Just came home from Watchmen

[Comicopolis]

You geeks complain about EVERYTHING.

 

 

I haven't even mentioned the plothole big enough to drive a convoy through... yet

 

 

 

To clarify, I enjoyed (most of)the movie and will definitely watch the Extended Director's Cut when it is released. My point was simply that if you change the ending, you have to change to whole ending, includingt he reason for unity.

 

Actually you don't - the original was never about the ending but about character development, introspection and human (or blue superhuman) frailty and weaknesses.

 

You mean the stuff they had to largely cut out of the movie due to the already long running time?

 

Regardless, you can't change part of the ending and leave other parts that don't fit with the new ending intact.

 

 

 

By the way, how did the Comedian find out about Veidt's plan? Was he snooping around his office, or did he maybe take a nice Antarctic vacation? hm

 

Maybe he read the original!

 

How come Rorschach's mask kept changing? How did a normal human being like Veidt appear to have super human abilities? How come an unfit Nite Owl and an out of practice Silk Spectre beat to a bloody pulp a large gang of thugs?

 

You can pick holes in it as long as you want but it was never going to match up to the original because the orginal was never meant as a movie. Still doesn't mean that the essential spirit of Alan Moore's work couldn't be recaptured, which I think it did - though I'm sure the great man himself would deny it ever could.

 

I liked it immensely but I still prefer the comic.

[Dark Knight]

Saw the movie yesterday and loved every second of it! I'm happy that I got my $10 worth seeing it in theatres. Can't wait till it comes out on blue-ray

[lizards2]

 

You geeks complain about EVERYTHING.

 

That's why we are geeks

 

Speak for yourself!

Pretty sure I'm speaking for you too, big guy

[Lester]

Went and saw it again this evening, after my first viewing yesterday, with a bunch of friends at the IMAX. Couldn't resist enjoyed it again and again. None of my friends had read the comic before but also really liked the movie and the story. No complaints suprisingly (though they must have gotten somewhat confused at times hehe)

[thehumantorch]

Saw the movie tonight. I loved the movie. Perish forbid, I think it was better than the recent Bat movie.

[Unca Ben]

Saw it last night with three friends, one of whom had read the book. We all liked it, no one was confused from lack of exposure to the source material. I would see it again, really enjoyed it.

[He11blazer]

I'M FINALLY GOING TO SEE IT TONIGHT!

 

 

I'm taking a non-comic-reading friend who has already expressed concern that the movie 'sounds weird' and is 3 hours long

 

I anticipate needing to see it at least a second time.

[ArAich]

Saw it last night after only reading the first 2 issues...gotta say I was suprised at how exact the sequences were to those first two issues...left me thinking "Wow! is the rest of this movie going to be exactly like the comics in feel and detail?" ...

 

Whether it was or not is what I will find out when I read the other 10 issues....

 

I can't say that I was "amazed" with the movie as a whole but I did enjoy the ride and I was actually amazed at the acting of Jackie Earl Haley and his depiction of Rorschach ...

 

 

[joe_collector]

Did anyone else not like the morphing Rorschach-effect mask? I found it very distracting, like something that may have seemed cool in a studio meeting, but didn't work on the screen especially since Rorschach doesn't have any super/supernatural powers.

 

The more I think about the movie, the more I like it, but along with the changed ending (which is easier to comprehend, but changes the entire point of the story) and the above "shifting mask" BS, the other part that bugged me was the strange choice to begin the movie with a long, drawn-out battle between the Comedian and Ozy.

 

The GN began with Rorschach investigating the death, and then discovering the victim was the Comedian, developing a "masks" theory, etc. The police and Rorschach pieced together the clues and filled in the blanks, and we have no idea who may have done it - a man, woman, kid, animal, Doc Manhattan... who knows, while the "let's show the fight" choice in the movie didn't work as well for me, as it was obviously a tall, thin man with extreme fighting skills that killed him. No mystery there.

 

And the changed ending... typical Hollywood fare using the old good-guy/bad-guy switch cliche, and turning it from a "we will unite to face an unknown threat" to a "everyone be good, or face a spiteful God" endgame. I agree with getting rid of the physical squid, but not the tone, which could have been accomplished trough many other avenues. The much simpler, easier-to-digest ending may work for some, but it still weakens the story.

 

And why in the world, after being blamed for all that destruction, turned into a mad God, along with Ozy's attempted murder and the killing of Rorschach, did Doc Manhattan not annihilate Ozy? In the GN, I kind of understood it, as Jon was leaving anyway and Ozy didn't implicate/blame him - but in new ending, he's toast. No question.

 

I think the only thing Snyder got right was Rorschach, and if he screwed up that part, the movie would be a total failure. The movie works mostly because of the character and Haley's acting.

[goldust40]

Did anyone else not like the morphing Rorschach-effect mask? I found it very distracting, like something that may have seemed cool in a studio meeting, but didn't work on the screen especially since Rorschach doesn't have any super/supernatural powers.

 

The more I think about the movie, the more I like it, but along with the changed ending (which is easier to comprehend, but changes the entire point of the story) and the above "shifting mask" BS, the other part that bugged me was the strange choice to begin the movie with a long, drawn-out battle between the Comedian and Ozy.

 

The GN began with Rorschach investigating the death, and then discovering the victim was the Comedian, developing a "masks" theory, etc. The police and Rorschach pieced together the clues and filled in the blanks, and we have no idea who may have done it - a man, woman, kid, animal, Doc Manhattan... who knows, while the "let's show the fight" choice in the movie didn't work as well for me, as it was obviously a tall, thin man with extreme fighting skills that killed him. No mystery there.

 

And the changed ending... typical Hollywood fare using the old good-guy/bad-guy switch cliche, and turning it from a "we will unite to face an unknown threat" to a "everyone be good, or face a spiteful God" endgame. I agree with getting rid of the physical squid, but not the tone, which could have been accomplished trough many other avenues. The much simpler, easier-to-digest ending may work for some, but it still weakens the story.

 

And why in the world, after being blamed for all that destruction, turned into a mad God, along with Ozy's attempted murder and the killing of Rorschach, did Doc Manhattan not annihilate Ozy? In the GN, I kind of understood it, as Jon was leaving anyway and Ozy didn't implicate/blame him - but in new ending, he's toast. No question.

 

I think the only thing Snyder got right was Rorschach, and if he screwed up that part, the movie would be a total failure. The movie works mostly because of the character and Haley's acting.

 

Interesting that your appraisal of the film is mainly on the logistical level...not that I disagree with much of what you said - your points about Manhattan not wanting to seek revenge on Ozy and Haley's Rorchach (although I thought the Comedian was well portrayed too) are definitely right.

[He11blazer]

Did anyone else not like the morphing Rorschach-effect mask? I found it very distracting, like something that may have seemed cool in a studio meeting, but didn't work on the screen especially since Rorschach doesn't have any super/supernatural powers.

 

The more I think about the movie, the more I like it, but along with the changed ending (which is easier to comprehend, but changes the entire point of the story) and the above "shifting mask" BS, the other part that bugged me was the strange choice to begin the movie with a long, drawn-out battle between the Comedian and Ozy.

 

The GN began with Rorschach investigating the death, and then discovering the victim was the Comedian, developing a "masks" theory, etc. The police and Rorschach pieced together the clues and filled in the blanks, and we have no idea who may have done it - a man, woman, kid, animal, Doc Manhattan... who knows, while the "let's show the fight" choice in the movie didn't work as well for me, as it was obviously a tall, thin man with extreme fighting skills that killed him. No mystery there.

 

And the changed ending... typical Hollywood fare using the old good-guy/bad-guy switch cliche, and turning it from a "we will unite to face an unknown threat" to a "everyone be good, or face a spiteful God" endgame. I agree with getting rid of the physical squid, but not the tone, which could have been accomplished trough many other avenues. The much simpler, easier-to-digest ending may work for some, but it still weakens the story.

 

And why in the world, after being blamed for all that destruction, turned into a mad God, along with Ozy's attempted murder and the killing of Rorschach, did Doc Manhattan not annihilate Ozy? In the GN, I kind of understood it, as Jon was leaving anyway and Ozy didn't implicate/blame him - but in new ending, he's toast. No question.

 

I think the only thing Snyder got right was Rorschach, and if he screwed up that part, the movie would be a total failure. The movie works mostly because of the character and Haley's acting.

 

Interesting review. I'm seeing it tonight, so I really shouldn't be reading these threads!

 

I don't understand why you object to Rorschach's shifting mask? In the GN it is clearly explained how he got the mask and the fact that it has a constantly shifting pattern. In many scenes it falls into a suggestion of an appropriate facial expression for the scene. I DO think maybe it shifts too fast, from what I saw in a trailer, and that could be distracting. I will see tonight

 

The thing that always bugged me about Rorschach's mask is why it should form symmetrical patterns, but then I'm a born nitpicker. I'm sure Alan Moore could supply a pseudo-scientific excuse if need be.

[joe_collector]

I DO think maybe it shifts too fast, from what I saw in a trailer, and that could be distracting.

 

That was the real problem, and when you see it, you'll know what I mean. In some scenes, it's morphing like crazy, all over the place, like the CGI artist was on crack. In some parts, I was just wishing "please, just keep one pattern for more than a second!"

 

Very distracting and I wish they would have toned it down a bit.

[ArAich]

The thing that always bugged me about Rorschach's mask is why it should form symmetrical patterns, but then I'm a born nitpicker. I'm sure Alan Moore could supply a pseudo-scientific excuse if need be.

 

 

typical ink blot pattern....

[Wally's Comics]

The thing that always bugged me about Rorschach's mask is why it should form symmetrical patterns, but then I'm a born nitpicker. I'm sure Alan Moore could supply a pseudo-scientific excuse if need be.

 

 

typical ink blot pattern....

 

yeah, I took that his mask was a representation of all the ink blot patterns that he

had seen during all the tests throughout his life.

 

 

[VintageComics]

I DO think maybe it shifts too fast, from what I saw in a trailer, and that could be distracting.

 

That was the real problem, and when you see it, you'll know what I mean. In some scenes, it's morphing like crazy, all over the place, like the CGI artist was on crack. In some parts, I was just wishing "please, just keep one pattern for more than a second!"

 

Very distracting and I wish they would have toned it down a bit.

 

I liked the mask. Thought it was cool and exactly how I envisioned it when I read the run last year.

 

Vince, why don't you write screen plays?

 

You're so good at it.

 

[VintageComics]

The thing that always bugged me about Rorschach's mask is why it should form symmetrical patterns, but then I'm a born nitpicker. I'm sure Alan Moore could supply a pseudo-scientific excuse if need be.

 

 

typical ink blot pattern....

 

yeah, I took that his mask was a representation of all the ink blot patterns that he

had seen during all the tests throughout his life.

 

 

Me too...symbolic of the mess he was...

[He11blazer]

The thing that always bugged me about Rorschach's mask is why it should form symmetrical patterns, but then I'm a born nitpicker. I'm sure Alan Moore could supply a pseudo-scientific excuse if need be.

 

 

typical ink blot pattern....

 

Yeeeees, but why does the mask do that?

 

I mean technically, what is it about the two pressure and heat-sensitive liquids suspended between a layer of latex that causes them to form symmetrical patterns?

 

Obviously I understand thematically why Alan Moore wanted Rorschach's mask to do that. The ink blot pattern is black and white, like Kovacs' moral philosophy, and yet it is subjective and interpreted differently by everyone who looks at it. Perfect metaphor for the story's exploration of morality.

 

That doesn't explain why the mask would form symmetrical as opposed to asymmetrical patterns

[ArAich]

That doesn't explain why the mask would form symmetrical as opposed to asymmetrical patterns

 

Bcause...it's not a mask...it's his face...

[He11blazer]

That doesn't explain why the mask would form symmetrical as opposed to asymmetrical patterns

 

Bcause...it's not a mask...it's his face...

 

AAAAAAARGH!

 

::gives up discussion:: (insert brick wall banging smilie)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

Vince, why don't you write screen plays?

 

Yeah, real funny, especially since the last thing you ESL Neanderthals should be bugging me about is the ability to put words together into sentence form.

 

And once again, I did not mind the shifting patterns so much as the sheer regularity at which they changed, like a guy smiling and frowning over and over and over, in rapid succession - it took away from the scene rather than adding to it.