Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Everyone is Watching the Watchmen
February 24, 2009 7:41 PM   Subscribe

After 20 years in development, Watchmen has finally had it's premiere. The reviews--both geek and mainstream--have begun to trickle in. Is it a masterpiece or a disaster? Dave Gibbons likes what he's seen. Alan Moore still won't comment (well, about the movie, but he does go on.)
posted by empath (192 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite

 
Watchmen is not an action special-effects extravaganza.
posted by autodidact at 7:45 PM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


autodidact: I don't know. I mean, it's not just that, but (even though it's been a few years since I last read the graphic novel) I seem to remember there are plenty of huge action and special effects set pieces. Everything regarding the creation of Dr. Manhattan, Rorschach's brushes with the law, the creation of the palace on Mars, the war flashbacks, the exploding ships, the apperance of the giant space octopus, the final showdown in Ozymandias' fortress... And those are just the ones I remember offhand.

It's an interesting, multi-layered work, but it's also about superheroes and explosions and weird science. I think the movie adaptation looks promising, and I'm looking forward to it.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 7:50 PM on February 24, 2009


I'm looking forward to it too.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 7:53 PM on February 24, 2009


I saw enough from the trailer to understand that the entire idea had been subverted. That's my opinion for the rest of my life or until I see it accidentally. Zack Snyder blew it with 300 and he's blown it with Watchmen.

Still, it's like the movies based on your favorite NES games - even if it's the worst thing in the world, it's kind of awesome.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 7:54 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


"From the visionary director of 300"

That line from the trailer set me up for disappointment, which could be genius. A graphic novel which set the bar really high got a director that set it really low.
posted by munchingzombie at 7:56 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Zack Snyder blew it with 300

Actually, Snyder pretty much captured 300 in all its ultra-violent, racist, repressed homosexual goodbadness. So, at least we know he'll be faithful to the source material.

I saw enough from the trailer to understand that the entire idea had been subverted.

I'd be curious to hear you elaborate on this.
posted by Saxon Kane at 7:59 PM on February 24, 2009 [10 favorites]


Who watches the watchmen? I do!!
posted by hellojed at 8:00 PM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


"Zack Snyder blew it with 300 and he's blown it with Watchmen."

I read the 300 book a while ago. It read like almost everything else Frank Miller has written, and the movie did too. Or at least watched like it. But then, the only thing Miller's ever done that I really liked was Batman beating the righteous out of Superman.

What did you see in the trailer that tipped you off that The Idea had been subverted? For that matter, when did you decide Watchmen had a single idea? Even if you're one of the people that prioritizes authorial intent above all (and I'd point out that I don't think Moore is), Watchmen has at least a couple ideas.
posted by kavasa at 8:01 PM on February 24, 2009


I really don't understand people who say Zack Snyder missed it with 300. That was pretty much a direct translation of the comic. 300 was a comic book created by Frank Miller to emulate movies. It was even printed in a "widescreen" format. So it's a pretty natural fit to then be turned into a movie. Along the same lines, Sin City was a comic book distillation of noir and pulp cinema, making it a pretty natural fit for a movie once they figured out how to translate the visual style.

Watchmen is a comic book created by Alan Moore to be the ultimate comic book. I think it should remain a comic book. The footage I've seen of scenes from Watchmen with stupid music playing overtop make me worry for the future of Watchmen in the zeitgeist. It's been completely co-opted and subverted.
posted by autodidact at 8:02 PM on February 24, 2009


"From the visionary director of 300"

Yeah. Me too. God that movie was so fucking awful. Not a good start.

Even my 14 year old nephew hated 300. His exact words "I think this movie is what gay porn must be like."
posted by tkchrist at 8:02 PM on February 24, 2009 [8 favorites]


300 was pretty garbagey. But then, the comic was pretty garbagey. Miller only wrote about five wonderful things in his life (Electra Assassin, Dark Knight, Love & War, Ronin, Hard Boiled) and then a metric shitload of total dreck.

So I am trying not to hang my Watchmen hopes on 300. I have midnight opening tickets with some of the boys from my 1995 junior-year American Graphic Novels college seminar. It was a student seminar (aka a made-up class just for the eight of us) but it was still pretty self-indulgent. I wrote the term paper on Watchmen. My buddy Sam did his honors thesis on it.

I think we're all avoiding reviews and just hoping that the movie A) looks incredibly cool and B) does not offend us too thoroughly. We all know that the narrative doesn't fit into <6hrs, so it will necessarily be a Survey Of The Work In Question.

Excited anyway.
posted by damehex at 8:08 PM on February 24, 2009


300 was bad in all the ways that the graphic novel was bad, and it was good in all the ways that the graphic novel was good..
posted by empath at 8:09 PM on February 24, 2009 [5 favorites]


I really don't understand people who say Zack Snyder missed it with 300.

I never read 300.

Not everybody is a comic geek. Some people like movies — movies with stories well told. The fundamental story of the battle of Thermopylae is enough fodder for 3 great movies. But you wouldn't know that by 300.

300 was an incomprehensible visual barrage of idiotic clichés and homophobia.
posted by tkchrist at 8:09 PM on February 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


tkchrist, no argument there. Hooray for Frank Miller. He did one good thing (Dark Knight) (and even that is sometimes cringe-inducing), everything else I've read of his is vile.
posted by empath at 8:12 PM on February 24, 2009


The trailer for 300 was awesome!
posted by Artw at 8:13 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


The Shadow was flawed; but it was good stuff none the less. If Watchmen is not an Oscar / giant money Hollywood success; well. I'll still enjoy the fluid visualization of film. Coolworld is flawed too, but seriously; Holly Wood? How much more voluptuous can film become? Will it be remade better? Probably, but Excalibur? No.

At worst, a preclusion to an excellent remake in a few year. Cool. And all the people that will be exposed to Moores works is nothing but icing on a cake.
posted by buzzman at 8:14 PM on February 24, 2009


It wasn't really 20 years in development,
The film began shooting in Vancouver in September 2007 for release on March 6, 2009. suggests 1 and a bit years. 20 years ago it was a comic
posted by mattoxic at 8:14 PM on February 24, 2009


I'm a little wary of linking to the "leaked" scenes, since I'm not sure they are strictly speaking legal, but they're all over the YouTubes if anyone wants to go look at 'em. Based on the ten or so minutes I've seen of this movie, I think that...well...pretty much I'm left with the feeling I got from the trailers, which is that the tone and aesthetic are way off; it's slick and CGI where it wants to be all '70s Scorsese. It feels like the story beats are being executed without much understanding of what the scenes actually mean (the tenement fire sequence being the best example...you're not "fixing" the scene by having Laurie get chased out the window by a fireball like the dog in Independence Day; you're Doing It Wrong). And less said about Disco Inferno Comedian, the better. (I understand that an era is being evoked, but -- out of context, anyhow -- this is total Batman and Robin territory. Maybe it works better in the film.) In the pro column, though, the guy playing Rorschach seems quite good.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:15 PM on February 24, 2009


It's been at various studios since the graphic novel was released, see the linked article in the fpp (development).
posted by empath at 8:16 PM on February 24, 2009


it's slick and CGI where it wants to be all '70s Scorsese

Watchmen. From the Director that brought you Mean Streets.

Now that's a movie I'd stand in line to see.

Still, I'm sure I'll see it opening weekend to make up my own mind.
posted by cjets at 8:23 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


You can read some of the scripts that didn't end up getting used here. The Sam Hamm one is actually a fairly amusing (or horrifying) read.

The Watchmen Motion Comics on iTunes, btw, are wonderful-- nearly flawless. If you just want to 'watch the comic', you can't do any better than that, 6 hours long, and very little was cut.
posted by empath at 8:24 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


I really don't understand people who say Zack Snyder missed it with 300.

I never read 300.


Yeah but it was an adaptation of Miller's 300 comic, not a historical retelling of the battle of Thermopylae. I don't think it could have been translated more faithfully from the comic than it was.
posted by autodidact at 8:28 PM on February 24, 2009


I have been dying for a new Watchmen thread. Can we please make this one 400+ comments?
posted by shakespeherian at 8:30 PM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


I don't read comics, or maybe I should call them graphic novels just never really got into them. Anyway a movie version is really the only way I'm ever going to be exposed to this material so I'm glad they made Watchmen, I just hope it does the comics justice. Not that I'll be able to tell one way or the other.
posted by nola at 8:33 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


... and if you didn't watch movies, Citizen Kane the comic book would be the only way you'd experience what Welles did for movies. Doesn't make it right.
posted by autodidact at 8:41 PM on February 24, 2009 [7 favorites]


How many people here have actually seen the finished movie?
posted by Diskeater at 8:42 PM on February 24, 2009


You guys are crazy. 300 was a great graphic novel and a swell movie. I think Watchmen will be pretty good, even if they did noodle with the plot.

Then again, I just watched Poultrygeist yesterday, so the scale I use to rate movies is probably a little more skewed than most.
posted by Bageena at 8:49 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


This movie is going to be what it is!
posted by clearly at 8:53 PM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Don't get me wrong: I'll be there for the noon show on March 6, and I might bring some pot brownies because in those longer movies your buzz wears off before the third act! I'm sure it'll be a cool film.
posted by autodidact at 8:56 PM on February 24, 2009


If you like this sort of movie, then this is going to be a movie that you'll like!
posted by turgid dahlia at 8:56 PM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


How many people here have actually seen the finished movie?

I'll be honest, I couldn't slog through all of 300.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:57 PM on February 24, 2009


I'll be skeptical until I see it, especially after reading this short profile of Zack Snyder. Real quotes by Snyder from the article:

"I wouldn’t say it’s a short movie by any stretch, but it’s the tightest version that I could give them and not feel like I raped it a little bit."

"It’s as serious as, like, brain surgery on a baby." (About The Dark Knight—meant as a compliment.)

Total bro.
posted by knguyen at 8:59 PM on February 24, 2009


Wow. That Alan Moore interview is very rich and completely captivating. Thanks for linking it. And he does comment on the movie, if obliquely:

I think that adaptation is largely a waste of time in almost any circumstances. There probably are the odd things that would prove me wrong. But I think they'd be very much the exception. If a thing works well in one medium, in the medium that it has been designed to work in, then the only possible point for wanting to realize it on "multiple platforms," as they say these days, is to make a lot of money out of it. There is no consideration for the integrity of the work, which is rather the only thing as far as I'm concerned.

I've got enough money to be comfortable. I live comfortably, I can pay the bills at the end of every month. I don't want a huge amount of money by diluting something that I happen to be rather proud of at its outset. That pretty much describes my attitude toward the idea of any of my works being realized in another form, really.

posted by mediareport at 8:59 PM on February 24, 2009 [13 favorites]


... and if you didn't watch movies, Citizen Kane the comic book would be the only way you'd experience what Welles did for movies. Doesn't make it right.

What's right? I like the idea of comics but I know myself, and I'm just not going to read one. Trust me I've tried, they just don't turn my crank. I love movies so I'll watch this one when I get a chance. Fortunately a story well told on the page can sometimes be well told on the screen. Anyway why the hell I'm a justifying myself to you anyway you damn comic book nerd? And don't you have some unopened Todd Macfarlane dolls to organize?
posted by nola at 9:00 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm still sort of hoping for the Gilliam version.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:06 PM on February 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


You are wrong, your preferred medium (movie/comic -- delete whichever is inapplicable) sucks compared to the other, and you should be ashamed to hold the opinions you hold.

All of you.
posted by ubernostrum at 9:06 PM on February 24, 2009 [10 favorites]


That Wired interview with Moore is pretty interesting, but I have to say I'm not too impressed with somebody who says that the multi-multi-multi-million dollar budgets and enormous resources used for big Hollywood films ought to be invested in, for example, a flood-damaged Haiti (I agree with this notion, incidentally), and then goes on to say that he is investing his own personal resources in a thing called The Bumper Book Of Magic.
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:07 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm already over Watchmen. I want that Yummy Fur movie they've been promising us for almost as long.
posted by cazoo at 9:10 PM on February 24, 2009


The women better look gritty and seasoned. I hope they do better than V. It's probably going to go the way of Electra.
posted by Flex1970 at 9:14 PM on February 24, 2009


Eletkra
posted by Flex1970 at 9:15 PM on February 24, 2009


Jesus.
posted by Flex1970 at 9:15 PM on February 24, 2009


It's probably going to go the way of Electa Eletkra Jesus.

Is that right?
posted by shakespeherian at 9:28 PM on February 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


No griping or whinging here - I can't effing wait for this movie. The comic was great, and now we get nearly three hours of the most valiant attempt yet to visualize it on-screen.

Rock on.
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 9:31 PM on February 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Hooray for Frank Miller. He did one good thing (Dark Knight) (and even that is sometimes cringe-inducing), everything else I've read of his is vile.

His Daredevil run was unmatched. Sigh.
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 9:32 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


From the "Masterpiece" link, I scanned it and looking for a summary statement but came across this first:

"And taken on its own, Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" is a profound work of art, a beautiful, deliriously weird, meditative spin on a genre that is as American as jazz"

... I haven't seen it, so I can't say if he's right about all those things he says the movie is... but... "as American as jazz?" I have no idea why, no clue, really, but for some reason his saying that makes me cringe, and not believe him at all.
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 9:38 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think they were saying that the genre is as American as jazz, the genre in question being superhero comics.
posted by jtron at 9:39 PM on February 24, 2009


I hope the movie kicks some serious ass, if for no other reason than that would drive up the value of my graded Watchmen comics. Hey, I just watched Obama's speech, so I'm full of hope! ;)
posted by jamstigator at 9:52 PM on February 24, 2009


He's sayint that the superhero genre is as American as jazz is American. And it is.
posted by empath at 9:53 PM on February 24, 2009


His Daredevil run was unmatched. Sigh.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was originally a parody of Miller's work on Daredevil; the original comics are barely recognizable if you grew up on the cartoon.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:55 PM on February 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


Sweet jumping Buddha am I tired of nerd-hate and nerd-picking. Is it that hard to loosen up a little and try to enjoy something?

Hey, everyone who won't accept a Watchmen movie that isn't a spot-on adaption: YOU'LL NEVER HAVE IT - the very design of the Watchmen comic is meant to couch it so deeply in that format that the experience is unavailable anywhere else. You can only get the feeling of reading Watchmen by reading Watchmen - there's absolutely no way to fully recreate the experience, even if you shot a twelve hour movie. Trying to adapt Watchmen with perfect "accuracy" is as insane as trying to bake a pie that tastes like the guitar solo from Purple Haze - it can't be done! So if what you want is a pitch-perfect Watchmen experience, please just read the book again, find something you missed on readthroughs 2-20 and just stay home from the theaters, alright?

Yes, there will be stuff missing from the film. It won't match up exactly with how you pictured it. But you can still adapt the core story, you can still hire actors that understand the principle characters, you can still make sure that the world-building and most of the dialog come through. A lot of Watchmen's structural stuff will only work in the comic, and that's fine. Comics can do stuff film can't do. But film can do stuff comics can't do and, I'm honestly excited to see how the filmmakers corrected for the deficiencies of their format.

Hate to say it, my dear nerds, but this movie isn't really for us. It's for all our non-comic reading friends who went to see X-Men and were surprised by how much they enjoyed themselves. It's for all those parents who took their kids to Spider-Man and caught themselves getting involved. It's for all those critics who watched The Dark Knight and found themselves surprised and delighted to experience a complex, challenging story about a superhero. Remember what a shattering kick in the ass it was to read Watchmen for the first time? What it did to your expectations concerning superheroes? The whole country is about to have that experience. Don't you find that even a little exciting?

I'm glad the movie's not come out until now because the movie going public hasn't been ready for it until now. But over the last few years, we've been priming them. A little X-Men here, a little Superman there, a dash of Iron Man last summer and movie-goers think they know what to expect from superhero stories. "Superhero" has become a film genre, so this is the perfect time to turn it over and give it a robust shake. Good golly but there's gonna be a lot of people turning this story over in their heads come the morning of March 7.

People are gonna talk about it. People are gonna have opinions about various character's motives. You're gonna overhear arguments at work that you only used to hear in comics stores. Sales of the novel will increase.

Everybody wins, save for those who insist on seeing this as a loss.
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:00 PM on February 24, 2009 [46 favorites]


His Daredevil run was unmatched. Sigh.

His Batman run was phenomenal. Double sigh.
posted by isnotchicago at 10:01 PM on February 24, 2009


Will I see it? Hell. I saw it thirty-five minutes ago.
posted by Curry at 10:21 PM on February 24, 2009 [16 favorites]


Oh, come on, Curry, how was it?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:24 PM on February 24, 2009


I'm still getting over Keanu Reeves in The Day the Earth Stood Still. What were they thinking?
Next...Carrot Top is Pipi Longstocking in Pipi Goes to New York.
posted by doctorschlock at 10:36 PM on February 24, 2009


Have you read the comic book, Pope Guilty?
posted by Curry at 10:52 PM on February 24, 2009


Yeah, I'm a big fan. I read the chud.com review and am a little suspicious of how glowing it is, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to see it next Friday.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:54 PM on February 24, 2009


Pope Guilty, Curry isn't some Republic serial critic. Do you seriously think he'd explain the film if there remained the slightest chance of affecting its box office?

"I don't think it could have been translated more faithfully from the comic than it was."
The rape scene was unnecessary. I can't imagine, really, a more scathing criticism.
And dunno, the '300' comic I read was pretty much about the clash of a society governed by the rule of law vs. one governed by the myth of a divine king and the whim of men.
I don't know what the hell the movie was about.
We can argue matters of taste, and if folks think Miller sucks, fine. But that's what the comic was about. And the Spartans were, in fact, into sodomy in the ranks and such, and brutal in their execution of laws, etc. It was thousands of years ago. A mere few hundred years ago we still had widespread slavery.
(My only gripe with Miller's version is he - like everyone else - leaves out their hairdressers who died with the 300. Fighting and dying for your ideals and people is one thing, remaining to tease your boss' coif into majesty in the shade of a hundred thousand arrows - that's a whole other level of dedication)

I was just eating an electric huckleberry and tang pie - tastes just like the guitar riffs from Purple Haze - and thinking, you don't have to be true to the source material to tell the story. You just have to tell the story as it would be told within the medium.

You just can't do a "One Flew Over the CooCoo's Nest" movie, what with the internal dialogue, surreal head-trippy stuff going on, all that.
And yet, Foreman pulled off telling the story and giving you the same flavor and experience and deep message you get from the book.
Different medium, same story, same experience for the viewer, with concessions made in the plot only to the passive nature of film (you can't, f'rinstance, flip back or re-read, etc).

If it's done poorly, I'd be less pissed off if I knew it couldn't be done well.

Hell, Coppola made the Godfather BETTER (IMHO) despite making Luca Brasi (who was really terrifying in the book) into a doltish lug and excising the whole Doctor-Lucy thing from the story, etc.

I gotta go with Moore - those people are in it for the money. Otherwise they would not care what the fanboys wanted to see. They'd just reflect the same story through a different medium.

But I've got to go with John Hodgman a bit as well. The Watchmen on film doesn't have to exist. So, ok.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:59 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


That Alan Moore interview is excellent. Thanks for posting it.
posted by painquale at 11:06 PM on February 24, 2009


Actually, Snyder pretty much captured 300 in all its ultra-violent, racist, repressed homosexual goodbadness. So, at least we know he'll be faithful to the source material.

Absolutely.

Miller only wrote about five wonderful things in his life (Electra Assassin, Dark Knight, Love & War, Ronin, Hard Boiled)

Hey now, Martha Stewart was fine, too.

300 was a great graphic novel

300 was a fucking awful graphic novel. It was awful by Miller's own standards. Miller claimed, in Comics Journal interviews, that he wanted to do two things:

1/ Rescue the reputation of the Spartans, who he thought had a bad rep, because he thinks they saved classical Greecian civilisation and were really a great bunch of guys, and
2/ Be incredibly historically accurate.

Point 2 is at odds with point 1 to begin with, of course. The Spartans were notable for their illiteracy, for their lack of culture compared to the other nation states of the area. Their treatment of their slaves was horrendous even by contemporary standards. And, ultimately, they were the ones who did most damage to, and destroyed what we tend to think of as the good bits of classical culture.

Point 1 is a complete failure. The historical accuracy is shit. The book is, frankly, shit. Miller throws temper tantrums when asked why a bunch of Spartans would be using homophobic insults to other Greeks.

The art is doing nothing new or interesting - if anything, it's a regression for Miller, who was rightly lauded for Sin City and Ronin and Dark Knight - 300 is like an ugly rip-off of his own work.

300 was shit. It was shit because it was shit by the standards the guy who wrote and drew it set for it as a work.

He's sayint that the superhero genre is as American as jazz is American. And it is.

Ironic, then, that so much of the best stuff has been done by Brits. Which would, I guess, make it like rock and roll. Or heavy metal.

I saw enough from the trailer to understand that the entire idea had been subverted. That's my opinion for the rest of my life or until I see it accidentally.

Perhaps you should go join a bunch of Catholics whining about Last Temptation, with ignorance like that you'd fit right in.
posted by rodgerd at 11:07 PM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


I learned that I'm going to be in Vancouver on business opening day. Hellllo, IMAX!

Although to tell the truth, I still haven't read it. I read in a wavy form, often reading lines 5 down from where I currently am, then stopping and going back. Like skimming in a weird way. This hurts when I do it for comics, and makes them a bit unpleasant to read. So I never got around to it, though I tried.

But now that I'm going to see it in theatres, I'm reading it. On the third chapter or so. I have to finish it before I see it.

Also, I really have to have read this. I have Quis custodiet ipsos custodes tattooed on my arm, albeit for different reasons. It's just not right to ignore this series.
posted by Lemurrhea at 11:12 PM on February 24, 2009


Man, where were all you guys when I was trying to sort of defend 300 - or rather, Snyder's adaptation of 300?

Also, someone's going to have to whip up a MeFi Comic FPP bingo card.

Last month, I reread Enigma. That was some good comic. And reread a couple of Marshal Law collections - the satire is a pretty clear example of the law (har!) of diminishing returns, but still, it never fails to make me LOL.

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:16 PM on February 24, 2009


Well, Pat Mills has a tendency to get into a groove and just mine it to death, and he's gotten worse over the years, but Marshal Law was aces. Kevin O'Neil is fantastic as well.

If you like Marshall Law see if you can find the first big collection of Nemesis the Warlock, there's some fantastic mentallisst stuff from the both of them there.
posted by Artw at 11:20 PM on February 24, 2009


I only read a little Marchall Law back in the day, I dug it, but I missed a bunch of issues.

The Epic book that really did it for me was Doctor Zero. *sigh* ... why only 13 issues? Why?
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:29 PM on February 24, 2009


In the pro column, though, the guy playing Rorschach seems quite good.

Jackie Earle Haley, the cool kid from the original Bad News Bears. He's the only reason why I'm going to see this movie. I'll watch any piece of crap if he's in it.
posted by zarah at 11:30 PM on February 24, 2009


I must be the only person in the world to neither know nor care what the hell Watchmen is.

And I had no idea up to today that 300 was an adaptation of a comic. I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the promotional materials. It was marketed as a historical film.

Ghost World is one of my favourite movies, so I guess comic adaptations *can* be done well.
posted by salmacis at 11:37 PM on February 24, 2009


It was marketed as a historical film.

It was marketed as having a soundtrack by Nine Inch Nails. Fucking marketers.
posted by Artw at 11:40 PM on February 24, 2009


What Happens If Watchmen Flops?
posted by homunculus at 11:42 PM on February 24, 2009


A few months ago I wrote a blog entry about what I would change if I were in charge of production. I got flamed from all sides, it seems that the final product is even closer to the book than I imagined possible for a Hollywood movie. This doesn't necessarily make it a better experience, but I don't see what people are complaining about in regards to accuracy.
posted by AndrewStephens at 12:00 AM on February 25, 2009


From homunculus' link: in many ways, the visuals are the least important thing about Watchmen the book

Dude, the paneling in the comics blew me away. A huge part of the overall experience, IMO.
posted by Curry at 12:06 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think Zack Snyder is the best choice to make the best adaptation of the film at this point in time. Everything I saw that was leaking out from the production looked amazingly close to the comic's design and look. I can imagine certain filmmakers absolutely wrecking this if they got the chance to.

I was initially aghast at the elements of the plot that were altered, such as the removal of the squid and also the fact that "The Watchmen" is now an actual title for the 70's collaboration of Rorschach and gang. But considering the audience for the film - which is not going to be primarily fans of the comic - it probably makes sense.

There are still some changes that ring a little false, such as Dan visiting Veidt, rather that Rorschach (it seems out of character for Dan to put faith into Rorschach's conspiracy so early on). Also, apparently Laurie's pipe cigarettes were removed because the studio head hated smoking(!)

If the altered ending still feels in-step with the themes and structure of the story then I'll go for that.
posted by panboi at 12:06 AM on February 25, 2009


Well there's accuracy and there's accuracy - both 300 and Spider-Man were accurate in very different ways - panel by panel copying and getting the spirit of the thing right - I'm kind of doubtful that Watchmen has gotten the one that's most important right. I guess I'll see soon enough, since barring universally horrible reports iwas always going to see it, and peopel generally seem to like it so far.
posted by Artw at 12:08 AM on February 25, 2009


Curry - I was put off by that, too. He's probably only read it once. You don't start spotting all the awesome little structural touches until readthrough five or so, I think.
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:08 AM on February 25, 2009


(the article's author, not homunculus, obviously)
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:08 AM on February 25, 2009


Speaking of Scorsese, a few years ago I read his production company bought the film rights to Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos. Don't know where they are with it, but that I'd like to see.

If you're unfamiliar with this awesome sci fi novel, don't spoil it by reading the wikipedia entry. Just get a hold of the first two books.
posted by Tacodog at 1:05 AM on February 25, 2009


I am hoping Watchmen turns out to be like The Lord of the Rings films - a fairly close adaption that hits the same plot-points with the same tone as the source material. A scene-for-scene retelling would be paced extremely oddly for a film.
posted by AndrewStephens at 1:17 AM on February 25, 2009


just got done re-reading for the first time in some years. If your copy or copies are in mom's distant basement (as mine are), but you feel secure in the fact that you own this book, maybe you don't think it's bad morals to be checking it out in CBR via Bittorrent. It is not too hard to find. And a huge bright screen is actually a pretty nice way to read a comic.
posted by damehex at 1:20 AM on February 25, 2009


I also re-read the comics in preparation for what I hope is a strong, if not amazing, film experience.

I'm not sure if any director can do justice to Rorschach -- I'd forgotten just how violent they guy is, and yet in my mind he's the most important character in the story (the "center" of it, if you will). And how Dr. Manhattan is really a whiny douchebag, but with a believable conflict to work through.

And it's opening in Korea, so I'm a happy boy. Although I've got no idea if the film will make sense to anyone here, since it probably won't make sense to many Americans in the first place. Those expecting another "Iron Man" or "Spiderman," that is.
posted by bardic at 2:11 AM on February 25, 2009


I was underwhelmed by the graphic novel when Iw as 18, but SO really, really wants to see it. I remember little of the book so am a bit worried it will colour the story/characters for me. I have been watching various edits of the trailers for the past couple of weeks and it looks visually stunning, though.

The IMAX is doing 4.30am shows in London.
posted by mippy at 3:26 AM on February 25, 2009


(I'm still waiting for a St Swithin's Day film...)
posted by mippy at 3:34 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


I have never heard of the Watchmen, but I followed one of the links provided above and now I am intrigued by the concept of a giant space squid. If someone can confirm this film will feature one, I will consider watching it.
posted by ghost of a past number at 3:37 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


I've got decent hopes for this one. What really sold me was the trailer. Not the graphics, mind you, but the music they chose: The Beginning is the End is the Beginning, a version of the Smashing Pumpkins song The End is the Beginning is the End, notable for being in Batman and Robin, famously bad superhero movie.

A detail like that tells me that they're dedicated to making Watchmen the movie as much a commentary on the superhero movies that preceded it as Watchmen the comic was a commentary on superhero comics. I really hope it's not a faithful adaptation, because it shouldn't be. The way this will succeed is by analogy, success on its own terms rather than slavish remaking.
posted by explosion at 3:56 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


ghost, I flagged your comment - it's a spoiler. Anyone who's not read the book yet, DO NOT READ THE COMMENT ABOVE!
posted by davemee at 4:16 AM on February 25, 2009


Well I know what I will be doing on my birthday then. Bastards. I am actually looking forward to this now.

davemee - fifty minutes in my past I read your comment. In ten minutes time I will be fetching a cup of coffee from the machine in the break room. Ten years ago, in a room somewhere in Derbyshire I am reading Watchmen. 18 months from now I am watching the Director's Cut of the film on DVD.

/goes home to shave all bodily hair and paint self blue.
posted by longbaugh at 5:06 AM on February 25, 2009 [6 favorites]


My apologies, I got this from the thread linked above, so I thought this would be common knowledge by now. I hope the mods will swoop in like the vigilant watchmen that they are and remove my offending comment.
posted by ghost of a past number at 6:12 AM on February 25, 2009



He's saying that the superhero genre is as American as jazz is American. And it is.


I get what he's saying... I just think the phrase is irritatingly sentimental/precious. It makes me not trust him because he's either emotionally involved to the extent that it might cloud his judgment or he's lazy and uses cliche phrases to poorly convey something that's richly complex. Anytime anyone says "it's American as _______" they lose me. It's a "me" thing, but it's also a "them" thing. Because what does it matter how "American" something is? In and of itself that rarely seems like a good argument to me - there are better ways to say "something is woven deeply into the web of our culture and society and with that comes certain expectations and familiarities." When you say "it's as American as _______" I feel like I'm watching a crummy television documentary on baseball.
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 6:13 AM on February 25, 2009


I have a huge nerd boner for Issue #4: Watchmaker.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:14 AM on February 25, 2009


I don't want a huge amount of money by diluting something that I happen to be rather proud of at its outset.

That's one attitude. An alternative from James M. Cain, via The Paris Review Interviews:

"People tell me, Don't you care what they've done to your book? I tell them, they haven't done anything to my book. It's right there on the shelf."
posted by cribcage at 6:37 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


I thought the Watchmen NES game was a perfect adaptation of the comic. What I played of it, anyway. I couldn't get past the 8th level boss with the floating heads and laser eyes and guard dogs. Those lasers took off like half of your health, ugh. Cool parallax scrolling though.
posted by naju at 6:43 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


I loved 300., though I'm curious as to how someone could look at that film and come away from it thinking that it was homophobic. It might even be gayer than Top Gun (yo, volleyball scene!)

I loved Watchmen when I first read it years ago, I recently re-bought it and re-loved it, and I am fully expecting to love the film.

When a filmmaker puts forth a good-faith effort to bring a comic to the screen, I usually enjoy the results. Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Begins are two wildly different takes on the character, but I loved them both because it seemed so clear that the filmmakers were genuinely doing their very best.

I think that Snyder's doing his very best on Watchmen, and I'm hopeful that it will be wondrous. I do not expect it to be perfect. It doesn't have to be.
posted by DWRoelands at 6:53 AM on February 25, 2009


When a filmmaker puts forth a good-faith effort to bring a comic to the screen, I usually enjoy the results. Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Begins are two wildly different takes on the character, but I loved them both because it seemed so clear that the filmmakers were genuinely doing their very best.

I think it's merely coincidental that Burton's Batman bore as close a resemblance to the source material as it did. Burton prides himself on not reading comics and has said as much in interviews.

That, and he likes bats:

Ironically, neither Keaton nor Burton got involved with Batman out of any love for the character or for comics in general. But they were intrigued by early versions of the script by Sam Hamm, who treated Batman and The Joker as two sides of the same psychological coin--one driven by pathological rage to fight crime, and the other driven by madness to commit crime.

"I actually find comics too unvisual for me," Burton said. "I find them very claustrophobic and I can never tell which panel to read first. Comics just weren't my thing.

"But I've always enjoyed the images associated with Batman. Somehow, they strike a very primal chord. Maybe it has to do with bats, because they're such great creatures. Show anyone a bat and right away, they'll perk up.

"They're very beautifully designed creatures, very primal, very old and very interesting. They're there throughout history, from Dracula to opera. When you see that image of the Bat logo out there now, it's like you've got the DTs or something."


from The Burton Collective
posted by Fleebnork at 7:03 AM on February 25, 2009


I flagged your comment - it's a spoiler.

The comic is twenty-years-old. There is a statue of limitations on spoilers unless, you know, you don't already know that Darth Vader is Luke's father.
posted by stet at 7:14 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


but I followed one of the links provided above and now I am intrigued by the concept of a giant space squid. If someone can confirm this film will feature one, I will consider watching it.

Oh.

Oh, wow.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:20 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wait, Vader is Luke's father? SHIT
posted by waraw at 7:48 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Yea, ghost... If you're intrigued by the idea, read the novel, which is fantastic, and certainly worth doing before you watch the movie. Or at least I would reckon so, as the movie may still turn out to suck.
posted by opsin at 7:49 AM on February 25, 2009


300 was homophobic? I think we must get different versions of the movie then you guys do. Since many of you have already set your expectations pretty thoroughly, it would be extremely surprising if you thought the movie was good once you have actually seen it. Why not sit back and give it a chance to make its own statement?
posted by Bovine Love at 7:58 AM on February 25, 2009


I'm tentatively looking forward to this movie but some of the clips I've seen haven't really impressed me much.

My impression is that the movie is emphasizing the limited number of action sequences while almost certainly reducing the amount of dialogue. Part of that's probably necessary because the audience isn't going to want to go to a "Superhero" movie that is fundamentally all about the heroes talking wistfully to each other.

I think what fans of the comic book are going to expect is a post-modern deconstruction of the superhero and it's place in the world. I'm afraid what they are going to get is a variation on Four Color heroes with a bit of grittiness and griminess painted on. Add in the difficulty in translating the Cold War paranoia and tension of the original source material to this movie and I'm not sure we are going to see a a truly insight adaptation of the source material.

I think it will be a fun movie to see, and possibly even surprising in how much Snyder will get right, but I think it will fundamentally fail at translating what it arguably the most important example of the graphic novel medium into a masterpiece of cinema. At least I'm going to tell myself that so I don't have to high of expectations coming into it.
posted by vuron at 8:02 AM on February 25, 2009


You know they are bringing out a movie version of the GN? Yeah, it's just like the original but every time you get to a bit of action you have to turn the pages r e a l l y s l o w l y...
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 8:08 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Add in the difficulty in translating the Cold War paranoia and tension of the original source material to this movie and I'm not sure we are going to see a a truly insight adaptation of the source material.

They kept the cold war setting. I read the book the first time in the mid 90s, when we loved the Russians, and I had no problem getting the paranoia of the 80s...
posted by empath at 8:25 AM on February 25, 2009


classical Greecian

Greek. Not a hair formula.

posted by Pantengliopoli at 8:35 AM on February 25, 2009


I'm curious as to how someone could look at that film and come away from it thinking that it was homophobic.

Homophobic and homoerotic are not opposites, nor are homophobic and 100% gay-o-sexual. See the classic Onion bit "Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?" For the latter, see the Republican party.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:48 AM on February 25, 2009 [5 favorites]


There is a statue of limitations on spoilers unless, you know, you don't already know that Darth Vader is Luke's father.

Well you know, you can know that without seeing St*r W*rs. However. The Sixth Sense's twist was ruined for me by a lecture handout at university...
posted by mippy at 8:55 AM on February 25, 2009


I'll go on record and say that I didn't really think The Watchmen was that great. I only read it for the first time last year though and I'm in my late twenties. Could that have something to do with it?

It felt like it was just Assholes in Costume: The Comic Book. Sure it seemed well written, had effective symbolism and reoccurring themes and all that, but I guess I couldn't bring myself to care that much about a bunch of assholes.

I felt the same way about the movie Seven. It looked well shot/directed/edited, but I just didn't care or see it as meaningful in any way. Some asshole kills a few people and then gets himself killed. Because he's crazy he works out some sick justification for the killing. The End.

Maybe I should just give them another read/watch. Or maybe I just missed the boat.
posted by ODiV at 9:18 AM on February 25, 2009


Maybe I should just give them another read/watch.

Yeah, I'd recommend that, because you definitely didn't do it right the first time around.
posted by FatherDagon at 9:31 AM on February 25, 2009


ODiV -- the point was kind of that superheroes are always assholes in costumes. He just front and centered it. I don't think that the characters are simply assholes, though. Most of them are trying to make the best of a rotten situation. The only complete asshole seems to be the Comedian.
posted by empath at 9:31 AM on February 25, 2009


Some of the people I work with are off to a press screening for this later tonight and are under strict instructions not to talk to me until I've been to the first Imax showing here in London next Friday. After that they can ask every dumb how-is-the-book-different? question they want to which... I'm undecided, could be great because it'll stir up conversation and maybe profer new understanding of elements I myself have never understood, or on the other hand could become extremely tedious.

Also, I hope this thread reaches 400. Not 300. 400 would be better.
posted by Molesome at 9:35 AM on February 25, 2009


I already requested 400.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:44 AM on February 25, 2009


I read Watchmen after seeing the trailer for the film that was attached to The Dark Knight. Loved the book, passed it around to everyone I know and they loved it too.

The potential greatness/crappiness of the upcoming movie will have no impact on my love of the book. At the least, it’ll provide geek fodder for me and my friends to obsess over for hours on end. I look forward to that.

If the movie makes more people aware of the book, that’s a huge win.
posted by Diskeater at 9:56 AM on February 25, 2009


bardic : I'm not sure if any director can do justice to Rorschach -- I'd forgotten just how violent they guy is, and yet in my mind he's the most important character in the story...

This is the thing that has been eating away at me about this adaptation. Not only is Rorschach a violent sociopath, he is the somewhat unreliable narrator telling the whole story. I'm very afraid that the goal will be to make him into someone that the audience can identify with by making him a hero, and that would be the film's worst crime in my mind; Rorschach is not a good guy. Not at all. People who see in absolutes are scary and everything they say is suspect, and that is what makes him so fascinating.

He's a very unbalanced person who happens to do some stuff that the audience can agree with. But when you step back far enough, you realize that this is not someone you would ever really want to hang out with.

Which is why he is, naturally, my favorite.

All that said, I'm looking forward to the film. If they can get him right, they will have made something fantastic.
posted by quin at 10:02 AM on February 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


Yeah, I'd recommend that, because you definitely didn't do it right the first time around.

After reading it I was looking it up on the Internet and someone described how the book is generally read by people. He mentions that usually people skip over the Black Freighter stuff on their first reading. Should I have done that?

the point was kind of that superheroes are always assholes in costumes. He just front and centered it.

Maybe I should have read the book in more innocent times and this would have been a revelation for me. Combining the realism of problems that real people face with the fantasy of comic book heroes might have been a first for its time. Again, I might've been too late.

The only complete asshole seems to be the Comedian.

Without going into spoiler territory, I'd rank him as only the 3rd or even 4th biggest asshole.
posted by ODiV at 10:08 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Without going into spoiler territory, I'd rank him as only the 3rd or even 4th biggest asshole.

The fact that there is some debate about who is the biggest asshole (or to put it another way -- a debate over the moral and ethical choices of the characters) is one of the things that makes the book worthwhile.
posted by empath at 10:35 AM on February 25, 2009


Rorschach is not a good guy.

I think one of the strengths of the book is that it almost makes the entire concept of 'good' meaningless.
posted by empath at 10:37 AM on February 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


Back in my day, we had to read Watchmen in twelve individual issues on a publication schedule spread out over more than a year. You whippersnappers who can now read it all at once are missing out. Adapting it to a different medium - one of these new-fangled graphic novels - changes the whole experience of it as a comic book.
posted by Doktor Zed at 10:44 AM on February 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


I was also disappointed by Watchmen, the book. The visual puns are clumsy, juvenile, and relentless; the parallel/overlapping stories (ie the pirate story narrated over the top of real-world events and vice versa) clobber the reader over the head in a way that a poet or novelist would be excoriated for; the characters are (mostly) cardboard cutouts for this or that ethical/philosophical stance; the women are peripheral and their roles are largely excluded from the postmodern dissection of the superhero (and the use of said dissection as a lens through which to view post-war American history) that we all agree is neat; and the total, final triumph of the real over the imaginal (or, the assimilation of the imagination's products only as seeds of collective nightmare) is not nuanced enough -- compare the "reality problems" of Borges or Kafka for instance.

In addition to the graphic novel "Watchmen," I also think babies, fine food, and Barack Obama are all overrated.

Also, I hope this thread reaches 400.

I'm givin' 'er all she's got, captain!
posted by sleevener at 10:53 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Bah, fuck all this. When do we get a film version of Lost Girls? I'm thinking Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet and Scarlett Johannson.
posted by Skot at 11:30 AM on February 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


Directed by Paul Verhoeven, obviously.
posted by empath at 11:31 AM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


I preferred the Watchmen movie back when it was called The Incredibles.

(Helping you out, sleevener.)
posted by cimbrog at 11:49 AM on February 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


I know, the Watchmen is a huge rip off of the Incredibles.

Also, it totally stole the whole flashback story-structure from Lost.
posted by empath at 11:55 AM on February 25, 2009


“There is a statue of limitations on spoilers unless, you know, you don't already know that Darth Vader is Luke's father.”

Spoilers are very time/place specific. If I had a time machine I’d go back in time when the first Star Wars movie came out and walk out of the theater loudly proclaiming that “Wow, can you believe Darth Vader is Luke’s father?!”

“I'll go on record and say that I didn't really think The Watchmen was that great. I only read it for the first time last year though and I'm in my late twenties. Could that have something to do with it?”

Y’know, everyone appreciates Bach and Mozart and no one goes around saying “I don’t like Bach” or “TheWell-Tempered Clavier sucks” and yet - how many people listen to his stuff? Much less dig classical music.
There’s a difference between not liking something - which is perfectly fine, and not recognizing the quality of the work.
I watched the remake of “The Ladykillers” with Tom Hanks (who is a fine actor).
Everything about it was quite good. The directing, the acting, the story was good, all the comedy bits hit on the right beats, etc. etc.
Didn’t do it for me.
So we can disagree on 300 or the Watchmen, etc. but we can still weigh and consider whether they’re quality work.

Insofar as the 300 comic, I liked it. But I wouldn’t consider it high quality.
On the other hand, while I also enjoyed the Watchmen, it is an absolutely masterful work.
If you don’t appreciate the medium - that is - if you’re not a classical music lover - you’re not going to get how fiendishly complex Bach’s work is and what it is he’s doing, and so, you’re going to listen to it with the weight of hundreds of years of changes in music that have incorporated and appreciated his work and you’re going to go “So?”
Now I’m no classical music expert, but I have listened to enough to get a bit of an ear and I can appreciate it. But it’s something one has to develop.
Same deal with comics. There’s a lot going on behind the scenes and even if the story isn’t to your taste the shape and pacing and all the timing of the elements and themes Moore brings in show an absolute genius in execution.

So doing an analogous thing in film would be pretty remarkable whether Snyder got all the elements in there or not.
If he did pull off something like that it could be like - say - “The Aviator” - where the story (IMHO) isn’t that great and it’s hard (for me) to sympathize with Hughes who’s kind of a bastard, and really, lots of other criticism I can heap on it - but I watched it and was thoroughly entertained by how incredible a director Scorsese is.

I’m certainly literate in film (as many of us are from years of watching them) but I’ve got zero experience in it (I think I took a film class once and dropped it) - and still, as a complete layman, I was able to appreciate how damned masterful Scorsese is in his medium.
But you reach a certain level, like Hendrix. You don’t have to like the music itself to appreciate how “god damn, that guy can play.”

Been there a few times myself. When I was a kid I knocked someone into a four punch combo and when I hit him with an uppercut he had his arms spread wide and his jaw hanging out, it was the Mona Lisa of knockouts. My coach’s mouth was wide open. Said it was the most beautiful thing he’d ever seen. Fight didn’t mean a damned thing tho. Maybe a handful of people there.

So, often, the meaning and story and such have little to do with the quality of execution.

“The only complete asshole seems to be the Comedian.”

Nah, he’s just amoral. It’s not surprising how more damage is caused by people who want to do ‘good.’
posted by Smedleyman at 1:04 PM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


300 is beautifully shot, choreographed, and edited. This does not take away from the fact that it's jerk-off material for deeply closeted Republicans.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:16 PM on February 25, 2009


The Sixth Sense's twist was ruined for me by a lecture handout at university

The Sixth Sense's twist was ruined for me by watching the first 15 minutes of the movie and not being retarded.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:40 PM on February 25, 2009 [7 favorites]


Y'know, why wouldn't it be jerk off material for a guy who's just gay? Nicely sculpted male bodies, all that. Not my thing, but I like looking at well-proportioned women so I can make the leap.
I also enjoy the closeness and bonding on a team. Again, I don't want to see the penis make an appearance (or even a cameo), but it's more than beer commercial pseudo-camaraderie.

I just don't see the 'closeted republican' thing as a valid criticism. Spartan culture was radically different than anything on the republican platform, they didn't even have money. If anything they'd be more akin to communists. In the film the religious types (the Ephors) were villainous.
Ebert's review, I thought, was pretty spot on with the characterization being fairly one dimensional and similar to a pro-wrestling set piece.
I don't much buy the 'racist' criticism either. You show a civil war era battle, well, black men were called 'niggers' then in even some polite conversation.
It's pretty much just all a fantasy based on the battle. So those kinds of contexts don't much apply. Like calling Sauron a fascist. Well, hell, the 'good guys' were absolute monarchists, so how noble were their political ideals? Or Star Wars. It's a 'democracy' but you have 'princesses' - huh?

And really, I think we do need more challenging sexual overtures in our film. American cinema is straightjacketed by the system we've got here. French filmmakers have stuff like Irréversible that poses some serious moral questions about vengeance and eroticism and violence.
We can't even show an ironic allusion to the actual pederasty that went on (re: the *Athenians* being boylovers while the Spartans have a codified system in place) without completely flipping out.
But the rape in Irréversible - in contrast to the rape in 300 - is far more brutal, long, and believable, and yet it's artistically merited.
I found the rape in 300 repugnant because it was almost a token for the vengence punchline to follow. "uh, oh, he raped her. Now she's mad!" DUN DUN DUNNNNN!
Tripe.
Whereas in Irréversible it was much worse - and yet - there for a reason and I felt I was being challenged and engaged on a number of levels. It was provocative in and of itself rather than being just a set up for a hammy catharsis. You sit there and go "holy crap, this is a rape" with fear and an uncertain future, etc. etc. - versus it just being a prompt to denote a bad guy.

Snyder seemed to do the same thing in Dawn of the Dead tho - with the rote 'build the vehicle' and chainsaw thing and the dicky overbearing pseudo authority figure and his slavish dumb cohorts, etc. etc. - all those elements from previous zombie films.
Which was fine, but it got predictable and kind of boring. Homages are swell, but they're a repeat.
The first ten minutes of the film were great though, especially with the pull back on the gas station exploding. I'm sitting there thinking "I have no idea where this is going to go."
Which was a lot more fun.

So Watchmen - meh. Probably the same.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:40 PM on February 25, 2009



I think that adaptation is largely a waste of time in almost any circumstances. There probably are the odd things that would prove me wrong. But I think they'd be very much the exception. If a thing works well in one medium, in the medium that it has been designed to work in, then the only possible point for wanting to realize it on "multiple platforms," as they say these days, is to make a lot of money out of it.

Which is pretty damn ironic, given that the man has adapted material from another medium into what is essentially fanfic (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) and real-person slashfic (Lost Girls). What's he going to do next, a Furry version of Guns of Navarrone? (Ask not for whom the bell yiffs: It yiffs for Thee)

And OK, we've had Dark Knight, and we've had Watchmen. Can we be done now with the Grim 'n Gritty 80's comics style crap? Can we move into movies based on the Post Iron Age comics? Is it too much to ask for an Astro City movie?
posted by happyroach at 2:43 PM on February 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


At least it's not McG's Watchmen
posted by Tenuki at 3:11 PM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


It isn't that there's anything at all wrong with hot, cut, oiled men being all athletic; it's that 300 packages it in with what is essentially a paen to what Huey Long called "American-style fascism"- screaming authoritarianism and militarism combined with over-the-top rhetoric about freedom. The Spartans of the film are brutal MANLY MEN who sneer at anyone who is weaker, or less dedicated to killing anything that opposes them (and don't think for a second that the constant jawing about "free men" means anything coming from the ruler of a military dictatorship; Sparta was constantly at war and constantly trying to overwhelm and conquer the rest of Greece. These MANLY MEN then go and effortlessly butcher hordes of subhuman monsters before being overwhelmed. The over-the-top sexualization of violence simply contributes to this.

Like I said, technically it's a great film- not "great" as in "really good" but as in greatness. The ideas of the film, however, are without exception reprehensible, and it is little more than propaganda.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:14 PM on February 25, 2009


Is it too much to ask for an Astro City movie?

John Hamm as The Samaritan perhaps?
posted by Scoo at 3:16 PM on February 25, 2009


I would absolutely kill for a well-done Transmetropolitan film.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:26 PM on February 25, 2009


It's time for a film adaptation of Like A Velvet Glove Cast In Iron. Oh, wait - they already did that in the universe next door.
posted by panboi at 4:00 PM on February 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Bah, fuck all this. When do we get a film version of Lost Girls? I'm thinking Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet and Scarlett Johannson.

This!

Is there a petition I can sign?
posted by Bonzai at 4:01 PM on February 25, 2009


Holy shit, Alan Moore is a total misery.

His interview could be summed up thus: I hate comics (except the ones I do) and I REALLY hate films. Oh and did I mention that I hate the world?
posted by jonnyploy at 4:34 PM on February 25, 2009


"People tell me, Don't you care what they've done to your book? I tell them, they haven't done anything to my book. It's right there on the shelf."

Yeah, but I bet he's never seen LXG.
posted by Artw at 4:50 PM on February 25, 2009


"it is little more than propaganda."

Ok, I can see that argument.

And yeah, I'd kill for a Transmet film as well.

(They'd screw it up tho. I mean, that's a comic that really thrives on richness of detail... Hmm...although maybe Terry Gilliam.)
posted by Smedleyman at 8:42 PM on February 25, 2009


"had it's premiere"?
*unh*
--watchmen
posted by Camofrog at 9:07 PM on February 25, 2009


Metafilter: It yiffs for Thee
posted by vibrotronica at 9:11 PM on February 25, 2009


in many ways, the visuals are the least important thing about Watchmen

Dude, you're thinking of a novel.

/Demetri Martin

300 was homophobic? I think we must get different versions of the movie then you guys do.

It was homophobic in the same way that Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are homophobic: it associated everything evil with effeminate men while gazing lustily at the mostly nude bodies of chiseled dudes. And this also coincides with its racial politics as well; in fact, these are things that could make the movie interesting, if it wasn't so fucking boring when it cuts to slow-mo every 15 goddamn seconds.

And yeah, I'd kill for a Transmet film as well.

Patrick Stewart has gone on record as offering his services as Spider Jerusalem. Personally, I don't think this is one that can or should be done on film. A Top 10 movie, that would be cool.


And I'd just like to go on record that I think the Burton Batman film isa piece of shit, and an insult to anyone who enjoys the character or comics as a medium.
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:57 PM on February 25, 2009


While we're at it, I'd just like to express my sorrow at the death of the project that would have been a one issue=one episode Preacher series on HBO. Preacher is fucking perfect for the channel.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:19 AM on February 26, 2009


Patrick Stewart has gone on record as offering his services as Spider Jerusalem.

Which would be great if Spider Jerusalem was either 60 years old or English. But even with that; you're right. If they make this movie he's in despite the terrible casting if only for the "look! We got Professor X!" element.

I refuse to believe a Transmet movie would be anything but a disaster. Let me extrapolate on how badly it will suck: Watchmen will do well, but nowhere near as well as The Dark Knight. This is mostly because of the PG-13 vs. R rating, as well as Watchmen's cred as more of an "indy" type of movie and lack of name recognition. In other words, even though they're two completely different movies, media pundits, who are fucktards, will compare the "more successful" Dark Knight to the "underperforming" Watchmen because they're both based on comic books. The studios, who are even bigger fucktards than the media pundits, will frantically decide that Watchmen "failed" because there weren't big names and enough intense action sequences in the movie. Cut to: two years later, when Helena Bonham Carter is playing Yelena and Megan Fox is playing Channon (not because Angelina Jolie is too old, but merely because they couldn't afford her) as Transmetropolitan, with a brand-new logo with a brushed steel motif, becomes a slow-mo action shot movie about three badass-type characters wearing easily-marketable-for-Burger-King sunglasses and shooting policeman controlled by a painfully overacting President played by a character actor who thinks Smiler is his chance to reinvent Heath Ledger's Joker. If you think I'm wrong about ANY of this, then I can only say to you, my friends: LXG. Ell. Ecks. Gee. (spits on ground)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:35 AM on February 26, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm still getting over Keanu Reeves in The Day the Earth Stood Still. What were they thinking?

I'm still getting over Keanu Reeves in The Day the Earth Stood Still as John Constantine.

HOW WAS THIS ALLOWED? it was so unbearably bad.


While we're at it, I'd just like to express my sorrow at the death of the project that would have been a one issue=one episode Preacher series on HBO. Preacher is fucking perfect for the channel.


I agree, this is one of the few series that I think would translate well, and HBO might actually have done a decent job of it.

Please, please, please just let Sandman stay in turnaround. Coraline's release and seeing Gaiman's name turning up whenever some hack writes an article on graphic novels in some disposable magazine has got me worried that there might actually be an attempt at an adaptation sometime soon, which is a horrifying thought to me. It just can't imagine how it could be done well.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:28 AM on February 26, 2009


Patrick Stewart has gone on record as offering his services as Spider Jerusalem.

So let Tom Hardy do it since he can ape Stewart to a T and is way younger.
posted by Molesome at 9:35 AM on February 26, 2009


Which would be great if Spider Jerusalem was either 60 years old or English.

But he's bald!
posted by Artw at 9:43 AM on February 26, 2009


Up until earlier today I'd managed to completely forget about the Hellblazer movie. Oh so sad to remember.

Still at least there's no change of anyone touching Luther Arkwright...
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:19 AM on February 26, 2009


Saxon Kane, you're right on about the underappreciated Top 10 (the new run written by Zander Cannon is actually pretty great so far!), although Alan Moore clearly structured the series after hourlong cop shows like Homicide and Hill Street Blues, even to the point where the first run of the title was called "SEASON ONE" in the trade/HC version. I can't see it being realized as a television show in live action (at least not with what the per-episode budget would need to be for sets and costumes alone, let alone CGI), but a half-hour Adult Swim animated series would probably work.
posted by Strange Interlude at 10:58 AM on February 26, 2009


Saxon Kane :It was homophobic in the same way that Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are homophobic: it associated everything evil with effeminate men while gazing lustily at the mostly nude bodies of chiseled dudes.

Oh, come now, you are stretching pretty hard now. Sure it gazed lustily on the nude bodies of chiseled dudes, but effeminate evil guys? Seriously, they were not very effeminate at all; they were just not heroic is all. They couldn't be chiseled dudes too, or we might no know who to root for. There was no great pattern; I think you read far too much into it. Sometimes a rose is just a rose.
posted by Bovine Love at 1:51 PM on February 26, 2009


effeminate evil guys?

The evil king Xerxes, in 300, could have easily wandered into the studio from a passing gay pride parade. Meanwhile, the Spartans are establishing their Manly Man credentials by calling the Athenians "boy-lovers". This despite the fact that Spartan society, like most of ancient Greece, featured institutionalized pederasty. The line has nothing to do with historical accuracy; the entire point of the line is to establish the non-hero group as limpwristed pedophiles, elevating the Manliness of the Manly Men of Sparta by pushing homosexuality and pedophilia, which are socially coded as weak, away from them.

They couldn't be chiseled dudes too, or we might no know who to root for.

Oh, the unexamined assumptions, they burn.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:35 PM on February 26, 2009 [2 favorites]


I flagged your comment - it's a spoiler.

The comic is twenty-years-old.


And yet many people continue to be less than 20 years old.

Spoiler, 'twas.
posted by regicide is good for you at 7:35 PM on February 26, 2009 [1 favorite]


I've seen it. It's going to take me some time to fully process it, but this is not the bastardized, throwaway adaptation a lot of people think it's going to be. It's brutal, exceptionally violent, incredibly dense and at moments, bewilderingly esoteric. I reiterate the comments made in quite a few reviews, I can't believe this is a studio release.

I think I loved it.

I think.

My review is here.
posted by mikeybidness at 7:37 PM on February 26, 2009


Variety review is not that impressed and seems to think Snyder has fallen too much into superhero cliche territory.
posted by crossoverman at 8:58 PM on February 26, 2009


Thanks for that mikeybidness. I'm going to fully reserve judgment till I see it for myself, but your review hit some points that makes me believe that it could actually be worth the money I'll spend on it.

I was worried that they would blunt the edge to make it more generally palatable, but from my read of your thoughts, that might not be the case, and that is the best news I've had all day.
posted by quin at 9:14 PM on February 26, 2009


How 9/11 Changed Watchmen
posted by Artw at 11:23 PM on February 26, 2009


C'mon, Pope Guilty, I left that "unexamined assumption" lying right out there and you didn't take it!

Seriously, it never crossed my mind for a millisecond that Xerxes was gay. He didn't seem gay in the least to me. Sure, he might have had a few effeminate affectations, but he was not at all flaming. I took as an attempt to make the evil guy not "big" evil (ala joker), but something different. The spartan, OTOH, definitely seemed to have leanings. The I took to be "flexible" at minimum.

Or maybe I just don't see gay easily.
posted by Bovine Love at 6:49 AM on February 27, 2009


I think they were going more for "decadent" and "megalomaniacal with delusions of godhood".
posted by Artw at 9:09 AM on February 27, 2009


The boy lovers line, however, was fucking dumb.
posted by Artw at 9:11 AM on February 27, 2009


Gateways To Geekery: Superhero comics

Where to start: ...All-Star Superman...
Where not to start: ...Watchmen... ...Dark Knight Returns...

posted by Artw at 9:28 AM on February 27, 2009


Noting any one particular character in 300 is gay is like noting one particular ear of corn is yellow.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:44 AM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]


Oh and I've just learned what the new twist ending of Watchmen is... it's bad.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:46 AM on February 27, 2009


Where to start: ...All-Star Superman...
Where not to start: ...Watchmen... ...Dark Knight Returns...


Errr... that makes no sense. All-Star Superman, as good as it is, is chock full of a tun of references that a newbie would not get... I had to get on wikipedia several times, not being a hard-core Superman fan. Whilst Watchmen is stand-alone... and I think I'd read like one other Batman comic when I first read Dark Knight...
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:28 AM on February 27, 2009


Watchmen was the first comic book I'd ever read, at the age of 23 or so (aside from an issue of Ghost Rider I read when I was like 9). I had no problem getting it or enjoying it.
posted by empath at 10:33 AM on February 27, 2009


My main question is: Having committed to dragging my wife through 3 hours of this on Saturday, will she kill me at the end?
posted by Artw at 11:04 AM on February 27, 2009


I'd put the guidance councilor on speed dial...
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:46 PM on February 27, 2009


Looks like it's not showing till next week - Coraline it is then.
posted by Artw at 3:57 PM on February 27, 2009


Oh and I've just learned what the new twist ending of Watchmen is... it's bad.

Despite my love for the graphic novel, the original twist ending isn't very good. So I won't be too upset if it isn't [redacted].
posted by Saxon Kane at 4:45 PM on February 27, 2009


Kevin O'Neill on League of Extraordinary Gentleman:1910
(Some preview art I've not seen before as well)
posted by Artw at 4:57 PM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]


(Oh, and there's some nudies in the artwork, for folks who worry about such things)
posted by Artw at 5:00 PM on February 27, 2009


Preview art nuthin', that's the first ten pages of the next League book! It's the real treat in this thread! Is that Arabic? What're they saying? Is [spoiler]'s daughter gonna end up being a figure from other literary works? (I have suspicions.) What are those equations on the shore? I need Jess Nevins on this, stat!

Man, forget the Watchmen movie, I'm psyched about this League book and and the magic book Moore mentions in the last page of the linked interview more than anything.
posted by painquale at 6:55 PM on February 27, 2009


A very mysterious island.

It's Hindi, I would have thought, given who she is talking too. Who she is I don't know - I don't remember a daughter. Mobilis in mobili!

Oh, and Carnacki the Ghost-Finder!
posted by Artw at 7:37 PM on February 27, 2009


Heh. Given what Moore has said about Pirate Jenny I've just realised what ship is in the harbour. Rather appropriate given the subject of the thread.
posted by Artw at 7:42 PM on February 27, 2009


10 Alan Moore Comics You Must Read! (Besides Watchmen)
posted by Artw at 9:55 PM on February 27, 2009


Who she is I don't know - I don't remember a daughter.

O'Neill mentions this in the interview on that page. Do a search for 'daughter'. Looks like she's Pirate Jenny! That's a nice confluence.

Gawd I love this series.
posted by painquale at 10:57 PM on February 27, 2009


Given what Moore has said about Pirate Jenny I've just realised what ship is in the harbour. Rather appropriate given the subject of the thread.

Hold up hold up. Are you suggesting it's the Black Freighter?

Oh man. Moore has said that in the third chapter in this League trilogy will be set in modern times and will explore characters in new media. If that means he's willing to explore characters in comic books, maybe he'll revisit some of his own.

Hyde vs. Rorschach!
posted by painquale at 11:01 PM on February 27, 2009


Hmm. Well, the rule is she has to be someone. She could "just" be Pirate Jenny, I guess.
posted by Artw at 11:48 PM on February 27, 2009


I wonder who the Crowley guy is... I'm hoping for Julian Karswell.
posted by Artw at 12:49 AM on February 28, 2009 [1 favorite]


"The evil king Xerxes, in 300, could have easily wandered into the studio from a passing gay pride parade."

Yeah, see, I'm kind of with Bovine Love on that, but perhaps that's because I went into it with the comic in mind. Again - the 'boylovers' line was meant to be ironic. Whether it comes off that way - another story.
But from the printed work I caught the man of world and sensuality offering sensuality and comfort to an ascetic. Which is pretty fun to watch. And as a man of discipline I share a bit of that mindset. Just picturing someone trying to bribe me with booze and women and power, etc. Pretty laughable really, and the resulting violent response is pretty predictable.

But - from what Pope Guilty is saying (while I disagree with elements) the gist is that this spurning is predicated more on eschewing the feminine than the world of sensuality - favoring war rather than comfort (as opposed to favoring self-discipline rather than comfort) and that comfort is placed in a homoerotic form, whereas the homoeroticism of the Spartans is based more on self-denial. And so the whole 'republican' thing. And the elements of the rhetoric (peace, freedom, what have you) being so shallow and the characters being so shallow it's a bit of a set piece for propaganda.

I didn't see Xerxes as gay, but rather, saw the potential of his homosexuality as merely another form of his pursuit of worldly pleasure and denial of his humanity (there are elements of this in the film as well - what with the monsters and fantastic creatures and so forth).

But, and it's a big but, given the shallowness of the characters and the beat-you-over-the-head-with-it plot points (e.g. the rape scene - so you know this dude is a bad guy) I can't really contest Pope Guilty's perspective.
I can say I saw it differently, but he's not wrong. Those elements are there. And given the environment in which the film was made - the time and place (and almost all films are very time/place oriented) someone plugged in to what was going on in the U.S. would have seen it with those eyes.
Can't deny that perspective.

And really, if they were aiming for that, then Pope Guilty is right - but if they weren't aiming for that, and our perspective on it is more accurate, it's even kind of a worse criticism because it makes the film making careless, downright stupid, not just dysphemistic.

Still, I kind of liked the action sequences. It's kind of funny, almost no one can pull off macho anymore without seeming over the top or homoerotic. All the guys who do the manly men stuff sans overinflated muscles (like Stallone's) are dying off - Eastwood comes first to mind.

I've got friends with whom I have deeply intimate relationships and yet, the penis does not make an apperance. Nor do we oil ourselves up. (To be fair - that is how the ancients showered. You'd cover yourself in oil, the scrape the dirt and such off you with a shell or something - but I don't shower with them either, so..)
There are some people to whom you say 'anything, anytime.' Some people see that as implying sexual favors. I tend to think of it as turning a 10 block radius into a war zone to pull your brother's ass out of a fire if necessary, or donating your blood, or a kidney.
Some guys I know I'd cut my heart out and give it to them if I could. There are debts that can never be repaid. And they feel the same about me.

Unfortunately, that is very rarely expressed in film without some offhand joke or something to 'break the tension.'
But I think most people don't understand that kind of depth to intimacy without attachment to sex.
That's no slight to Pope Guilty or folks who share his perspective on the film. I'm thinking rather of the film makers who allow for that interpretation, but also many folks in general.

There are some jokes (here, but at large) about prison rape. And they get (rightfully) condemnation here. But the fact is that this often happens not merely because of sex, but because there are men who don't know any other way to express intimacy. Or foster it between themselves and someone else. And this was true in the ancient world as well.

Sex is a way, a swift and simple way, to create attachment and cohesion between people. Also a very touchy subject with a lot of nuance and I'm trying to be delicate here.
But - without stepping on any toes here - I think the intimacy between two people is stronger when it's based on something other than sensuality.
Which brings us back to 'Do.'
This is not, of course, to say I'm disdainful of homosexual relationships, but rather, that there is a difference between the intimacy I have had with women and the intimacy I have with my brothers who have been there with me (and I with them) through very hard times.
Of course a spouse is a further iteration, and that's very strong and deep as well.

So the dichotomy I see there is also between a sort of marriage and prostitution. The world of family vs. just sensual pleasure (albeit apparently limitless). I couldn't be tempted out of my marriage either, so same deal.
While I do have sex with my wife, it's an entirely different thing than the kind of intimacy I've had with girlfriends and such.
You can be so close to a person that sex would seem trite or banal, an abasement of the deep feelings you have (which is how I feel about my brothers) or it can be as natural and effortless and integral as breathing (which is what I have with my wife).

So some guy comes along and says I can have as much 'nookie' as I want if I just 'x,y,z' I'm going to be insulted. It's insulting to me, my relationship, my wife (for referring to her as 'nookie') etc.
Like the 'Indecent Proposal' film. The gist is the rich guy realizes how deep and passionate their love is and he respects it and lets her go.
Me, I'd beat the SOB into pulp for suggesting my wife is a whore at any price and for insulting our love in the first place.
So too, Xerxes places carnality and personal pleasure above those relationships.

Except of course, other folks see it differently, which is one of the many flaws of the film. And it's (again to belabor the point) a perspective I can't argue with (although I disagree) because the counterpoint in masculinity is apparently running around bellowing and posturing homoerotically and such instead of say understated warmth or wry humor or something simple that's not from a pro-wrestling character book.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:45 PM on February 28, 2009 [2 favorites]


I love cans of beans.
posted by homunculus at 3:09 PM on February 28, 2009 [1 favorite]


(Coraline was amazing, FWIW. Butt-numbing film of possible-wife-disapointment next week.)
posted by Artw at 8:22 AM on March 1, 2009


The Secret Origin Of Watchmen's World-Building
posted by homunculus at 5:06 PM on March 1, 2009


I'm noticing that American reviews are almost uniformly negative/middling and UK reviews are almost uniformly positive. Anybody have some theories as to why that might be?
posted by empath at 10:14 PM on March 2, 2009


Less exposure to the comic in the UK, hence lower expectations?
posted by ghost of a past number at 10:20 PM on March 2, 2009


Folks, it just plain works...

I went to the premiere last night....

The movie did not feel like it was nearly three hours long..

Zack's changes worked, the visuals are fantastic, it is so true to the novel at times that you honestly feel like the panels were lifted to the screen!

Go see it, you'll love it...

And, here's the owl ship (the good looking guy is me :)
posted by HuronBob at 7:43 AM on March 3, 2009


Wolverine Vs. Rorschach: "I'm A Marvel, I'm A DC"
posted by homunculus at 2:39 PM on March 5, 2009


I enjoyed it but I'm left wondering why zak snyder made the movie. It seems to be completely lacking a point of view, which is strange for an adaptation of such a deeply personal and philosophical book.
posted by empath at 12:31 AM on March 6, 2009


What percentage is slo-mo?
posted by Artw at 12:14 PM on March 6, 2009


God damn it, I really wanted to like this movie. I was prepared to cope with the cuts. I was prepared to look the other way on the changes ....

.... but too much of my favorite stuff was too deeply compromised. In trimming the fat, I fear Snyder and crew may have excised some vital organs as well.

SPOILERS BELOW

Basically, everything's fine until Rorschach goes to prison. Everything starts shaking apart after that. Veidt doesn't even mention the Gordian Knot, for crissakes.

That's what I get for being optimistic. Ach ... I'm just gonna read the book again.
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:23 PM on March 6, 2009


I thought it was terrific. I'm glad they got rid of (spoiler)



... that stupid psychic mega-octopus plot.
posted by Bageena at 11:45 PM on March 6, 2009



Watchmen's First Day... Disappoints

posted by Artw at 11:05 AM on March 7, 2009


"A pivotal moment in the “Watchmen” plot has Nite Owl and Rorschach hacking into Ozymandias’ computer. Keep a close eye on his desktop, and you’ll see an ominously titled file folder. “Adrian’s sorta like very asexual, but he’s possibly a homosexual,” grinned Matthew Goode, referring to a long-held suspicion among “Watchmen” fans. “There’s a very small thing in his file window, and it just says, ‘Boys.’ Which is very funny, and that’s the kind of detail that Zack works with.”

What. In. The. Fuck?
posted by Artw at 3:28 PM on March 7, 2009 [1 favorite]


The Best Part Of Watchmen Online Now
posted by homunculus at 9:06 PM on March 7, 2009


The Best Part Of Watchmen Online Now
Already gone... I found it on YouTube here, for what it's worth... I imagine it'll soon be gone from there too. But still might be worth a search there and elsewhere.

What. In. The. Fuck?
Well he does hang out with the Village People...
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:46 AM on March 8, 2009


Just got back, and I have to admit, I loved it. Did it lack subtlety? Sure. Maybe it is just a pushbutton adaptation, but consider my buttons pushed.
posted by vibrotronica at 2:16 PM on March 8, 2009


A corrective to watchmenmania
posted by Artw at 5:07 PM on March 8, 2009


Just got back and I liked it. Rorschach is handled nicely, and the few changes to the overall story actually work pretty well. The pacing was a little odd as it's very faithful to the comic narrative, but my wife, who hasn't read the books didn't think there was any problems with the timing at all.

In fact, in her words on leaving the theater; "This is the first comic book movie where I've wanted to run out and read the source material"

So that's pretty cool.
posted by quin at 7:01 PM on March 8, 2009


I went and saw it, and thought it was pretty good.

The biggest thing that bothered me wasn't anything in the film. It was the audience. Everything that was violence, sex, or nudity drew howls of laughter. Dr. Manhattan's penis? Hysterical! The Comedian going through a plate glass window? Hysterical! The Comedian beating the fuck out of the Silk Spectre in order to rape her? Hilarious!

At first it was annoying, but right around the rape scene it became disturbing. Was I the only person in the room who wasn't on nitrous?
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:52 PM on March 8, 2009


Have you not been to the movies in the past decade? When I saw hannibal you'd have thought it was a farelly brothers movie by the way the audience was laughing. It kind if stuns me how many full grown adults apparently can't handle adult material.
posted by empath at 8:24 PM on March 8, 2009


Yeah, the opening credits sequence was pretty good. But it can't hold a candle to the unused alternate opening sequence. I wish they had gone with this one.
posted by painquale at 11:05 PM on March 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


« Older Three police officers were sentenced today for kil...   |   Software startup 280 North tod... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments