie or something but i really dont see how that film could have been any better. Short of them letting me be night-owls stunt double in the sex scene....

also if you think that was excessivly violent go watch the saw movies or house of 1000 corpses/the devils rejects (i really dont like excessive violence in movies i make a point of not watching them if they are like that). Watchmen was pretty mild violence wise.

That said its a movie and subjective like most other things, so if you dont like it fair enough im sure there are movies that you like and i think are shit.


----------



## liquidcow (Mar 11, 2009)

Nick said:


> i really cant disagree more.
> 
> i dunno if you guys are expecting the director to offer you a major role in the movie or something but i really dont see how that film could have been any better. Short of them letting me be night-owls stunt double in the sex scene....



Just out of interest - and I'm not making a particular point here - have you read the book? I can't imagine how it must come across to someone who hasn't, so if you haven't and still enjoyed the film then that's quite interesting.



> also if you think that was excessivly violent go watch the saw movies or house of 1000 corpses/the devils rejects (i really dont like excessive violence in movies i make a point of not watching them if they are like that). Watchmen was pretty mild violence wise.
> 
> That said its a movie and subjective like most other things, so if you dont like it fair enough im sure there are movies that you like and i think are shit.



Don't get me wrong, I don't think it was horrifically violent, I've seen plenty far gorier movies. What I mean is that the violence was beyond what was necessary for this particular movie. For something like Saw the over-the-top amounts of gore are what it's all about so it's appropriate there, but in Watchmen, there just didn't seem to be any need for it. None of it was in the comic - not that I'm saying that it has to stick absolutely to the letter of the comic, but it just seems clear that it was put in the film to make it appear more 'adult', and it just seemed out of place. The only part that I can see any point in was the bit with the meat cleaver as it showed the point where Rorscharch basically flipped, although what he does in the comic I think is much more sadistic.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Mar 11, 2009)

Spoiler



I think the gore was put in to be more like "Whoa, that shit is fucked up" to show what Dr. Manhatten can do with a simple thought.


----------



## hairychris (Mar 12, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I think the gore was put in to be more like "Whoa, that shit is fucked up" to show what Dr. Manhatten can do with a simple thought.



This.



Spoiler



And violence is also in context with The Clown and Rorsarch's varying degrees of sociopathy/psychosis


. WRT the other characters, I think that it basically shows us that they can handle themselves even whilst wearing somewhat ridiculous costumes.



Spoiler



although I do find it a pity that R killed the kidnepper outright rather then left him handcuffed in the burning house as per the book.


----------



## Nick (Mar 12, 2009)

liquidcow said:


> Just out of interest - and I'm not making a particular point here - have you read the book? I can't imagine how it must come across to someone who hasn't, so if you haven't and still enjoyed the film then that's quite interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't think it was horrifically violent, I've seen plenty far gorier movies. What I mean is that the violence was beyond what was necessary for this particular movie. For something like Saw the over-the-top amounts of gore are what it's all about so it's appropriate there, but in Watchmen, there just didn't seem to be any need for it. None of it was in the comic - not that I'm saying that it has to stick absolutely to the letter of the comic, but it just seems clear that it was put in the film to make it appear more 'adult', and it just seemed out of place. The only part that I can see any point in was the bit with the meat cleaver as it showed the point where Rorscharch basically flipped, although what he does in the comic I think is much more sadistic.



yes i have read the book but i still enjoyed the film. My only complaint was the bit with rorshach flipping. Like you say the comics version is much better and i was dissapointed that he didnt just do what he does in the book.

there was probably no need to make DR M's attacks on people as bloody but that doesnt mean it was done to make it more adult. its just another portraial of what would happen if he decided to make someone cease to exist he can after all do pretty much anything.

Other than that i dont really see anything other than the bone popping out to complain about which again is a good way of portraying the hero's as being machine's compared to your average guy on the street.

I really just dont see the point in taking a negative view on any point possible which is all to common in film and music critique. I went into the movie thinking 'this will be good' not 'ok you bastards this had better be fucking amazing or else' which is the impression i get from some people reviewing things like films.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 12, 2009)

I didn't enjoy it at all, I was waiting throughout the whole film for something to happen to give me a reason to care about what was going on.


----------



## Nick (Mar 12, 2009)

were you facing the screen?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 12, 2009)

no actually I paid &#163;8 to stare at the wall.


----------



## Nick (Mar 12, 2009)

too bad, you missed a good film!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 12, 2009)

well funny you should say that actually because both I and my girlfriend thought it was shit. everyone else that I know who's seen it also thinks it's shit 

I guess people who didn't read the comic were never going to get it.


----------



## Nick (Mar 12, 2009)

not true my girlfriend thought it was amazing and has never read watchmen or any other comic in her life.

im sure there are films you like which i think are crap so never mind.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 12, 2009)

well no not everyone who didn't read the comic but there are a lot of people like me who went to see it and didn't care about what was going on.

having said that I did enjoy the bits that were shot in Zack Snyder's trademark style i.e. the prison scenes and the sex scene. those bits were cool


----------



## Decipher (Mar 12, 2009)

sakeido said:


> Saw it again in IMAX last night, but it will probably be the last time I see this one in theaters... it is just too long. Same thing happened with me and all the Lord of the Rings movies - love them, absolutely love them, but it is just such an ordeal watching one because they are so bloody long.
> 
> Visually, I didn't think the IMAX was a big step up.. not like the Dark Knight was, not even close. But sound-wise... Jesus. They really flexed the Imax sound system's muscle.. when the glass palace on Mars comes down was crazy.


Saw Watchmen last night in IMAX and I thought overall it was a really good movie. Very close to the book minus a few things here & there, but I still really enjoyed it. The casting was really good I thought. Visually very well done. And I enjoyed the movie ending. I've never been the biggest fan of the ending in the book, but I thought the movie ending really was done quite well and "wrapped" it all up decently.

And I agree with ya Cody, seeing movies in IMAX really is only good when it's shot in IMAX (ala Dark Knight). The sound though is very intense.


----------



## Mazzakazza (Mar 13, 2009)

It was greeeat!
Rorschach was as awesome as he was in the comic, which helps


----------



## ballr4lyf (Mar 15, 2009)

I thought it was good, haven't read the book yet, though.


Spoiler



I just thought there was too much blue penis.


----------



## Cadavuh (Aug 4, 2009)

Rorschach would make a great vocalist

0:48


----------



## sakeido (Aug 4, 2009)

Watching the movie on Bluray... makes it even more overlong than it already was. This movie seriously is just too long. Craptastic narrative pacing. The comic, while they followed it faithfully, just doesn't work as a movie... the opening hour of the Watchmen is 100% the Comedian's funeral, and in any other movie, it would have been just the opening 15 minutes. 
Still a great flick and I enjoy watching it but the director's cut should have been 45 minutes shorter, not 25 minutes longer.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 4, 2009)

sakeido said:


> Craptastic narrative pacing. The comic, while they followed it faithfully, just doesn't work as a movie...



you hit the nail on the head there bro


----------



## Elysian (Aug 4, 2009)

I've never felt Watchmen was too long. Watched it on Bluray the other day, enjoyed it just as much as when I saw it in the theater.


----------



## Holy Katana (Aug 5, 2009)

I watched it a couple of weeks ago. I was really disappointed. I guess Alan Moore was right, it _is_ unfilmable. I might want to see the Director's Cut, though, but I'm not sure it'll be any better.


----------



## MFB (Aug 5, 2009)

I don't think it's necessarily that Watchmen is unfilmable - it's that look at what comic movies are pumped full of today : action. Watchmen is kind of the comicbook antithesis while still _being_ a comic. It's a darker more gritty story that's not based around action but more the Machievalian perspective of "the ends justify the means" - that's the best I can put it without giving everything away


----------



## Holy Katana (Aug 5, 2009)

MFB said:


> I don't think it's necessarily that Watchmen is unfilmable - it's that look at what comic movies are pumped full of today : action. Watchmen is kind of the comicbook antithesis while still _being_ a comic. It's a darker more gritty story that's not based around action but more the Machievalian perspective of "the ends justify the means" - that's the best I can put it without giving everything away



Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. And you can use spoiler tags if you don't want to give anything away.


----------



## sakeido (Aug 5, 2009)

MFB said:


> I don't think it's necessarily that Watchmen is unfilmable - it's that look at what comic movies are pumped full of today : action. Watchmen is kind of the comicbook antithesis while still _being_ a comic. It's a darker more gritty story that's not based around action but more the Machievalian perspective of "the ends justify the means" - that's the best I can put it without giving everything away



Synder definitely proved that Watchmen is 100% filmable. He didn't approach it in the right manner though... almost totally faithful adaptations like his are commendable, but what works in a comic does not work in a movie. The visual style was bang on, the casting choices were brilliant, the scenes that are in there work great, its just that there is _so much_ in there that doesn't need to be.. the whole thing is just bloated and runs far longer than it should.


----------



## Demiurge (Aug 6, 2009)

I liked the book and I liked the movie, too, and I don't think the latter did any disservice to the former.

The problem is, people put the graphic novel on so high of a pedestal that the expectations for the movie were unrealistic. The book had some narrative innovations, but it's not goddamned Ulysses. It's not like the narrative of the comic was impenetrable to the point where it was "unfilmable." Please. Adapting any book for a movie is a challenge. Also, please someone tell me how the ending of the book is better than the movie.


Spoiler



A psychic squid? Fucking seriously?



Only thing that pissed me off about the movie was that upon opening the Director's Cut DVD, the first thing I see inside the box is a coupon for the Super-Duper 5-Disc Director's Cut coming out in a few months.


----------

