“What’s the Point?”

Well according to many of the interviews I read, Snyder didn’t initially want to make the Watchmen movie. But eventually got his hands on some of the early scripts and plans that were being bandied about by the Studio execs. So rather than have some slipshod jury-rigged adapted monstrosity come out calling itself the Watchmen [much like the upcoming Dragonball movie], Snyder decided to take on the project and try to keep as much of the original story and world in tact as possible.

And that is what I feel was the point. To keep it from being completely ruined by those who didn’t understand the material at all, and wanted to make a quick buck. And really, I do thank him for it, whatever I thought of his lack of vision, at least he preserved what he could before it spoilt.

Example of such an interview:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20259927,00.html

Thing I disliked the most was that my favorite line in the book was butchered. Jon’s “Never ends.” line being delivered by Laurie made it lose all its power. The set up for her to say it was weak while’s Jon’s setup gave it impact. Though the setup for Jon to say it was muscled out by a kiss scene and Nite Owl II’s tantrum. So I guess I sound a little whiny. I know its not right to dismiss an entire movie because of one line, but that line meant so much to me. I thought it was important line to boot. Okay, end of whine.

But there is one aspect that really bugs me and it’s something that bugs with me with a lot of movies. It’s the score. I don’t care if Snyder chose the music which is quoted in the original books. He should have thought about the timing and the places of the songs. Bob Dylan, accompanied by the opening shots, was great. I loved that part. But 99 Luftballons?! (Mind you, I grew up in Germany) Hallelujah during the sex scene?! Jimmy Hendrix while Rorschach and Nite Owl are about to face Ozymandias?! Those songs were so much out of place, I almost walked away. Why not more Philipp Glass like in the trailer? Now there, there was a fine choice of music.

Oh yeah, and I didn’t even mention My Chemical Romance and their hideous contribution. At that point, I really left the theatre.

As regards books and films being seperate I agree it is either an adaptation of a book or it isn’t, so you can look at it as how faithful to the source material it is, but at the same time can you not look at the flm on it’s own, just for a split second. I think you should do both. Maybe it doesn’t come up to the standard of the book and so in that respect Snyder would not have done as good a job as he should have done, maybe he has not tackled the source material and the issues the way the book deserved, but I think that is down to personal opinion. What I was really trying to say is that film and books are two different types of media and so cannot ever produce the same experience. You can make a book 10,000 pages long and people will still read it, but if you made a movie 20 hours long I doubt many people would be queing at the box office. In the same idea you cannot tackle all of the issues in a book in a film, it doesn’t work and so as far as I can see Snyder has picked certain things to focus on, he has dropped most of the stories about the older heroes, he did not cover Ozymandius as much as the comic, but at the same time he gave us an almost perfect Rorsach and a brilliant Night Owl 2, he also spent a lot of time fleshing out the comedian, so that we understood just what the twist at the end meant and made Dr Manhatten a very tragic character who could not come to terms with the dicotomy of his human past and his god-like present state. As such this film cannot be 100% the same as the book (even though the still are the same, the character and pace are different) and that is what I was trying to say, not that the book and the film are 100% seperate, which is what it appeared I was saying.

Out of all the book and franchise adaptations I have seen over the past few years this is the one that disappointed me least. I went into the theatre hyped up and expecting a blinder and as far as I was concerned it delivered.

The dialogue was clear and well delivered, the script was solid, with maybe one or two unanswered questions, and the character interaction was organic and easy to empathise with. I enjoy losing myself in films and I found that I was joining Night Owl 2 in his impotent anger at the end, I also empathised with his being powerless and unable to resolve a situation he hadn’t seen coming. It drew me in and didn’t let go until the end, where other long films such as POTC3 were hampered by their length and clockwatching was one of the major activities of the second half in Watchmen I never found this. I daren’t look away from the screen in case I missed something.

I was also going to disagree with you about Silk Spectre 2 as I felt the romance between her and Night Owl 2 (I’m really trying hard not to put spoilers in) was very organic and I genuinely enjoyed watching them relive their glory days one last time, but I think that was down to Wilson rather than Akerman, as he was wonderfully well cast. So I will retract that disagreement.

I would suggest watching Watchmen on the big screen. It’s certainly a unique experience and, really, what can it hurt? There’s certainly much worse films you could be watching.

To that end, Rob, I’m not sure what you mean about not liking the film for the wrong reasons. It’s not that I disliked the film. There are elements of it that I liked. But the experience left me feeling somewhat neutral. And with the source material being so highly contemplative, lyrical and symbolic, I can’t help at look at the film as a failure in that regard. A wasted opportunity.

Does it look pretty? Sure. But doesn’t Watchmen deserve more?

I don’t think it’s fair to say “The book is one thing and the movie is another so you can’t compare the two.” The movie wouldn’t exist without the book. Either the movie represents the ideas expressed in the book or it doesn’t. If you extend your logic, a director could do anything he pleased with the source material – introduced flying cars, say – and claim “Well, the movie needed it.” Well, if it’s The Great Gatsby you’re adapting, you’re not really reflecting the spirit of it, are you?

Visually, I think Snyder was slavish to the source material and (although I sometimes found it distracting as I anticipated the next faithfully recreated scene), that’s what I enjoyed about the movie.

From an ideological perspective is where I think Snyder (or, more likely Hayter’s script) dropped the ball. There are just too many good ideas in Watchmen to cherry pick a few. And if the director compounds the problem by amping up the violence while applying slo-mo to the film stock (stylistic noise) it doesn’t help.

I wasn’t looking for Watchmen to fail. I don’t think it is the “unfilmable” movie. I just don’t think Snyder is the man for the job.

I am afraid here I must disagree with your review. I saw watchmen last night and loved it, I loved every minute of it. Not because it was “visionary” (which people should stop discussing, ok someone discribed the director wrongly, ignore it and watch the damn film), not because it was faithful to the original but because at the heart of it, when you watch it as a film it is good, it is very good. Compare it to most of the rubbish we see out there today and tell me the acting wasn’t good (Ok Ozymandius was one dimensional and “foppish” as you put it).

You say that you entered the theatre thinking it would not impress you, but you will forgive me if I don’t believe you. Your entire review seems to be based on the film almost letting you down. If I go into a film with low expectations I am not looking for every minor character flaw because I already expected it, I am not looking for the director slipping up, because I expected it. It seems you almost willed Snyder to fail, and in willing it, created the reality in your head.

I will agree that he took the violence too far, there were too many bone crunching sounds and snapped arms, but at the end of the day that helped me connect to the characters (sounds wierd right). It seems although Snyder is using the same style for fights that he did in 300 the violence is much less…..I don’t like to say this, but it is less cool. I came out of 300 thinking “Awsome!!! that was freaking awsome!! (obviously with later retrospection it was not that awsome, but that’s for another comment), I came out of watchmen thinking, wow that was visceral, they didn’t avoid any violence. The whole point of Rorsach is that he has seen such horrific things that he has lost faith in any kind of humanity, he hates the people he saves and hates even more the people he is saving them from. I thought his emotions at the end (no spoilers don’t worry) were perfect for his character and really helped me understand his psyche.

If I had any major issue with the film it was that too many people have gone to see it expecting Snyder to fail and pick up on all the tiny isues with the film.

As a story I think it has not suffered by being transferred to film. It is not the comic, it is a different medium, which nessecitates a different method of story telling. I say if you want the comic, go and read the comic, if you want the film, go and watch the film, or do both, they are two different entities (for all the emulation Snyder used) and should be treated as such.

I thought the acting was above par, barring a couple of problems (Cough-Ozymandius-Cough) and I thought the visuals and the coreography were spot on.

I am sure you will disagree, but I liked this film, and I don’t mind that you didn’t but I think you didn’t like it for the wrong reasons.

In my opinion, the trimming and alterations were vital to the construct of a decent motion picture. What was lost was a lot of plodding exposition and back-story that would have put the audience to sleep. Additionally Snyder ramped up the action, and over-cranked the violence to give the movie more intensity for a less discerning audience.

Unfortunately, the loss of that plodding exposition and subtext has obscured or destroyed the universal truths and messages of the novel. The movie lies in some kind of nether region between action and drama, and makes it very hard to define.

I absolutely adored this movie, and I think it may be the best superhero movie I have ever seen. Oddly, I also agree with all the complaints about it. I even have a few doozies of complaints myself. In the end, I have to judge the movie on it’s own merits, and leave the novel out of it. The novel is a very different creature, and still stands on it’s own.

The movie is simply astounding, and I am sure I will be watching it again and again. It is not for everyone though. It is a movie not easily defined. Surely that will lack of definition will ruin it’s box office, and it is sure to offend many. The movie is challenging in many subversive ways, and if life has taught me anything, a lot of people don’t like being challenged.

I don’t know if Snyder is visionary or not, but the man definitely has skills in the movie making department.