fett on 25/3/2009 at 23:55
I guess I'm still the old fart around here. I just didn't get it. That's 3 hours I could have spent dropping a bowling ball on my testicles or watching a Nick Cave documentary (in other words I would rather fucking die than have to sit through it again).
It just seemed like a thinly veiled premise for over-the-top, gratuitous violence, massive blue penises, and redundant sex scenes. Seriously - the owl dude and mullet girl have sex, kill some bad guys, then have sex again. Shitty pacing ftw. The rest of the time, they all sat around whining about how they weren't superheroes anymore. :confused:
The fx were great, and I really like the Rorschach character. I've never read the comic and probably won't after that. It was like watching the middle part of a very complex trilogy with just enough back story thrown in to be irritating. I don't really buy this "it was for the fans" trip, because there have been plenty of successful big budget films made from niche media that appealed to the masses without alienating the fan base (X-Files, Serenity, LOTR). It just seemed like the editing and pacing were really screwed up and then they weren't sure how to end it. Plus I sat next to Beavis and Butthead so you can imagine what it was like every time the blue man group's scholong got shoved in our faces. (Hey LOOK AMERICA! WE GOT AWAY WITH FULL FRONTAL IN AN "R" FILM. who fucking cares? I saw more male ass in 3 hours than I saw in 3 years playing a gay bar twice a week).
No offense to those of you who liked it, but I think it's another case of the emperor being buck-ass nekkid and no one wanting to say so.* :erg:
*and fuck off, I'm not saying I'm the only one bold enough to say so.
Turtle on 26/3/2009 at 00:22
You should read the book.
It addresses a lot of your complaints(pacing, character development, there's far less violence and it doesn't come across as gratuitous, giant squid).
Stitch on 26/3/2009 at 00:52
Quote Posted by fett
Seriously - the owl dude and mullet girl have sex, kill some bad guys, then
have sex again. Shitty pacing ftw.
Except that's not what actually happens. They try to have sex, he can't get it up, and an air romp in full costume puts the steam back in his stride.
I'm not arguing that it works as presented in the movie--in fact, there were a lot of points where I was wondering if Snyder was sufficiently connecting the dots for people unfamiliar with the comic--but it wasn't inherently a pacing issue.
fett on 26/3/2009 at 02:08
Turtle - I probably should. Except that I paid to see the movie. If it's impossible, or even improbable to adapt it to film, it seems automatically suspect of money-grubbing to me. I had the same opinion of the LOTR films before I saw them, but it was clear that PJ really loved the material and wouldn't have done it if it couldn't be done faithfully enough to communicate the original material. I just didn't get that with Watchmen. This seems to be a common defense of poor book to movie adaptations - "the book was better." Then it should have stayed a book. If the movie can't be made to be at least as good as the book, then why make it to begin with? There's an epidemic of this mentality right now with many good children's books: Spiderwick, City of Embers, Inkspell, etc. - it's doubtful that these do the books any justice at all. Gaiman's "Coraline" is the closest any of these have come.
In the end, saying 'you should read the book' or 'that scene works better in the book' (@ Stitch) does nothing for the movie-goer who just sat through a crappy film. Either it can stand on it's own or it can't. In this case, I just felt like it didn't. Prolifically.
At least we're agreed that the pacing is better in the comic (I don't see how it could possibly be worse). The alley fight is the perfect example of needless and pace killing gratuity. It was violent. It was graphic. It was pointless. We know they can fight. They're superheroes. Who the fuck cares if they can fight? If they can't, what the hell are they running around in costumes for? There's absolutely nothing at stake. Same for the prison fight. Gratuitous and pointless.
@Stitch - the fact that the guy can't get it up without a latex Owl suit doesn't do much to endear me to the character... :/
Scots Taffer on 26/3/2009 at 02:22
Quote Posted by fett
Turtle - I probably should.
...
@Stitch - the fact that the guy can't get it up without a latex Owl suit doesn't do much to endear me to the character... :/
Based on that response I'm going to say you probably shouldn't as the comic series focuses even more on the lacking elements of these "costumed heroes" and whether or not they're really heroes at all or just a bunch of self-serving nutters beating the shit out of people for kicks.
Also, if anything, the pacing in the comic is cosmically fucked in places.
Quote Posted by fett
Except that I paid to see
the movie. If it's impossible, or even improbable to adapt it to film, it seems automatically suspect of money-grubbing to me. I had the same opinion of the LOTR films before I saw them, but it was clear that PJ really loved the material and wouldn't have done it if it couldn't be done faithfully enough to communicate the original material. I just didn't get that with Watchmen.
C'mon, fett, this statement is just stupid - you'd read LOTR before watching them, that's how you understood PJ's love for LOTR, you cannot make the same judgement without having read Watchmen.
And for the record, he does love it.
And just in the same way, lots of people hate what PJ did to LOTR as do hate Snyder's direction.
Quote Posted by fett
This seems to be a common defense of poor book to movie adaptations - "the book was better." Then it should have stayed a book. If the movie can't be made to be
at least as good as the book, then why make it to begin with? There's an epidemic of this mentality right now with many good children's books: Spiderwick, City of Embers, Inkspell, etc. - it's doubtful that these do the books any justice at all. Gaiman's "Coraline" is the closest any of these have come.
You're making two different points here and only one of them is valid.
I agree on the point that not every book needs to be made into a movie, but I've never heard people "defend" a movie adaptation but referring to the book being better.
If anything this is a criticism of the adaptation, but also a pretty stupid one because they are inherently different mediums targeting specific aims for specific audiences.
I've never gotten people watching a movie and saying "but the book is better", this is like saying you read a novelization of a movie that was better than the movie.
The mediums are what the mediums are, take from them what you will.
This isn't to say there aren't poor adaptations, but that's not really being discussed here I don't think.
Quote Posted by fett
At least we're agreed that the pacing is better in the comic (I don't see how it could possibly be worse). The alley fight is the perfect example of needless and pace killing gratuity. It was violent. It was graphic. It was pointless. We know they can fight. Their superhero's. Who the fuck cares if they can fight? If they can't, what the hell are they running around in costumes for? There's absolutely nothing at stake. Same for the prison fight. Gratuitous and pointless.
While that particular scene sticks in my craw as not being particularly well done and flies in the face of a) them not actually being superheroes and b) it's only rendered pointless because of the effortless way they dispatch of the goons, but it doesn't kill pacing in any way. In fact, it serves as an action beat that introduces these characters back into their crime-fighting ways.
And the pacing of the comic is criminally poor at times, in my opinion. The Black Freighter stuff in particular is leaden for pacing, despite being interesting.
fett on 26/3/2009 at 03:09
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
C'mon, fett, this statement is just stupid - you'd read LOTR before watching them, that's how you understood PJ's love for LOTR, you cannot make the same judgement without having read Watchmen.
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
The mediums are what the mediums are, take from them what you will.
I'll give you both of those. I think my main gripe is when the movie is criminally lacking in focus and people blame it on the medium: "Well, the book was better" - as if this somehow excuses the poor choices and laziness of the writer/director of the movie, or like the story is too lofty and complex to bow to the medium of film. With LOTR, I don't remember a single time having to defend the movies to someone by telling them they should read the books. In fact, I was able to introduce people to LOTR through the movies who I knew would never read the books, because the heart of the story was there - actually boiled down to the raw themes.
Ultimately it comes down to the source material, doesn't it? I can't judge the Watchmen source material because I'm not familiar with it. But a good story can usually be stripped down to a few main themes, driven by deep characters, and these can be communicated rather simply, if they are well thought out and make sense. Just like any good song can generally be played on a piano or guitar with a single voice (accompaniment being the icing on the cake), I think the same holds true for a story. It's why editors and agents work from 2-line pitches for books - either the premise is strong or it's not. If it's too complicated to be described in a few sentences, how the hell is it going to work as a 300 page book, or a 3 hour movie? It rarely does (there are possible exceptions I'm sure).
With Watchmen, I felt like no one ever sat down and asked, "What is this movie really about? What do these characters want (beyond Blue Man who didn't care and Aryan guy who wanted to make peace - those were obvious). But the characters we were supposed to invest in - they didn't know what they wanted, so neither did I. IMO that speaks to a weakness in the source material.
Or I could just be too dense to figure any of it out. Entirely possible as well.
Don't worry. I've had this same problem with films that are highly regarded by people who have impeccable taste. Tarantino's stuff particularly. I just feel like maybe the movie is more clever than me, and so is everyone who understood it. I stand there and scratch my head.
Scots Taffer on 26/3/2009 at 03:25
No, I think you've cut down the meat of it and also another problem I had with the adaptation. The thematic core of the "costumed heroes: good or bad?" is lacking and this is very ably reflected in the way that Laurie and Dan sort of glide through the movie with no real pathos and then we're expected to care when the movie wraps up with them, outside of the impotence out-of-costume thing there wasn't really any character development or thematic content there whatsoever.
A rather sizable failure on Snyder's part, however I feel like he nailed enough of Rorscach's relentless drive and integrating the backstories of The Comedian and Dr Manhattan into the main storyline pretty well, though they fuck the end delivery of Ozymandias' scheme.
fett on 26/3/2009 at 03:52
To be honest, I sat through the whole thing getting irritated every time it moved away from the Comedian and Rorscach. If the film had simply been about those two, or even one of them for that matter, without the nonsensical, distracting love story or Dr. Manhatten's apathetic shtick, it would have been phenomenal.
Scots Taffer on 26/3/2009 at 03:54
Dr Manhattan was glorious and admit it you loved his dong.
june gloom on 26/3/2009 at 04:28
Quote Posted by fett
i didn't like the movie so now i'm not going to read the book
READ THE GODDAMN BOOK ALREADY. Jesus.
