Watchmen

[bascule]

Anyone see Watchmen, the movie based on the seminal graphic novel from Alan Moore?

 

As you may recall I'm a fan of the graphic novel (warning, spoilers!) and was unsurprisingly disappointed by the movie.

 

Director Zack Synder tried to create a painfully loyal "best of" frame-by-frame recreation of the comic. But he couldn't help be Zack Synder. The story doesn't have a lot of action, but when it does, Zack Snyder flips into MUST KICK AS MUCH ASS IN AS LITTLE TIME AS POSSIBLE mode. There's all sorts of gratuitous blood spurts and bone crunching.

 

Anyone here see it? What did you think?

[Kaeroll]

I loved every second of it.

 

I can see why people would dislike it, especially those unfamiliar with the comic. There seems to be a distinct lack of exposition in places. But I sat through it grinning from ear to ear; the casting was spot on (particularly Rorschach and the Comedian) and the minor changes to plot for the sake of economy were executed really well.

 

I enjoyed the style of the action, though was a little surprised by it (particularly during Nite Owl/Silk Spectre's attempted mugging). Again, I can see why a 'purist' might dislike it.

[bascule]

the minor changes to plot for the sake of economy were executed really well

 

The main change to the plot involved the ending (which is what the thread linked to in the OP concerns). It was changed because the studios didn't want to make a film depicting New York covered with dead bodies.

 

It wasn't as terrible as it could've been, but I don't think it particularly makes sense, at least as much as the original...

 

I enjoyed the style of the action, though was a little surprised by it (particularly during Nite Owl/Silk Spectre's attempted mugging).

 

Yeah, that scene was just ludicrous. Not one, not two, but three alleyways full of gang members, followed by some gratuitous Zack Snyder violence.

[ecoli]

I'm up to the 7th comic (out of 12) and loving so far (tho sort of confused and bewildered and empty feeling all at the same time).

 

Gonna see the movie after I finish the comic. I've never been much of a comic book fan before, but after reading Watchmen, I can't figure out why.

[bascule]

Gonna see the movie after I finish the comic. I've never been much of a comic book fan before, but after reading Watchmen, I can't figure out why.

 

Alan Moore is the guru of the graphic novel. If nothing else check out Batman: The Killing Joke. You can read it in an hour or so.

[padren]

I really liked the movie, I had never known anything about The Watchmen and the story, so it was only when a friend recommended it I thought "okay, I'll see another super-hero movie" and was quite happily impressed by the unique story. The last stories that impressed me for their unique approach would have to be Firefly and the new BSG.

 

One thing I'll say is while watching it I couldn't help but to think that I was only seeing the story after it went through the "Hollywood treatment" which really made me wonder about the nuance I may be missing from the original, but I was still impressed. The moral dilemma was genuinely thought provoking and I considered starting a thread about it here and I'd post in the one you started but that whole section is now defunct.

 

[hide]

I may be a bit of a blind idealist when it comes to humanity's potential, but I can't help feeling that if I think it takes a lie to save humanity, that the fault is in my perceptions, not humanity.

 

If I was in the position to share a truth that radically changed humanity's course, I could live with that because of how I feel about the truth, but to share a lie that had an equally radical impact seems manipulative beyond my right to meddle in people's lives. Maybe my conclusions that would motivate such a lie could be right - but they could also be wrong, and it would serve nothing but my subjective conclusions. The truth on the other hand, seems somewhat larger than myself, humanity or my subjective conclusions.

 

I can't help but to feel my thoughts on this topic are somewhat "unrefined" and may be naive so it's a topic I'd like to discuss. As it stands right now though, I can't help but to think Rorschach was right to not compromise.

[/hide]

[1nc4rnation]

Gruesome, pornographic, and morally repulsive. The only thing that bothered me more was the fact that my friends weren't as bothered by it as I was.

[Sayonara]

The fact that it bothered you so much is probably a compliment to the filmmakers. It's not easy to make a picture about morality that genuinely affects people in a precise way.

[bascule]

pornographic

 

Pornographic? Is that due to exposed breasts and blue penis? The former was a bit gratuitous, but the latter is certainly from the original story (which actually explained it at one point). That said, that alone doesn't qualify something as "pornographic"

 

morally repulsive

 

The story presents a utilitarian calculation taken to its absolute extreme. Why do you consider it "repulsive"?

[iNow]

Survey says "Delicate sensibilities resulting from religious indoctrination, social isolation, and repressed natural urges."

[YT2095]

Survey says "Delicate sensibilities resulting from religious indoctrination, social isolation, and repressed natural urges."

 

here we go again:rolleyes:

Change the Frakin` record will you! *Sheesh*

 

well I`v just DL`d this film today, so it had Better be worth it, I know where you Live Bascule

[Sayonara]

Surveys never lie YT!

[YT2095]

No of course not:rolleyes:

[1nc4rnation]

Survey says "Delicate sensibilities resulting from religious indoctrination, social isolation, and repressed natural urges."

Lol that's jokes.

 

Oh and, bascule, idunno. That's just the way it rubbed me.

[bascule]

Oh and, bascule, idunno. That's just the way it rubbed me.

 

WARNING SPOILERS!

 

I was mostly confused by the "morally repulsive" remark. This is because the conclusion of the original story presents a moral dilemma. The character involved has a utilitarian value system and carefully weighs the sacrifice he must make to ensure the continued existence of the human species. This did not translate well in the movie, where he wipes out several cities as opposed to just one.

[1nc4rnation]

Spoilers

 

That part wasn't repulsive, just extremely questionable and pretty unconscionable. In the context of nuclear annihilation perhaps it could be said to be a fair compromise but it still made me feel uneasy, that is to say if he was so smart it would have been more effective for Veidt to form a shadow government which would seek to control both sides of the warring superpowers, and in that way he could put a stop to the conflict escalation discreetly without annihilating millions of people in the process.

 

But that's sort of the macro-story. Don't forget the micro-dilemmas which also existed in the story. The massacring of the hippie peaceniks, the butchering of the child-killer, the excessive force used on civillians, the overall depiction of civillians as virtually being savages, the manner in which the Vietnamese were dealt with, and so on and so forth.

 

That and the chopping off the limbs - that bothered me.

 

There is a reason it didn't translate well in the movie. Snyder is subtly attempting to emphasize the point that even "good" people are in some sense twisted. To me that's just the director's personal bitterness coming through in the movie.

[Kaeroll]

Spoilers

There is a reason it didn't translate well in the movie. Snyder is subtly attempting to emphasize the point that even "good" people are in some sense twisted. To me that's just the director's personal bitterness coming through in the movie.

Personally this was (to an extent) the message I took from the book all along. I always found it compelling that only one (arguably three) people completely stick to their morality at the end.

 

Veidt finds what he does repulsive - he doesn't want to kill innocents but feels he has to. It's really telling when he asks Manhatten if it worked out ok "in the end". Nite Owl and Silk Spectre both fall in line with his plan shockingly quickly in the book - agree first, ask questions later (in the film they take longer over it. A friend of mine complained about Nite Owl attacking Veidt in the film, but I thought it was a better response than the book version). They all go against their high-handed morality.

 

Rorschach is the only one who refuses to compromise and sticks to his guns, no matter what.

 

The Comedian and Manhatten are less clear - can Manhatten be said to have morality at all? I was never quite sure what to make of the Comedian's breakdown to Moloch so I leave that with a big question mark beside it.

 

Of course, the beauty of the ending is that we're all more inclined to identify with Nite Owl/Silk Spectre, taking the path of least resistance (and damage). Both the film and the book are great in not passing judgement at any point- we are left to figure out the meaning of the ending, and question whether it's right to be moral.

[YT2095]

I just watched it and thought it was pretty mediocre, there`s some good effects in there, the ending was good even though I take Rorshacks view.

 

I don`t think I`d go out of my way to watch it, but if it comes on TV, there are worse things to do with 2 hours

 

6.5 outa 10.

[ecoli]

Just finished the graphic novels... wow, wasn't expecting that ending.

 

I guess the heros 'powers' weren't so super. I was expecting Dr. Manhattan to at least pull some time traveling tricks to reverse the evil plan.

[bascule]

Veidt finds what he does repulsive - he doesn't want to kill innocents but feels he has to. It's really telling when he asks Manhatten if it worked out ok "in the end". Nite Owl and Silk Spectre both fall in line with his plan shockingly quickly in the book - agree first, ask questions later (in the film they take longer over it. A friend of mine complained about Nite Owl attacking Veidt in the film, but I thought it was a better response than the book version). They all go against their high-handed morality.

 

You're missing the point here. The characters have utilitarian value systems (except for Rorschach). They're not doing anything immoral, but their morality is somewhat more complex than the black and white way Rorschach sees things. I think Alan Moore wants you to see Rorschach as something of a douchebag.

 

Would you be willing to kill one person to save ten? The novel asks the same question, only on a far vaster scale. Veidt did what to ensure a nuclear holocaust would not happen.

[1nc4rnation]

That's exactly what I find disturbing about it. I wouldn't assume the authority to determine the fate of any person for a greater good I can't possibly conceive.

 

I know myself well enough to know that it's exactly that sort of behaviour that would open the floodgate to my own passions, and I would end up doing monstrous things in the name of justice, or morality, or whatever.

 

So, for example, would I kill one person to save ten? That's not my duty. Am I in the army? Am I with the police? Nope.

In a position of extreme duress, maybe. In a very personal matter, maybe.

 

But do I want to live in a society where anybody thinks it's okay to take up the gauntlet and play hero? Hell no. Every idiot thinks they can save the world. Even worse, every genius thinks they can save the world.

 

I want police officers who do their job and get their asses beat if they behave corruptly, armies who defend the nation and face death penalties if they turn into mercenaries, companies who make a decent product or go completely bankrupt if they make a mess, and politicians who get royally reamed if they slip up. And I want to be treated in that exact same manner when I go to work.

 

That's the kind of saving the world needs.

[Paralith]

I just read the graphic novel two weeks ago, and saw the movie itself last night. I enjoyed it a lot - but then again I enjoy excessive amounts of ass kickery in movies, so I'm easily pleased in that department. But all the same I felt the movie stayed very true to the characters and the essence of the story, though I do think my appreciation was much deepened by having absorbed a lot of the back story and additional character details from the novel that they could only touch on briefly in the movie. And I prefer the movie ending to the book ending. I felt like the book ending was anti climatic and hard to swallow. Even I can more easily believe Dr. Manhattan deciding to blow up a few cities to tell us all to calm the f*ck down than an alien "invasion" via one giant squid thing in one city. With his great strangeness compared to all the other humans on the planet, it is probably easy for the average citizen (unfamiliar with him personally) to believe him capable of it.

 

Inc4rnation, I understand your point. But many of the characters strongly felt that the existing police/armies etc were simply not doing enough, or not capable enough, to protect innocent people the way they really needed to be protected from the evils of the world. Granted, some of them did not - the original Silk Spectre was in it to advance her modeling career, for instance. Dr. Manhattan was more being used as a tool by the government and was increasingly unable to make decisions about human morality himself. But many of the other characters did, albeit they each had their own views on how to do it and what demons they struggled with. For example, it is more fleshed out in the book the way characters like the new (and old, really) Night Owl struggle within themselves to reconcile both their desire to really do good for the world and what they know to be a selfish desire to go "adventuring" in a mask.

 

But Inc4rnation, who governs the police? Who watches out for corruption? Who holds the soldiers accountable when no one else is around? To rather cheesily quote the book, who watches the Watchmen? At one point our defenders need to hold themselves accountable to the people they desire to protect, and when it came to Adrian, he decided that accountability meant doing what no one else was willing to do, taking on that responsibility and that guilt (something that was also much more expressed in the book than it was in the movie) to secure as lasting a peace as he could manufacture.

[bascule]

But do I want to live in a society where anybody thinks it's okay to take up the gauntlet and play hero? Hell no. Every idiot thinks they can save the world. Even worse, every genius thinks they can save the world.

 

That's one of the things I think Alan Moore wished to impart in the graphic novel. This is an alternate universe where costumed heroes actually exist, and it's certainly dystopian. Alan Moore wanted to show that the kind of person who ends up being a costumed hero isn't going to be a Bruce Wayne. They're going to be Rorschach, a crazy, violent, barely together nutjob who's on the verge of schizophrenia. Rorschach as something of the main character serves as an antihero, with the "villain" Adrian Veidt being the story's true protagonist. In the end Rorschach's black-and-white sense of morality means that Dr. Manhattan must kill him to prevent him from plunging the world back into nuclear war.

 

I just read the graphic novel two weeks ago, and saw the movie itself last night. I enjoyed it a lot - but then again I enjoy excessive amounts of ass kickery in movies, so I'm easily pleased in that department. But all the same I felt the movie stayed very true to the characters and the essence of the story

 

On the contrary, I think the major themes of the graphic novel were visibly absent from the movie. If anything, I thought the movie glorified Rorschach as a character, when really he's an antihero you're supposed to detest and write off as a crazy person. Rorschach operates off a misguided, black and white sense of morality, when really the shades of gray the rest of the other characters are able to see are what allows humanity to survive nuclear extinction.

 

You may want to revisit my thread (from a few years ago) on the moral dilemma presented by Watchmen:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17714

[Paralith]

After talking to a few more people who saw the movie and didn't read the book, I think when I saw it I was filling in a lot of the holes myself and not really thinking about it much.

 

I have to say thought that I disagree with your assessment of Rorschach. He's definitely off his rocker but I don't think you're supposed to write him off. He was driven to his current state by being confronted with extremes of human evil, and I think a large part of the book is the fact that people can be, and often are, shit. This had a lot to do with the Comedian's view of things, too. Because of this Rorschach and the Comedian justify their violence against people - and yet, it seems neither can accept Adrian's course of action. Even they have a line and Adrian crossed it.

[1nc4rnation]

But Inc4rnation, who governs the police? Who watches out for corruption? Who holds the soldiers accountable when no one else is around? To rather cheesily quote the book, who watches the Watchmen?

That is a problem that is beyond me to solve. I wish I had the perfect solution, but I don't... I can only hope that whatever decisions I make will lead me down the right path and that conflict, suffering, and senseless violence can be avoided in the course of my actions.

 

But that's... hard. Really hard. At the same time... that's just life. Every generation has had to face some impossible problems. I like to think of myself as a part of a system that serves it's purpose. If I have to get disintegrated to return, in bits and pieces, as part of a greater system and serve it more efficiently than the sum of my parts did before, then it's not in my position to decide exactly how I want to be pieced together to return to that system.

 

It's a bit of a sad reality if I'm to view the sum of my parts as the pinnacle of all existence, but it is also a falsehood to view "me" as being the center of the universe.

 

The irony is that we call this lack of self-centeredness "growing up". No point in mulling over a problem you can't solve because the rest of the world will simply pass you by. We are designed to just jump into things and experience them.