The only scene that I wish was not in it was during the Dr. Manhatten exposure on television scene. When Dan and Lori had the attempted mugging or whatever. Way too graphic. Dan and Lori were not those types of characters. It totally did not fit into the film.

Everything else (except, I must admit, I hated the Bob Dillan song for the credits, not too fond of the 99 Red Balloons either) was perfect.

The message was there, even stronger (in some ways) than the book. The actors were great. It took me a while to get over the ending change, but in the end I think I like the movie ending better. It made more sense to use Dr. Manhatten, rather than some strange alien beast transported and sending brainwaves killing millions. Even the book didn’t do a very good job of explaining it.

I don’t know. I’m kinda happy it didn’t do well, as I love underground hits. Tank Girl, the oriinal Blade, now the Watchmen (as far as super hero movies go)…

The Watchmen was one of the best films I’ve ever seen. I didn’t anticipate it as much as others. I’d never really heard of it until it came out. But I read the book first then watched the film.

There’s a sequel in the works, I’ve heard through sources (yes, I have sources, not just the net)… the script sounds decent… new Rorschach (not re-incarnated, a person who picked up his trail but has delusions that he is the real Rorschach), flashbacks to Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis…

How can they make a sequel? Everything was finalized! “Rorschach’s journal, final entry. Veigt’s behind everything. Why? What’s his end game? I cannot imagine a more dangerous opponent. Used to joke he was fast enough to catch a bullet. He could kill us both alone in the snow. That’s where we’re going now. Antarctica. Whether I’m alive or dead upon this reading, I hope the world survives long enough for this journal to reach you. I live my life without compromise. I step into the shadow without remorse or regret. Rorschach’s journal. November 1st, 1985.”

In both the book and the movie…

Alan Moore did a brilliant job of writing a story about what would really happen to the world if Superman existed. The movie(s) portrayed it amazingly well.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid4020141001?bctid=23969151001

How few do you think movie adaptations in this category should exist to make them more palatable for you?

p.s. if you gotta choice,see street fighter lol

This is what i hate about hack critics… they wax philosophical about things they haven’t seen, promoting themselves as experts or in-the-know and obviously a higher mind for having their opinions. They claim dysfunction in mode or incongruity to plot or original writer intention, and follow that up by saying that they haven’t even seen it… Defiantly making some morale stand that they WON”T SEE IT even.

Regardless of the possible accuracy of any of your completely unfounded conjecture, you are a hack blow hard who misjudges your own relevance and accomplishes nothing but to further the opinion that opinions matter even when drawn from no facts or experience at all.

You just a breathing bag of BullSh!t.

I don’t think I would want to get any movie recommendations from you.

It was very faithful to the comic, and an amazing experience.

Annie Hall. Now you go.

You’re welcome to thumb your nose at it and rally with the purists all you want; Alan Moore stands with you. Myself, I’ll opt to enjoy a great story in another form. Operative word being “enjoy”- the film is enjoyable. But I’m free to do that, as I don’t regard the book as scripture sent from on high. Important, influential, unique, lots of the other positive adjectives? Sure. But somehow sacred and untouchable, too pure and holy to be tainted by the serpents of Hollywood? Eh. Sorry. I just don’t buy into that kind of thinking.

Virtually no movie is necessary. And I’m sure others will have mentioned this, but providing reasons the movie is flawed without having seen it, even if only to ensure the various remarks you print secondhand are valid, is poor journalism. Granted, this is the internet, but why should anyone take what you have to say seriously if you haven’t bothered to do the minimum amount of research?

But it’s no use having the argument, because you’re looking for reasons not to like it, and searching for negative opinions to validate your own preconceived notions. I can’t say I haven’t done it myself on occasion- find an album I hated, and read the minority negative reviews with savage glee. But then, I didn’t go and post an article afterward. Doing that would just seem a little excessive and… I don’t know… unnecessary?

I had tried to read watchmen back in the 90’s, and I’ll be honest I never really got into it… But when I heard that they were making a movie I read it, and reread it over the last few years and I can truly appreciate it.

The comic itself was a turning point, and it wasn’t that it was unique - but instead that it both critiqued and analysed everything that came before it.

- what would it actually take in a real world for someone to dress up in a costume. If they did wouldn’t that person literally become a sociopath?
- If someone was super powered - how would that impact their love-life and connections with humanity?
- How would the rest of humanity truly look at heroes?
- What is the connection between violence/power/control and sex?
- What is the role of homosexuality and fetishism in comics
- As we age and mature - how do we pass that on to our children and avoid damaging or controlling them?
- How do we deal with a world that is changing so fast, and that uses us up, spits us out and in the end will destroy us.. How do we find hope and joy in this world.. or even a sense of purpose or meaning?
- And despite however amazing the world is - we will always have a need and desire for escapism. You see this in the black freighter comic
- How politicians and people of power will always seek to control and win and dominate - they are reactionary and respond only to fear. Fear of losingtheir power.. fear.. fear.. and more fear. and in the end it wasn’t hope or a sense of higher purpose or ideals that saved us… but a very very delicate balance based on a greater fear.

This comic is praised so much, and over the past few weeks critics just say that it is a great comic universally - but never actually say why it is great. The comic is over 20 years old and the themes of Watchmen have been used and reused from Heroes, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and in some degree I will say that there is a part of me.. somewhere.. that says that this truly is the best Watchmen film that could possibly ever be made - but then there are also so many other things that absolutely made me shake my head. Now I will say that I feelSnyder did a decent job, and in a way I almost don’t feel that it is even fair to critique or judge this movie at all. This movie cannot be made. Its as if you tried to make Six Feet Under, The Wire or the Sopranos into a 2hr movie. Its too broad. its too epic.. and I know that they wanted to do it on HBO, but HBO said no. When the 3.5-4hr extended cut is released I will rewatch it, but even then I feel that you cant fix a bad recipe by making more of it.

Snyder seems to have largely traded the subtext, nuance and social exploration aspects of the work for an excuse to just make the most brutal and dark superhero movie he could. Thisisn’t a terrible film… its amazingly reverent and loyal to the book - but it does so in a way that has actually misrepresented the original.

Imagine if you went to a art gallery and it had posters and lithographs of Michelangelo, Degas and Picasso all over the walls… you may take 4-5 minutes and walk around and look at them, and comment that they are nice… However, you can never call them art.. they have no soul, they reflect the light completely differently and they will miss all of the texture, nuance and history that the original have that make it a true work of art. Most importantly, you should never miss the opportunity toactually see an original in Paris - and if you did, you would say, without any doubt - “Wow, I had no idea, it does look completely different”.. the complexity of thecolors and the entire experience of seeing it would be completely different.

Snyder’s film in dozens of ways has actually misrepresented the classic, and had traded substance for style, and is in a way satiring itself - which unfortunately becomes confusing and sloppy.

For instance, just to take a single aspect - Violence in the original work was the exact opposite of every other comic book. Violence was a poor sad desperate result of fear or desperation. It was a central pillar of every character.

Ozymandias killed the comedian because he was afraid his plan would get out. He was the Smartest man in the world… but like a Pharaoh, or King.. he was completely alone. Like a machine.. a reflection of Dr Manhattan - he will do what is logical in order to save the world but his plan, and the violence was pure logic. It was not out of love or ethics… but just amathematical desperate decision.

Dr Manhattan was the mirror to Ozymandias in the fact that he was a central representation of love all thru the book. He truly loved Janey Slater. - but by being transformed into Dr Manhattan.. by actually being the representation of wish fulfillment an having all of the power in the world, he lost/chose to stop loving her. He abandoned his role as a husband and chose the love of another woman, Laurie - who ironically did the same to him with Dan. It is only on Mars when Dr Manhattan see’s the true complex beauty in Laurie that he begins to love again and becomes almost human again. Manhattan does several amazing things at the end of the book, all related to violence.

1. He chooses to not stop or condemn Veidt. He literally chooses pacifism. Just moments after reconnecting with his humanity, this is not his apathy or ambivalence - but he absolutely chooses to stop the violence, both on Earth and in Antartica.
2. He murders Rorschach, or more accurately commits Euthanasia to end his tragic life. He could have left him out in the snow, of course he would have died and would have no opportunity to tell anyone. But he kills him to ease his pain. Again mirroring the sacrifice of millions in NYC
3. He doesn’t attempt to reunite or reconcile with Laurie, he steps aside and literally disappears. He leaves to allow her and Dan to mature into fully functional adults. All 3 of them have now left their twisted violent/heroic ways and are now true mature adults and can have a relationship thatisn’t based on violence, S&M or approval of their mother/Hollis.

The comedian was a weak sociopath who used violencece to control, dominate others - to the point of it becoming his career - in the end he realizes what a joke he is. He is mirrored by Rorschach whom shows how a life or repeated violence is literally so tragic and meaningless that he literally begs to be killed at the end of the story. Both men tried to find meaning in their life by dominating violencethru violence - ultimately both men were destroyed by it.

Violence is literally a replacement for love or spiritual connection for both Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre. Hollis has actually moved on and found fulfillment in restoring old cars, mentoring Dan, and with the neighborhood kids. Hollis literally tells Dan to move on and he doesn’t need to keep coming around, and Dan blows him off… not to be polite… but because Dan NEEDS Hollis.. Dan is so empty and is missing something in his life. All of his money has been given to him, he has no one to share his life with - and is so desperate for companionship he has named his ship, and is in twisteddysfunctional relationships with both Rorschach and Sally (which eventually mature into more meaningful relationships).

I could write about this for hours but the violence in the book is a conscious tragic substitute for life and meaning. As the characters mature they either chose to change, or be destroyed by it. Unfortunately the movie doesn’t truly illustrate this arc, but instead it celebrates the violence, amps it up and doesn’t add to or make the connections.. but instead it blurs them and this can be said about several aspects of the film such as the music, sex, and dialogue.

And before you start saying I’m one of those “do no wrong” fans-I will say that while I enjoyed the film, but there were some definite flaws to the film. It’s not an A+++ movie by any means. I’d rate it about a B overall. Not a B+. Not a B-. Just a B. It was good, but not great. So I’m saying this from the perspective of a person who saw the film’s warts- chill out.

Most movies are pointless and unnecessary, even the ones that are supposedly so “important” to our culture such as Citizen Kane & Casablanca. No matter how relevant the films try to be or how much research any of the documentaries (a different beast, but still a film all the same) do, the main purpose of a film is to entertain.

So why hate on something so much? If you don’t like it, then that’s fine- you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t like the _____ Movie series that keeps coming out, but I don’t spend my time trying to convince people not to watch it or keep spouting off why I think they never should have been made. If Hollywood wants to make movies, then let them. What harm is there in allowing people to watch a film & enjoy themselves? Not everyone will be entertained by the same movie, nor should they be. You don’t have to keep your opinions to yourself, but a little respect for the opinions of the ones who *did* want to see this film made & for those of us that *did* enjoy the film is in order.