Finally saw this last night with my wife, and I was rather impressed. The only real “wtf” moment was the goofy porn scene in the Archimedes. The combo of the music and their goofy faces reduced my wife to tears trying to hold in her laughter and I was only marginally successful at not guffawing like a donkey myself.
Other than that I thought it was actually very good and I know I’ll likely watch it multiple times when the home release hits.
People I know still quote it as truth. Which makes me sad.
Uggh
The only thing that has any shred of truth in that video is that the original video of Osama bin Laden admitting to the attacks was not him. The guy didn’t even look like him. Quite funny.
That, and the part where they uncover the conspiracy that the 9/11 attacks were all planned out by the government as a master plan to gain more oil-rich lands overseas.
Yep. Fifteen minutes of agonised grunting slow-mo, while ‘Layla’ plays in the background.
I wonder how eager fuckwit would be for the rape scene to be ‘more brutal’ if it were a man being savagely penetrated against his will? It’s a foul thing to take away someone’s humanity, and making it ‘more brutal’ doesn’t make it more foul.
Don’t mistake my criticism of that scene for an overall criticism of the movie. The film didn’t work for me, but I’d never say they, as a whole, lacked nerve. I’m saying it’s catastrophically disappointing that at the moment it probably mattered most, in the film, their nerve failed.
I understand your qualification, and think you’ve argued why you were disappointed well - I just don’t think it’s correct that they changed the ending because of a lack of nerve - they changed it because they thought it would be really inappropriate imagery.
Would you be saying the same thing if it was Capcom that indicated it changed some of Resident Evil 5’s imagery because it thought that imagery was inappropriate? Would you say Capcom ‘lacked the nerve’ to include offensive imagery if it did that?
I think it’s pretty clear that Synder and crew had the nerves to make the movie they personally wanted to make - that they thought would be the best cinematic adaptation, without any compromises to their personal vision of the film. They’re unlikely to get that sort of freedom again, so they should at least be lauded for going for it this once.
I’m sorry, but it’s hard for me to read this interview with Hayter and take it any other way.
I did understand the ending of the book, [but] there are a few issues that apply to the pressures of filmmaking. I’m always cognizant of the fact that when you’re dealing with the studio and you’re asking them to put up 100-plus million dollars, that that’s a big thing. You can’t just say, “I’m an artist and whatever.” You’re never going to work, and that’s not a smart way to make movies.
The ending of the book shows just piles of corpses, bloody corpses in the middle of Times Square, people hanging out of windows just slaughtered on a massive scale. To do that in a comic book, and release it in 1985, is different from doing it real life, in a movie, and seeing all of these people brutally massacred in the middle of Times Square post 2001. That’s a legitimate concern, and one that I shared.
If you’re doing the movie for $40 million, fine - bloody bodies everywhere. And that’s fine, and it’s a niche film, and only the hardcore fans would go see it. But if you’re doing it on this big of a scale, I just don’t think that’s… I understood their reticence to putting those images on screen.
from the interview at How 9/11 Changed Watchmen
Awesome. Thanks.
That was good.
Perhaps you’ve also learned something about yourself too–that you can’t countenance the idea that someone doesn’t think the same or have the same tastes as you do? ;)
Would it rock your world to know that I’m lukewarm about Watchmen but think The Wire is the best thing evar?
Blasphemy…what kind of a nerd doesn’t adore Watchmen and attempt to convince all others of it’s perfection. Please empty your desk and turn in you membership card to the nerdery immedietly.
(Although severence will be extended if you can nitpick gramatical errors in my post. After all, any good nerdery should be populated almost entirely by 5th grade english teachers.)
So 60 million is the price of dead bodies…
I actually thought the movie’s - we are long past SPOILERS!!! arent we?
any way SPOILER
I thought the movie’s explanation of what the “big event” was, made a lot more sense than the comic’s. Everyone knows about Dr. Manhattan and his freaky powers and scary freak out. Made more sense to make him the “bad guy” in the plot than an anonymous Lovecraftian menace.
That being said, the Graphic Novel remains a master work and the movie is not for various reasons. Which isn’t to say I didn’t like it, a lot. I give the movie a lot of credit for remaining as faithful as it could to the source material, and for having the dumbest sex scene of all time.
It was mentioned earlier - here’s the important part that emphasizes my position (in bold):
To do that in a comic book, and release it in 1985, is different from doing it real life, in a movie, and seeing all of these people brutally massacred in the middle of Times Square post 2001. That’s a legitimate concern, and one that I shared
I don’t want to push anyone’s buttons, but does anyone really immediately associate bodies lining the streets with 9/11? When I think of all the imagery from that day and look at the last few pages of Watchmen, I really don’t see it.
Giant fucking holes in the ground where buildings used to be, though…
I would say that if the narrative suffered for it, yes. It wouldn’t, though, which is why it’s not a good analogy. The issue confronting the makers of Watchmen was not merely “should we offend people or not?” It was more like “This imagery drives home one of the story’s core themes, but including it might offend people, so which of those two things is more important?” They went with inoffensive, which I think is a really weird choice for a film that includes a scene depicting a man’s arms being ripped off with a rotary cutter.
(Note: Didn’t read the whole thread)
BTW, re-reading the comic I noticed that the squids “face” is basically a womans private parts: A vertical “slit” (eye) above a wrinkled “hole” (mouth). I have no idea if there is some point to it or if it’s juat a sort of prank, but it’s fairly obvious.
Respectfully
krise madsen
PS: Saw the movie today. Not a bad movie per se, but a glaring example of the futility of trying to cram something as deep and complex as The Watchmen into a 2½ hour movie.
What a coincidence, I read a lot of your posts and wonder the exact same thing.