You know who's a great directing choice for an adaptation of a comic criticizing objectivist superheroes? A guy who loves Ayn Rand, that's who! I've never seen an adaptation so slavishly faithful to the source material whilst completely missing the point.
Someone described the fights as "fun". A movie about how messed up the world would be if superheroes were real shouldn't have "fun" fight scenes. All Snyder cared about was how dark the comic was, while indifferent at best about what it was trying to say.
I've heard this criticism a lot and while I understand where it's coming from, it may not be entirely accurate. I agree Snyder was slavishly faithful to a fault at times, but I also believe the weaker elements of the story (i.e., Ozymandias coming off as a stock James Bond villain so as to surprise nobody with his turn; the "fun" fight scenes; the alternate ending when compared to the comic) were Snyder's attempts to compromise the comic with the medium of film. There had to be a few 'trailer moments' to jazz up the advertising and make sure anyone who wasn't a hardcore fan didn't fall asleep in their seats. And maybe Snyder thought people wouldn't understand Adrian's turn without a ton of the story being devoted to him on screen, so they just made him an arrogant prick with no personality so the audience could more easily understand his motives. He clearly thought a faked alien invasion was something the audience wouldn't swallow.
The film doesn't capture the feel of the comic 100%, nobody is going to argue that. But I do think Snyder did a more than adequate job conveying the themes of the story, given the time constraints of a motion picture as opposed to the source material or a television series for example.
That excuse would possibly make me forgive Snyder (though it wouldn't improve the actual film) if it were true. But the proof is in the pudding. Snyder wants to adapt The Fountainhead and continually depicts homosexuals as comical bufoons and villains (even taking Rorschach's throaway line about Veidt being "possibly homosexual" literally and sticking in gay Easter Eggs), so the fact that the film seemingly worships The Question-inspired Rorschach is no accident. A man who loves sex and violence, and even brags about the fact that his superheroes have the potential to be subject to prison rape, surely did not fetishize said violence in his movie as a compromise. Nor did he have to, considering Nolan's Batman films, the most popular superhero movies around at the time, were loved in spite of mediocre fight choreography.
And speaking of popular superhero movies at the time, the 00s had no shortage of sympathetic and understandable supervillains. You didn't need Ozy's whole backstory, just that one 20 second scene of him asking Jon if he did the right thing. You know, those 3-4 comic panels that humanize the character but got replaced in the movie with a slobbering Nite Owl slapping Ozy while yelling that genocide is bad.
I never actually had a problem with the squid change. Well, except for the fact that the Soviets probably wouldn't become BFFs with the U.S. if an American superhero literally named Dr. MANHATTAN blew up one of their cities. But otherwise, it was an easy way to streamline the narrative.
Last Edit: Mar 19, 2018 13:07:27 GMT by moviebuffbrad
I've heard this criticism a lot and while I understand where it's coming from, it may not be entirely accurate. I agree Snyder was slavishly faithful to a fault at times, but I also believe the weaker elements of the story (i.e., Ozymandias coming off as a stock James Bond villain so as to surprise nobody with his turn; the "fun" fight scenes; the alternate ending when compared to the comic) were Snyder's attempts to compromise the comic with the medium of film. There had to be a few 'trailer moments' to jazz up the advertising and make sure anyone who wasn't a hardcore fan didn't fall asleep in their seats. And maybe Snyder thought people wouldn't understand Adrian's turn without a ton of the story being devoted to him on screen, so they just made him an arrogant prick with no personality so the audience could more easily understand his motives. He clearly thought a faked alien invasion was something the audience wouldn't swallow.
The film doesn't capture the feel of the comic 100%, nobody is going to argue that. But I do think Snyder did a more than adequate job conveying the themes of the story, given the time constraints of a motion picture as opposed to the source material or a television series for example.
That excuse would possibly make me forgive Snyder (though it wouldn't improve the actual film) if it were true. But the proof is in the pudding. Snyder wants to adapt The Fountainhead and continually depicts homosexuals as comical bufoons and villains (even taking Rorschach's throaway line about Veidt being "possibly homosexual" literally and sticking in gay Easter Eggs), so the fact that the film seemingly worships The Question-inspired Rorschach is no accident. A man who loves sex and violence, and even brags about the fact that his superheroes have the potential to be subject to prison rape, surely did not fetishize said violence in his movie as a compromise. Nor did he have to, considering Nolan's Batman films, the most popular superhero movies around at the time, were loved in spite of mediocre fight choreography.
And speaking of popular superhero movies at the time, the 00s had no shortage of sympathetic and understandable supervillains. You didn't need Ozy's whole backstory, just that one 20 second scene of him asking Jon if he did the right thing. You know, those 3-4 comic panels that humanize the character but got replaced in the movie with a slobbering Nite Owl slapping Ozy while yelling that genocide is bad.
I never actually had a problem with the squid change. Well, except for the fact that the Soviets probably wouldn't become BFFs with the U.S. if an American superhero literally named Dr. MANHATTAN blew up one of their cities. But otherwise, it was an easy way to streamline the narrative.
I think it would've taken more than Adrian asking Jon if he did the right thing, but then I'm an Ozy fan so I probably think about his character more than most. I mean you aren't wrong, Snyder does go out of his way to add his own visual flare where it probably isn't needed. And the movie does elevate Rorschach to the central character of it all in a way I never felt the comic did-- but again, maybe this is another compromise when trying to fit the complex narrative of the source material into a typical film plot structure.
I don't know. I'm not going to defend Snyder all day, because he's made some terrible films. I just thought Watchmen was a highly enjoyable albeit flawed interpretation of the comic, and probably the best we could hope for when adapted to the big screen. I have no idea what they're going to do on the HBO series, but surely it will have much more depth and give the audience a deeper appreciation for all aspects of the story.
That excuse would possibly make me forgive Snyder (though it wouldn't improve the actual film) if it were true. But the proof is in the pudding. Snyder wants to adapt The Fountainhead and continually depicts homosexuals as comical bufoons and villains (even taking Rorschach's throaway line about Veidt being "possibly homosexual" literally and sticking in gay Easter Eggs), so the fact that the film seemingly worships The Question-inspired Rorschach is no accident. A man who loves sex and violence, and even brags about the fact that his superheroes have the potential to be subject to prison rape, surely did not fetishize said violence in his movie as a compromise. Nor did he have to, considering Nolan's Batman films, the most popular superhero movies around at the time, were loved in spite of mediocre fight choreography.
And speaking of popular superhero movies at the time, the 00s had no shortage of sympathetic and understandable supervillains. You didn't need Ozy's whole backstory, just that one 20 second scene of him asking Jon if he did the right thing. You know, those 3-4 comic panels that humanize the character but got replaced in the movie with a slobbering Nite Owl slapping Ozy while yelling that genocide is bad.
I never actually had a problem with the squid change. Well, except for the fact that the Soviets probably wouldn't become BFFs with the U.S. if an American superhero literally named Dr. MANHATTAN blew up one of their cities. But otherwise, it was an easy way to streamline the narrative.
I think it would've taken more than Adrian asking Jon if he did the right thing, but then I'm an Ozy fan so I probably think about his character more than most. I mean you aren't wrong, Snyder does go out of his way to add his own visual flare where it probably isn't needed. And the movie does elevate Rorschach to the central character of it all in a way I never felt the comic did-- but again, maybe this is another compromise when trying to fit the complex narrative of the source material into a typical film plot structure.
I don't know. I'm not going to defend Snyder all day, because he's made some terrible films. I just thought Watchmen was a highly enjoyable albeit flawed interpretation of the comic, and probably the best we could hope for when adapted to the big screen. I have no idea what they're going to do on the HBO series, but surely it will have much more depth and give the audience a deeper appreciation for all aspects of the story.
Ozy is actually my favorite character in the comic and the bastardization of him in the film is what irks me the most in adaptation. That short scene is just the least Snyder could have done to make his portrayal not a purely evil Bond villain.
I want to be excited about the HBO show, but Damon Lindlelof is probably the only artist currently working in Hollywood I dislike more than Snyder himself. Some luck, eh?
I think it would've taken more than Adrian asking Jon if he did the right thing, but then I'm an Ozy fan so I probably think about his character more than most. I mean you aren't wrong, Snyder does go out of his way to add his own visual flare where it probably isn't needed. And the movie does elevate Rorschach to the central character of it all in a way I never felt the comic did-- but again, maybe this is another compromise when trying to fit the complex narrative of the source material into a typical film plot structure.
I don't know. I'm not going to defend Snyder all day, because he's made some terrible films. I just thought Watchmen was a highly enjoyable albeit flawed interpretation of the comic, and probably the best we could hope for when adapted to the big screen. I have no idea what they're going to do on the HBO series, but surely it will have much more depth and give the audience a deeper appreciation for all aspects of the story.
Ozy is actually my favorite character in the comic and the bastardization of him in the film is what irks me the most in adaptation. That short scene is just the least Snyder could have done to make his portrayal not a purely evil Bond villain.
I want to be excited about the HBO show, but Damon Lindlelof is probably the only artist currently working in Hollywood I dislike more than Snyder himself. Some luck, eh?
Yeah I'm not a fan of Lindlelof to say the least. I'm intrigued by the idea of a Watchmen series (who wouldn't be?), but I'm not allowing myself to have any expectations whatsoever.
Post by maxwellperfect on Mar 19, 2018 18:17:58 GMT
It's not really intended to be a feel-good story. I'm sure many have their gripes about this adaptation of the graphic novel but I think it mostly hits the right notes.
You know who's a great directing choice for an adaptation of a comic criticizing objectivist superheroes? A guy who loves Ayn Rand, that's who! I've never seen an adaptation so slavishly faithful to the source material whilst completely missing the point.
Someone described the fights as "fun". A movie about how messed up the world would be if superheroes were real shouldn't have "fun" fight scenes. All Snyder cared about was how dark the comic was, while indifferent at best about what it was trying to say.
You know who's a great directing choice for an adaptation of a comic criticizing objectivist superheroes? A guy who loves Ayn Rand, that's who! I've never seen an adaptation so slavishly faithful to the source material whilst completely missing the point.
Someone described the fights as "fun". A movie about how messed up the world would be if superheroes were real shouldn't have "fun" fight scenes. All Snyder cared about was how dark the comic was, while indifferent at best about what it was trying to say.
I could not finish it due to boredom and turned it off with about 20-30 minutes left in the movie.
2/10 (boring)
Know God, Know Peace. No God, No Peace. | "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/1225-1274) | "If you don’t behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave." - Fulton J Sheen (1895-1979) | "He who prays is saved. He who prays not is damned!" - St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) | pray The Holy Rosary daily!
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Mar 26, 2018 6:24:47 GMT
The credits scene was neat (in theory) but too slow. Could have used a speed up. The casting was mostly consistent with the comic depictions (this is both good and bad). I agree that Rorschach in particular was well cast (cant believe the actor is the same guy who got stomped on by Donald Sutherland in the Day of the Locust).
The biggest fault I have with it is that while it may have been somewhat interesting to see such a slavish adherence to the panels of the comic it is based on, it makes for poor movie storytelling. We should have panoramic shots of Dr Manhattan stomping over rice fields or crushing buildings in Saigon.
It is a very claustrophobic experience the way the film is shot.
Also, a huge problem is that as a movie is that many of the ideas--the rape, the murders, the mass destruction of cities, Nixon--this had already been done in movies for decades. Just because they are adding it to superheroes does not make it all the more impressive. It worked in the comic much better because it was new at the time and for the format it was (in parts) more engaging.
I didnt care for the alien plot in the comic, but I also though "blame it on Manhattan" was weak too-since he was made by the US-why wouldn't the other nations blame the US?
I think Alan Moore is a hopelessly pretentious writer--I do not think he understands the core appeal of comic book superheroes (a kind of simple heroic escapist adventure). He is only interested in bending the genre with erotica adult themes--for what end?
A criticism of a Ditko Randian protagonist is waay too esoteric a focus for a mass audience movie. Most people have never even heard of Rand let alone Ditko. It's a Berkley library coffee shop shingding kind of theme.
Probably the most significant core sequence in the book is not in the theatrical movie--where the old Nite Owl is getting beaten up and it keeps cutting back to his younger self in an idealistic jovial crime busting sequence. I know it is included in an extended version but I don't think it would have the same effect on the viewer/reader.
But at the end of the day, even with that, what is the point? It's overthinking something that was designed to be juvenile. Superheroes were never meant to be adult. They lack the dna for it. Too many of the superhero movies nowadays forget that. It's supposed to be an adventure, not an insincere meditation on family or career. Ultimately the outcome is kind of demoralizing, but perhaps that is the real point.
Caligula: Do you think I'm mad?...Sometimes I think that I'm going mad. Do you — be honest with me — has that thought ever crossed your mind?
Claudius: Never. Never. The idea is preposterous. You set the standard of sanity for the whole world.
