This topic is locked from further discussion.
It was ok, the book was much better.
However I don't understand all this complaing about the whole "wang" thing. I never thought it was noticable unless you were trying to stare at it. Just sounds pretty immature to me.
I think the biggest arguement is the fact that Dr. Manhatten is supposed to be a sort of symbol of humanity. In the graphic novel he had a tiny, shribbled up shinchan like penis In the movie he had a 10 inch long can of coke in between his legs.It was ok, the book was much better.
However I don't understand all this complaing about the whole "wang" thing. I never thought it was noticable unless you were trying to stare at it. Just sounds pretty immature to me.
JangoWuzHere
I think the biggest arguement is the fact that Dr. Manhatten is supposed to be a sort of symbol of humanity. In the graphic novel he had a tiny, shribbled up shinchan like penis In the movie he had a 10 inch long can of coke in between his legs. LMAO!!!![QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]
It was ok, the book was much better.
However I don't understand all this complaing about the whole "wang" thing. I never thought it was noticable unless you were trying to stare at it. Just sounds pretty immature to me.
falconclan
Too long and boring at some parts. The only real highlight was Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Rorshach. Overall, I give the movie a 6.5/10, maybe even 7/10.
A pathetic adaptation of a brilliant novel.sammyjenkis898I wouldn't call it pathetic, heck I think it's a pretty good adaptation. Yes there is slow-mo, and questionable music, and unnecessary gore and sex, and it does omit some important character buliding elements, and it also doesn't include the Tale of The Black Freighter and the newstand to give the feeling of impending doom...wait I'm trying to defend this movie...blue wang! Would have been better as a mini series mind.
Would have been better as a mini series mind.Brutal_Elitegs
I've been saying that ever since they announced it.
I hatehateHATED the actor playing Veidt. Completely dehumanized him and made him just unbearably smug... UGHH!PannicAtackWell, Veidt was unbearably smug in the graphic novel. Just check out the last chapter in the book, where Veidt says he can catch bullets ... now that's one smug son of a *****. But yeah, I don't think the actor was well cast, he should been older, bette built, and generally just seem more wise, mature and experienced. Also, I think it was an excellent movie BTW.
For a movie based on the comic it sucked, as a movie is was decentToriko42Err, it just about copied the graphic novel word for word -- but of course it couldn't have included everything from the book, or else the movie would have been about 4 hours long.
[QUOTE="Toriko42"]For a movie based on the comic it sucked, as a movie is was decentMetalGear_NintyErr, it just about copied the graphic novel word for word -- but of course it couldn't have included everything from the book, or else the movie would have been about 4 hours long. i know what he means the movie tried to be a comic but couldnt be a comic even if it was word for word....Snyder did magic with the 300 it felt like the graphic novel...watchmen felt like he tried to hard....as for a movie itself...bangin
[QUOTE="Brutal_Elitegs"] Would have been better as a mini series mind.sammyjenkis898
I've been saying that ever since they announced it.
...so you made your mind up before even seeing the moive then?[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I hatehateHATED the actor playing Veidt. Completely dehumanized him and made him just unbearably smug... UGHH!MetalGear_NintyWell, Veidt was unbearably smug in the graphic novel. Just check out the last chapter in the book, where Veidt says he can catch bullets ... now that's one smug son of a *****. But yeah, I don't think the actor was well cast, he should been older, bette built, and generally just seem more wise, mature and experienced. Also, I think it was an excellent movie BTW. Well, to be fair, he actually could catch a bullet. I dunno. I just felt that the actor drained any sort of sympathy from the character. Aside from that, the main thing that bugged me about the movie was the excessive amount of violence. However, I'm probably being too hard on it. There were plenty of things I genuinely like, such as Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II. I actually liked him better in the movie than in the comic.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Toriko42"]For a movie based on the comic it sucked, as a movie is was decentnynthninjaErr, it just about copied the graphic novel word for word -- but of course it couldn't have included everything from the book, or else the movie would have been about 4 hours long. i know what he means the movie tried to be a comic but couldnt be a comic even if it was word for word....Snyder did magic with the 300 it felt like the graphic novel...watchmen felt like he tried to hard....as for a movie itself...bangin Unfortuantely, Snyder couldn't have possibly included the news-seller scenes with The Tales of the Black Freighter, nor could he have included the finer details of the characters backstories. But apart from that, I just don't see how it was unfaithful to the graphic novel. You could literally not ask for a more faithful adaptation without making a 5 hour-long movie.
[QUOTE="nynthninja"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Err, it just about copied the graphic novel word for word -- but of course it couldn't have included everything from the book, or else the movie would have been about 4 hours long.MetalGear_Nintyi know what he means the movie tried to be a comic but couldnt be a comic even if it was word for word....Snyder did magic with the 300 it felt like the graphic novel...watchmen felt like he tried to hard....as for a movie itself...bangin Unfortuantely, Snyder couldn't have possibly included the news-seller scenes with The Tales of the Black Freighter, nor could he have included the finer details of the characters backstories. But apart from that, I just don't see how it was unfaithful to the graphic novel. You could literally not ask for a more faithful adaptation without making a 5 hour-long movie. His action was cheesy it took away from it now 100 million people feel like Rorshach is the new Batman and the point was completly missed
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I hatehateHATED the actor playing Veidt. Completely dehumanized him and made him just unbearably smug... UGHH!PannicAtackWell, Veidt was unbearably smug in the graphic novel. Just check out the last chapter in the book, where Veidt says he can catch bullets ... now that's one smug son of a *****. But yeah, I don't think the actor was well cast, he should been older, bette built, and generally just seem more wise, mature and experienced. Also, I think it was an excellent movie BTW. Well, to be fair, he actually could catch a bullet. I dunno. I just felt that the actor drained any sort of sympathy from the character. Aside from that, the main thing that bugged me about the movie was the excessive amount of violence. However, I'm probably being too hard on it. There were plenty of things I genuinely like, such as Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II. I actually liked him better in the movie than in the comic. Yeah, the gratuitous violence was easily the worst thing about the movie. When Niteowl and Silk Spectre were figting in the alley, it completely dehumanised the characters to have them needlessly killing the thugs. Not to mention the prison scene with big circular saw. I also thought the sex scene in the owlship was just ridiculous, and even came across as comical. I think a lot of people would have stopped taking the movie seriously from then on.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="nynthninja"] i know what he means the movie tried to be a comic but couldnt be a comic even if it was word for word....Snyder did magic with the 300 it felt like the graphic novel...watchmen felt like he tried to hard....as for a movie itself...banginnynthninjaUnfortuantely, Snyder couldn't have possibly included the news-seller scenes with The Tales of the Black Freighter, nor could he have included the finer details of the characters backstories. But apart from that, I just don't see how it was unfaithful to the graphic novel. You could literally not ask for a more faithful adaptation without making a 5 hour-long movie. His action was cheesy it took away from it now 100 million people feel like Rorshach is the new Batman and the point was completly missed Well the only thing that couldhave gave that impression was when Rorshach was ambushed, seeing how there was extra fighting that wasn't in the graphic novel. NB: I think they missed a great opportunity when they did Rorshachs's backstory mind. I don't see why they had Rorshach's hacking at the guy with a knife instead of setting him on fire. This really annoyed me to be honest. A well crafted shot of Rorshach staring indifferently into the flames while the guy was screaming would have been more apt IMO.
The point is the average joe who saw the movie thinks that Rorshach is a difinitive hero when we all know hes a addition to the problem hes too black and white...i feel like they wiffed on the depth of the characters nynthninjaI didn't get that impression. But that's your opinion, and each to his own, I guess.
[QUOTE="nynthninja"]The point is the average joe who saw the movie thinks that Rorshach is a difinitive hero when we all know hes a addition to the problem hes too black and white...i feel like they wiffed on the depth of the characters MetalGear_NintyI didn't get that impression. But that's your opinion, and each to his own, I guess. facebook and myspace shows it its sort of like that phrase "everyones a fan when your team makes it to the superbowl" its always infuriating when youve been routing the whole time
But if they had done that (Rorschach originally left the child murderer tied to the stove with a hacksaw and burnt the place down), uninformed people would have claimed that Watchmen stole the idea from the Saw series. Which you almost couldn't blame them for thinking.Well the only thing that couldhave gave that impression was when Rorshach was ambushed, seeing how there was extra fighting that wasn't in the graphic novel. NB: I think they missed a great opportunity when they did Rorshachs's backstory mind. I don't see why they had Rorshach's hacking at the guy with a knife instead of setting him on fire. This really annoyed me to be honest. A well crafted shot of Rorshach staring indifferently into the flames while the guy was screaming would have been more apt IMO.
[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"][QUOTE="Brutal_Elitegs"] Would have been better as a mini series mind.MetalGear_Ninty
I've been saying that ever since they announced it.
...so you made your mind up before even seeing the moive then? What do you mean "made up my mind"? I've been saying they should have made it a miniseries as soon as the film was announced. It actually would have worked.lol that'd probably scar me too. I'd give it a 6 or 7/10, I like the director's style in the movie but it had a few too many problems to be called a great movie imo.saw it opening night in an imax theater. i am never sitting in the front row again.
Dman0017
absolutley loved it, one of my fav comic to film adaptations, i bought the directors cut (though im probably just going to sell it to get the ultimate eddtion)
and to the people complaining about doc manhattens wang....why are you paying so much attention to it? hell they dont even show it that much, like only 4 or 5 scenes.
tho yes i have to say the sex scene with night owl II and silk specter II was just badly done, pretty much my only gripe with the movie
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment