I would go so far as to say that the adaptation was actually flawless. To be honest, I actually think I like the (slightly) changed ending a bit more than the original comic ending.
I would go so far as to say that the adaptation was actually flawless. To be honest, I actually think I like the (slightly) changed ending a bit more than the original comic ending.
Second.
I haven't seen the movie, obviously, but it is common knowledge they changed something about the ending. I don't know what they changed it to, but that doesn't really matter. I submit that very few things other than the original comic book ending make any sense in the context of the rest of the work. I have prepared an audio explanation of such that will appear in the experimental feed tonight.
If you don't already know why the ending to the comic had to be what it was, then you didn't understand what you read. I can't blame you, I've read it four or five times, and I get most of it, but there are still things I don't get. It's one of those things you can read infinity times and always learn more.
Well, the didn't just change the ending. They changed other things in the movie to have the ending make sense. It doesn't convey quite the same point as the comic, but it winds up conveying the point of the movie very concisely.
Well, the didn't just change the ending. They changed other things in the movie to have the ending make sense. It doesn't convey quite the same point as the comic, but it winds up conveying the point of the movie very concisely.
The one thing I didn't like about the ending was that we never find out how Blake discovered the plot. We know how he stumbled upon it in the novel, but that kind of inadvertent discovery wouldn't work this time around.
How is the film as a piece of art unto itself and separate from the Graphic Novel? I have heard that is a sort of lackluster film and I am curious what the forum thinks about it as its own entity.
How is the film as a piece of art unto itself and separate from the Graphic Novel? I have heard that is a sort of lackluster film and I am curious what the forum thinks about it as its own entity.
I don't know how well I can separate it from the graphic novel, but I'd say that as a film by itself, it's pretty good. I think that a lot of people are taking it at face value, though, so maybe that's what they mean. At face value, it seems like just another corny superhero movie. If you think about what's going on, at all, you'll see the significance.
How is the film as a piece of art unto itself and separate from the Graphic Novel? I have heard that is a sort of lackluster film and I am curious what the forum thinks about it as its own entity.
I don't know how well I can separate it from the graphic novel, but I'd say that as a film by itself, it's pretty good. I think that a lot of people are taking it at face value, though, so maybe that's what they mean. At face value, it seems like just another corny superhero movie. If you think about what's going on, at all, you'll see the significance.
I'm not talking about significance of meaning solely, I mean pacing, directing, acting, dialogue, editing, making the plot more than just a string of facts, etc?
Well, the dialogue itself was a direct port of the graphic novel. The acting was mostly good enough, though the girl playing Silk Specter II sucks. Most of the rest of the acting is unremarkable in either direction. The pacing felt right, though it did (as some people said) drag a bit towards the end. There were a lot of long, slow shots, but they were trying to replicate the feel of frames from the comics, so it worked.
If you've seen 300, he used pretty much all of those same editing techniques for the action sequences. I think it works for a comic book movie, since the story was originally conveyed through a series of still pictures anyhow.
It's visually impressive, but if it weren't for the actual plot of The Watchmen, it would've simply been a pretty decent action movie.
It's visually impressive, but if it weren't for the actual plot ofThe Watchmen, it would've simply been a pretty decent action movie.
That is what I have been hearing. The movie is lackluster as a stand alone and that the plot of The Watchmen is strong, but a lot of what made it work as a graphic novel was the use of several styles to portray the nuances of the plot. Maybe the film makers could have been a little less into the "panel by panel" reproduction of the graphic novel and kept more of the spirit and aesthetic of the graphic novel alive by using several filming styles. I have not read The Watchmen yet because I want to judge the movie on its own merits first. My enjoyment of the graphic novel is pretty much guaranteed based on what I've been told, so I am not concerned about spoilers.
I have not readThe Watchmenyet because I want to judge the movie on its own merits first. My enjoyment of the graphic novel is pretty much guaranteed based on what I've been told, so I am not concerned about spoilers.
It's visually impressive, but if it weren't for the actual plot ofThe Watchmen, it would've simply been a pretty decent action movie.
That is what I have been hearing. The movie is lackluster as a stand alone and that the plot ofThe Watchmenis strong, but a lot of what made it work as a graphic novel was the use of several styles to portray the nuances of the plot. Maybe the film makers could have been a little less into the "panel by panel" reproduction of the graphic novel and kept more of the spirit and aesthetic of the graphic novel alive by using several filming styles. I have not readThe Watchmenyet because I want to judge the movie on its own merits first. My enjoyment of the graphic novel is pretty much guaranteed based on what I've been told, so I am not concerned about spoilers.
Well, the thing about the graphic novel is that it flowed like a movie. That's part of what made it so phenomenal. It was practically alive while you were reading it, owing to a lot of excellent artistic techniques, particularly the way in which he would do scene transitions and image reuse.
The movie uses a lot of those transitions faithfully, and uses the image reusage motifs, but the thing is, since those devices were supposed to make a graphic novel feel alive, they just feel typical in a movie.
Don't get me wrong, the movie is incredible, since I won't separate it from the plot. If you took the plot out of the graphic novel, it would still be innovative because it feels so alive, but it wouldn't be good. If you take the plot out of the movie, you get....an action movie.
I'm interested to figure out why the movie is an action movie. The graphic novel actually had very very few scenes in it with what I would call action. Many of the action scenes in the book were extremely quick, sometimes amounting to not much more than a single kick. Did they add more action scenes? Did they stretch out the few action scenes that had to work with? Both? Other?
I have not readThe Watchmenyet because I want to judge the movie on its own merits first. My enjoyment of the graphic novel is pretty much guaranteed based on what I've been told, so I am not concerned about spoilers.
lolwuuuuuuut
I only heard about The Watchmen last year. Mr. MacRoss read it and I have heard it discussed so much amongst, that I already have a decent idea of the plot. I've been busy reading other things (and I won't lie, the 80's color printing kinda throws off my aesthetic eye so it isn't something I have been itching to read). Since I haven't had a chance to read it yet, I figure I might as well enjoy the film with an unbiased eye and then go to the source material after.
I'm interested to figure out why the movie is an action movie. The graphic novel actually had very very few scenes in it with what I would call action. Many of the action scenes in the book were extremely quick, sometimes amounting to not much more than a single kick. Did they add more action scenes? Did they stretch out the few action scenes that had to work with? Both? Other?
Well, I'm calling it an "action movie" to categorize it. It's pretty slow for most of it, so they stretched out the few action sequences that were actually there. I would say there are 3 or 4 major action sequences, and only one of those is of an appreciable length. I'm thinking about 40 minutes of action in a 2 hour 43 minute movie? Anyone else think I'm about on target with that?
I've been busy reading other things (and I won't lie, the 80's color printing kinda throws off my aesthetic eye so it isn't something I have been itching to read).
The coloring in Watchmen was actually way better than other comics of its time. It came out in '86, but it looks like better than some comics from the early '90s. Also, if you get the hardcover or absolute editions, they are re-colored. People are often comparing the coloring jobs on the different editions, especially when examining panels in which they thought that the coloring is symbolically significant.
I caught a midnight showing of the movie with my wife. I have read the graphic novel three times while my wife is unfamiliar with the source material. We both enjoyed the movie, with her going out this morning and buying the graphic novel, and myself realizing where the changes were but not letting get in the way of the movie. It will be interesting what an extended/directors cut will look like.'
PS- The wife and I are considering cosplaying at Dragon Con as the 1940s Silk Spectre and Nite Owl.
I just came from showing of The Watchmen (First one in here). At some point I kinda wished that I could just watch the movie, without analyzing it and comparing it to the comic all the time. But because plot was familiar I had time to focus on comparing it to the book.
I liked the way how it was paced so things basically stayed the same, but still went little bit faster. Off course some things were left out, but those were understandable sacrifices. Some things I wondered how person who hasn't read the comic sees them, like Vedits "cat". There was a brief mention that Vedit had worked in the field of gene manipulation, but I don't remember any connection being made between Vedits pet and that fact.
I'm interested to figure out why the movie is an action movie. The graphic novel actually had very very few scenes in it with what I would call action. Many of the action scenes in the book were extremely quick, sometimes amounting to not much more than a single kick. Did they add more action scenes? Did they stretch out the few action scenes that had to work with? Both? Other?
There was clearly more action in movie, like in prison scene, in book you don't see Nite Owl or Silk Spectre doing any fighting, but there was quite amount of that in movie. Also I felt like the violence level was upped a bit. Of course original work was pretty violent, but there was some unnecessary additions for that also, in example the scene in the alley where Dan and Laurie was attacked they used more force than I felt fitted to their character. All that violence got me surprised that in here watchmen is for people over 15, I felt that it might should have been for people over 18.
I just got back from seeing Watchmen and I thought it was great. I did have a few gripes though. I noticed that Dr. Manhattan's mouth seemed to work independently from his face and that bothered me a little.Spoiler: I didn't like the change with the kidnappers. The comic left the death to the imagination and was far more devious. The movie was just "he chops his head up. And the bone has a shoe on it, it's not left to the reader to realise it before they are told. The ending was not bad but I prefer the original. I wish they had left the squid in but if they had to leave it out, they should have just made it so that Dr. Manhattan wasn't the alleged cause of everything. Wouldn't the Soviets an the Americans question his motives? The Americans believing that it was somehow the Russians doing. Questioning who can they really trust, and if any other costumed heroes could attack the country. The Russians believing that America is weakened, may think of causing a strike. I don't think this is necessarily a likely outcome, but the new ending seems to not be as definite with it's world peace ending. I think they should have just made two endings and put the alternate squid ending on the DVD releaseSpoiler End. I noticed some other things but I don't feel like trying to remember. PS: Why were they called Watchmen? It takes away meaning from the title, dag nabbit. It seemed like a few thing like this were dumbed down for the masses.
I would go so far as to say that the adaptation was actually flawless.
I have to echo this. Given all the circumstances, it was absolutely perfect. Nite Owl was portrayed perfectly, and I think the actor who played Rorschach did an exceptional job too. I was so happy that they left my favorite scene in, when the black kid hugs the newspaper seller, even though the rest of the corner scenes were cut. I can't help but think that anyone with major gripes about the adaptation is being nitpicky. Also important, we brought along two people who have never read the comic and loved the film. All in all, this movie was extremely well executed.
I watched, good movie but the comic is still way better. Also, I did not feel like the movie was really two an a half hours, it felt a like a lot less. I would recommend it to watch it first and then to read the comic.
I saw the movie, and I think that it was a decent adaptation. Yes, there were changes in the transition, but they didn't change my overall enjoyment of the film. It is, however, not as good as the graphic novel, and that owes mostly to the scenes that were changed or non-existent, especially the ending.
I enjoyed it. I didn't really like the squid ending in the book so I understand why they made the change. However, I still don't think that it was convincing. But if you suspend disbelief, the movie really is strong. This one is going to stick with me for a long time. It is dark, heavy and epic. In fact, over time, this movie might be held to the same level of esteem as Blade Runner.
I enjoyed it. I didn't really like the squid ending in the book so I understand why they made the change. However, I still don't think that it was convincing. But if you suspend disbelief, the movie really is strong. This one is going to stick with me for a long time. It is dark, heavy and epic. In fact, over time, this movie might be held to the same level of esteem as Blade Runner.
Well, the movie ending requires far less suspension of disbelief than the giant squid.
Well, the movie ending requires far less suspension of disbelief than the giant squid.
If you couldn't suspend your disbelief for the squid in the book, then you didn't get it. The squid was mentioned on pages 22 and 23 of the second issue. You can see it again on page 11 of issue eight. Also the last (text) page of issue eight pushes it even harder. Remember, this comic also contains a big blue naked god. If you can't believe the squid they told you was coming in issue two, but you can accept Dr. Manhattan, you're reading it wrong.
I had to read Watchmen three or four times before I actually understood everything that was going on. Now that I do understand almost all of it, it is incredibly obvious to me who out there gets it, and who does not. If you don't get it, I highly highly suggest you read it again, and perhaps again again. When you do reread it, read it very slowly and carefully. Spend a few minutes examining each and every panel, background and foreground. Think about what you are seeing. Examine everything on the micro and macro scale. Did you know that issue five is in itself symmetrical on almost every level? If you don't even know something so obvious as that, you didn't read it properly. Go read it again.
If you couldn't suspend your disbelief for the squid in the book, then you didn't get it. The squid was mentioned on pages 22 and 23 of the second issue. You can see it again on page 11 of issue eight. Also the last (text) page of issue eight pushes it even harder. Remember, this comic also contains a big blue naked god. If you can't believe the squid they told you was coming in issue two, but you can accept Dr. Manhattan, you're reading it wrong.
Nowhere did I say that I was unable to suspend my disbelief for the squid, nor did I say that the squid was completely out of the blue and random. Of course there were references to it throughout the Graphic Novel, I know that.
I was merely stating that the ending for the Movie was far less "out there" and absurd. I don't see how rereading the novel multiple times would disprove my point.
Comments
Man, waiting for Sunday to see Watchmen seems so far away.
If you don't already know why the ending to the comic had to be what it was, then you didn't understand what you read. I can't blame you, I've read it four or five times, and I get most of it, but there are still things I don't get. It's one of those things you can read infinity times and always learn more.
If you've seen 300, he used pretty much all of those same editing techniques for the action sequences. I think it works for a comic book movie, since the story was originally conveyed through a series of still pictures anyhow.
It's visually impressive, but if it weren't for the actual plot of The Watchmen, it would've simply been a pretty decent action movie.
I have not read The Watchmen yet because I want to judge the movie on its own merits first. My enjoyment of the graphic novel is pretty much guaranteed based on what I've been told, so I am not concerned about spoilers.
The movie uses a lot of those transitions faithfully, and uses the image reusage motifs, but the thing is, since those devices were supposed to make a graphic novel feel alive, they just feel typical in a movie.
Don't get me wrong, the movie is incredible, since I won't separate it from the plot. If you took the plot out of the graphic novel, it would still be innovative because it feels so alive, but it wouldn't be good. If you take the plot out of the movie, you get....an action movie.
PS- The wife and I are considering cosplaying at Dragon Con as the 1940s Silk Spectre and Nite Owl.
I liked the way how it was paced so things basically stayed the same, but still went little bit faster. Off course some things were left out, but those were understandable sacrifices. Some things I wondered how person who hasn't read the comic sees them, like Vedits "cat". There was a brief mention that Vedit had worked in the field of gene manipulation, but I don't remember any connection being made between Vedits pet and that fact. There was clearly more action in movie, like in prison scene, in book you don't see Nite Owl or Silk Spectre doing any fighting, but there was quite amount of that in movie. Also I felt like the violence level was upped a bit. Of course original work was pretty violent, but there was some unnecessary additions for that also, in example the scene in the alley where Dan and Laurie was attacked they used more force than I felt fitted to their character. All that violence got me surprised that in here watchmen is for people over 15, I felt that it might should have been for people over 18.
PS: Why were they called Watchmen? It takes away meaning from the title, dag nabbit. It seemed like a few thing like this were dumbed down for the masses.
I had to read Watchmen three or four times before I actually understood everything that was going on. Now that I do understand almost all of it, it is incredibly obvious to me who out there gets it, and who does not. If you don't get it, I highly highly suggest you read it again, and perhaps again again. When you do reread it, read it very slowly and carefully. Spend a few minutes examining each and every panel, background and foreground. Think about what you are seeing. Examine everything on the micro and macro scale. Did you know that issue five is in itself symmetrical on almost every level? If you don't even know something so obvious as that, you didn't read it properly. Go read it again.
I was merely stating that the ending for the Movie was far less "out there" and absurd. I don't see how rereading the novel multiple times would disprove my point.