Who Watches The W-

[Raiha]

[CENTER][IMG]http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Watchmen/jackie_earle_haley_as_rorschach_watchmen_movie_image.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I'm surprised there's no thread for this yet. But what the heck. Leave it to the only non hardcore DC fan around to make the thread for it. I'm not sure what to think about this movie though.

I mean I like the Watchmen, really. Even if it's a very complex comic book that strains most people's standards of what typically belongs in comics. Most of the superheroes are only super because they work out obscenely long hours and are really good at hand to hand combat. And in the trailer the Silk Spectre is wearing so much leather - or is it vinyl- she looks like an escaped traffic sign. "Look out people! It's the Leather Spectre!"

That's just lacking in both alliteration and ferocity. Not that leather doesn't hurt more than silk when smacked with it. But seriously folks. Not sure how to feel about the movie yet short of one serious foreboding. Most people who see this movie will never ever read the comic book. Most people also are blithering idiots on whom the complex plot of absolute justice over absolute mercy would be lost entirely. AND when it was first shown during the Dark Knight premier, as soon as Dr. Manhattan took the stage, I heard someone say:

"Oh look dude it's the Silver Surfer!"

Yes, if [b]that[/b] doesn't fill you with fear I don't know what will.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Mr. Blonde]

I'm worried that in passing through the filter from graphic novel to live action film it will have picked up quite a bit of the inevitable "laugh factor" concerning character design. I mean Doctor Manhattan looked pretty "bad-***" but Night Owl... I laughed a little inside.

But it happens I suppose. Hopefully the story is still intact.

[Nerdsy]

[color=deeppink]Ozymandias looks ridiculous and Rorshach sounds stupid.

That is all.[/color]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]As a major fan of the comic (despite having only read it this year), I must say that I'm pretty excited about the film.

I tend to like Zack Snyder's stuff - I liked 300, although I never read the comic it was based on - and from what I've seen of the Watchmen footage, I think he's staying pretty true to the visual style of the comic. Of course there have to be some changes, but that always happens with films for a variety of reasons.

My only real concern is that I think the film will have difficulty capturing the complexity of the comic. Snyder has said it could weigh in at 3 hours or so, but still, there are so many subtle-yet-critical aspects to the comic that could be lost in the movie.

One of the biggest issues, I think, is the in-depth backgrounds of all the characters. It would be very easy to portray these people as glossy and shallow on the screen. I mean, Rorshach makes no sense whatsoever until you understand something of his world view and what made him who he is.

Even Silk Spectre II makes far less sense if you don't know the history behind her family (especially her mother) and their relationship with The Comedian.

So yeah. Like any movie based on a book/comic, it will be physically impossible to cover everything. With that in mind, I'm sure this film will probably be as good as any film based on this comic [i]can[/i] be.

I will always prefer the comic no doubt - it's fast become a favourite book - but I think we have to be realistic about the limitations of a movie.

I also have to say, despite how much it made sense, I thought Ozymandias looked utterly laughable in the comic. I guess in some ways that was part of the charm though. The movie seems to dull that down quite a lot, which is sort of bad for fans, but possibly more palatable for general audiences.

Again, I guess it's always a compromise. I will go into this film trying to enjoy it as a stand alone interpretation - not as a perfect recreation of the comic, which is an utterly impossible standard.

[b]Edit:[/b] Watchmen is now out in Australia (as of today). IGN AU gave it five stars and if you read the review itself, the early comments are positive. Apparently the general early reviews are quite good too, although I haven't read any other than IGN.

I'm not sure if I'll see this tonight - maybe tomorrow. But I'll make sure to post my thoughts here.[/font]

[silpheedpilot]

[SIZE="1"][COLOR="SlateGray"]From what I hear; it alienates those who haven't read the comic, and paid attention.

I say "Good!"

I don't want some 'Oops, I didn't read the most celebrated comic of all time!' fan out there enjoying my Watchmen movie!

*scans the OB* You know who you are.

I'm protective of Watchmen, I really am.

As for the character designs, I'm pretty stoked. I like the modern-classic feel that they're going with. And Rorshach? Sounds awesome and likely will BE as awesome as his comic book counterpart, so Nerdsy shut your mouth.

I'm gonna go see it midnight Thursday and I'll probably have my thoughts up here when it's over.

I guess my only worry, as James said, is trying to cram such a massive comic into 3 hours.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='silpheedpilot'][SIZE="1"][COLOR="SlateGray"]Sounds awesome and likely will BE as awesome as his comic book counterpart, so Nerdsy shut your mouth.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]No.

The sore-throat approach didn't work for Batman, it doesn't work here. It's silly and reeks of trying too hard.[/color]

[silpheedpilot]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]No.

The sore-throat approach didn't work for Batman, it doesn't work here. It's silly and reeks of trying too hard.[/color][/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"][COLOR="SlateGray"]How did you expect him to sound then?[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='silpheedpilot'][SIZE="1"][COLOR="SlateGray"]How did you expect him to sound then?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]It's not a matter of what I expected. It's a matter of him sounding lame.

Then again, it'll keep me laughing during the movie.[/color]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think there are going to be people around who have already decided not to like the movie. So nothing is going to change that, even if it's a genuinely good film.

I've read a few reviews already and most seem quite positive (both from Watchmen and non-Watchmen fans). I'm seeing it tonight, so I'll post my thoughts here then.

I'm pretty much going in with an open mind. I love the comic and I can understand the sensitivity surrounding a film adaption, but I guess if anyone can adapt such material, it'd probably be Zack Snyder.

As far as Rorschach's voice goes, I barely remember his voice from the trailer... seemed ok to me at the time. Having said that, I didn't at all like Batman's voice in The Dark Knight.

Still, despite the fact that his voice annoyed me, it didn't ruin what was still a solid film. If anything, it just ensured that The Joker overshadowed Batman (which perhaps wasn't so good, depending on your perspective).

Anyway, here's hoping.[/font]

[silpheedpilot]

[SIZE="1"][COLOR="SlateGray"]Now THAT is how you take source material and make it into a movie!

It was perfection. They took the comic, and with minor adjustments and omissions, turned it into the best comic book movie ever made. The characters were exactly like they were in the comic, and the action scenes were so intense and brutal.

The story is exactly as it is in the comic as well. Fans will eat it up and non-fans will find a solid movie to be had here.

Amazing.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]So I've not long gotten back from seeing this... it's 2am, so I'll just post some random thoughts.

The opening credits are brilliant. Some parts of them were almost tear-inducing for me...fairly surprising. It's almost worth seeing the movie on this basis, I think (as ridiculous as that may sound).

The film pretty much covered every necessary element of the comic, except the Black Freighter (which is an indulgence the comic can obviously afford). The movie was just fine without it and there's a little cameo towards the end that will make fans smile related to this.

Casting was generally very well done. I even didn't mind Ozymandias, primarily because the actor portrayed him just as he came across in the comic - narcissistic and incredibly certain of his own designs. My only issue would possibly be that in the comic he seemed to have somewhat more personality than in the movie.

Rorshach was great throughout and I really can't imagine him being potrayed in any other way. The actor involved even [i]looked[/i] like him. The only downside was that when his face was covered, his voice was somewhat muffled - one would expect this, but at times his frequent monologues were difficult to understand. Still, a minor complaint.

The other characters - including the marvelous Dr. Manhattan - both looked and were portrayed as accurately as I could ever ask for really. I was particularly impressed with The Comedian and Dr. Manhattan - the former just dived off the screen in the same way he dived off the page... and Dr. Manhattan was just fantastic. Billy Crudup was an ideal choice - even his monotone voice and faint hints of emotion were absolutely spot on.

The visuals were gorgeous and, again, it's clear that a ridiculous amount of attention was paid to the comic. Those frames of the comic that you can clearly remember are not only portrayed precisely in the film... but they came alive with incredible energy and vividness.

One of my bigger concerns was that the movie simply couldn't do justice to the overall plot, given the obvious time constraints. But seriously, it really did. Of course there were omissions as one would expect from any book-to-film adaption, but really I can't think of any critically important elements that were left out. The backstories of each character were beautifully crafted and, again, they were stunningly vivid.

Even the music throughout the movie directly reflected the songs represented in the source material. They took on a new life when you could actually hear them as part of the story.

I was happy with two other things. First, the movie didn't tone down the violence; it was an incredibly violent film where it needed to be. I am really pleased that this wasn't dumbed down in any sense.

Also... I know this is a small point, but they left Dr. Manhattan naked. I had originally wondered if he would be covered up all the time in an effort to remain sensitive to the mass audience.

The fact that he was portrayed exactly as in the source material further demonstrates the extent to which Snyder went to preserve the original material.

The only potential issue I can really see for hardcore fans is the way the ending was altered from the comic.

I think when you see the film though, it will make sense. In fact, I wonder if the comic's specific ending would have worked so well on screen. The movie version manages to be more reasonable while also still tying in with everything else.

Plenty more I could say, but I'll leave it there. Having seen it only once I'm not sure how I would rate it or anything - it needs a couple of viewings to be honest.

All I can say that, as a fan of the original comic, I'm more than happy. I honestly can't imagine a film being closer to the source material than this, while still being relevant to a general audience.

It's eye-poppingly vivid and colourful, sounds fantastic and manages to evoke all kinds of emotions - from outright disgust to laughter.

This movie definitely shows that the director cares greatly for Moore's remarkable original work. And I think this, along with The Dark Knight, shows that "comic book movies" have well and truly stepped into a new era.[/font]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]What about Iron Man? I personally liked that more than the Dark Knight, possibly because Iron Man's voice wasn't run through a heavy distortion pedal worthy of any riot grrl with a microphone.

Anyway I'll be seeing it tonight in IMAX *gleeeeeeeeeee*

So I'll let you know what I think after.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Shy]

[size=1]Hurm. I'm gonna get rambly. Spoiler warning.

This was an interesting creative exercise. Having read the book it's difficult not to watch it and think about all of the bits that were left out. You grow up with certain ideas of what a film would look like, and if you're like me you've openly dreaded the prospect of this movie being made. Still, Snyder did a competent job of recreating the original comic in the most accurate way possible.

Although I appreciated Snyder's attention to detail Watchmen also showcases his weaknesses as a filmmaker. The things that 'worked' had nothing to do with him at all, and were a testament to the real 'visionaries' of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons two decades ago. Snyder's only signature on this are the exaggerated slow-motion action/sex scenes, and a handful of shallow performances throughout. Conversely, it's his willingness to preserve the source material at all costs that let Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach truly shine. So I dunno... mixed bag.

I actually liked Malin Ackerman in this as Silk Spectre II. My biggest issue with her is that the attempt to recreate certain sequences cut-for-cut from the comic ultimately leave her most important dramatic sequences flat. Were she given a complete, continuous shot to actually [i]emote[/i] there might be fewer complaints. Just as Dr. Manhattan struggled with his growing distance to humanity so does Laurie. All of the characters are really, and I think you see that in the performances.

The stuff that everyone liked I also liked. Dr. Manhattan works well. He is just as iconic and powerful figure on film that he was within the confines of a panel grid. Billy Cruddup does a remarkable job, and he adds just the sliver of compassion necessary for his relationship with Laurie to work.

Jackie Earle Haley gives the best performance of the bunch as Rorschach. I'm pretty terrified by how well the audience reacted to him. I'm sure Alan Moore will find a lot of humor in that his right-wing psychopath is destined to become a folk hero.

Visually this is a treat. I did not get the chance to watch it on IMAX last night but undoubtedly I will soon. There are so many minor details and visual clues throughout the film; yes all of them were lifted from the graphic novel but they are [i]pretty[/i]. The Mars sequence was every bit as beautiful as I hoped it would be.

There are a lot of things that didn't work, though. The political stuff was only lightly touched on, but without the ancillary material presented in the comics most of it falls on deaf ears. Things like the Keane Act are alluded to, but due to the reliance on flashbacks it is difficult for moviegoers to completely understand the timeline. The original Silk Spectre's story suffers quite a bit due to time constraints, and her complicated relationship with Laurie is never fully realized.

Also the mystery isn't as compelling as it was in the book, simply because the mystery was created for a different medium entirely. Small visual clues that can be studied and picked apart by a comic book reader fly by so fast on screen that the audience is unable to catch them. This, combined with the episodic nature of the story make the film feel even longer and more tangential than it already is.

Only in the conclusion does everything tie together, but it's too late for most people to care. In my showing several people walked out during the first 90 minutes, and these were people who were enthusiastic enough to see it on a midnight screening.

The ending? Well, it makes sense in the confines of the story. As many have mentioned explosions simply don't carry the dramatic weight they once did on screen, and as a result the conclusion feels underwhelming. This is a cleaner final solution than the original. The shock and awe isn't there, and given the main characters' distance from 'reality' it's impossible to care through their reactions to what has unfolded. Quite frankly I miss the squid.

This film will ultimately appease the vocal fanboys, but what we end up with is a long, polarizing movie that feels like a poor xerox of the original. The major bits and pieces are there exactly as they were on the page, just something is lost in the reproduction.

-Run[/size]

[James]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]What about Iron Man? I personally liked that more than the Dark Knight, possibly because Iron Man's voice wasn't run through a heavy distortion pedal worthy of any riot grrl with a microphone.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I forgot about Iron Man. That was especially a pleasure for me because I haven't read the comic - so I was fresh to the story when I saw the film. I can't speak to how it captured the comic; all I can say is that it was a fantastic movie in its own right.

I think the biggest problem facing Watchmen is simply that even with a 160 minute movie, you just can't cover every detail of the comic. It's just physically impossible. I mean we caught one glimpse of The New Frontiersman towards the end... and really nobody in the audience (who weren't Watchmen fans) could understand the relevance of it.

Still, I'm not very harsh about things like that because I never really thought that Watchmen could be condensed into a feature length film [i]at all[/i]. That it was done successfully at all is a real testament to Snyder I think.

Also I would just say that I think his signature is all over this film. There are quite a few shots that weren't in the comic but that easily could have been. Also there's a ton of technical artistry here that you just don't see in a lot of films - tight, precise shots and long, flowing shots with only a single camera used. That requires pretty strong discipline.

Anyway, I doubt I will see this again before it hits DVD - it's just too long. And unfortunately I was stuck right at the front of the cinema so my neck was killing me by the end, haha.

I think I may have enjoy it more in my own home, on a smaller screen. But it definitely needs to be viewed more than once to catch all of the visual detail, I think.[/font]

[Botar]

nicely put James, I think Watchmen was a great film and there was just no way to fit all of it in there, but it was still a good movie. The thing is, alot of movies that are based on comics, never live up to, or stay 100% true with the comic book. Either they flop, (Like the Hulk.) Or they succed greatly like Iron Man. It really deppends on who the actor is. Well, i'm glad I could talk to james.

[Annie]

[size=1][color=indigo]I was unfortunately picking through the movie later on, but I can respect and admire the film. Visually, it was awesome. The plot...to me, it didn't quite have that "umph" or intensity. I think the movie was more focused on the characters and their pasts; which is perfectly fine in it's way, but I felt it made the real plot of the movie kind of bland. I'm sure there will be more features in the DVD, and I'm sure more scenes from the book will be there too.

I will agree that Watchmen is probably the best adaptation of a comic, but I will agree with Shy on his entire post. People would've understood better the tension between Sally and Laurie if they touched base on that more. Laurie's trip on Mars fell very flat for me; there was really no build up, and no real "Oh my god!" measure to it.....maybe that's because I knew what was going to happen, but still. It wasn't all that dramatic.

Dr. Manhattan was amazing. I LOVED his story in the book just as much as Rorschach's; and I was satisfied with this character. I especially loved Billy Cruddup for this role. I actually imagined Cruddup as Dr. Manhattan while reading the novel, and I was tickled pink to see that he was casted for the role.

I don't recall if I've ever seen Jackie Earle Haley before, but it was as if he was born for this role. I personally imagined Rorschach to be a [i]tad[/i] taller, but I don't think this character would've had such an astounding presence if he had been taller. It's always good to see us short people demand such attention!! ^_~ Without hesitation, Rorschach is my favorite character, and I couldn't help but be a bit upset that they really didn't give his background more attention....but again, I'm sure/hoping they'll give it the respect in the DVD.....man, he looked exactly how I imagined, and Haley gave such a superb performance. In my opinion, the best actor in the movie. [spoiler]When the police pulled off his face...that was one of the most intense parts of the novel, and it was portrayed perfectly in the movie.[/spoiler]

I liked Sally in the movie; as glamorous as I thought. Again, I wish they would've went more into her history...along with Laurie's; who I was okay with in the movie. I'm not too big of a fan of her to begin with. Maybe it's a female thing, but I really didn't care too much for the female characters. They were performed well, and really looked very much like they did in the book [just like everyone else...except...]

Ozymandias. I'm sorry, I just couldn't get over this guy. I do not like him. And it's not [spoiler]because he's the "bad guy"[/spoiler]. I think they could've found a better actor. Perhaps someone like [url=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0881631/][b]Karl Urban[/b][/url]. I wasn't expecting someone so puny...and I could hardly understand a word he said. The accent threw me off, but I was okay with an accent. I couldn't help but think he had something stuck up his nose or had a lisp he was trying to cover with the accent....which made it so much more difficult to understand.....I think this character was my biggest complaint about the movie. He played a good part, and the acting was fine. He was as arrogant (in the way of being very confident and sure of himself) as I thought, but still.....I couldn't like him.

Dan, Nite Owl II, was good. Humble and caring as I thought. I love Patrick Wilson, and I think he was splendid for the role. Though I can't get over how different he looked with so much pudge, but that's how Dan is in the book :3 He's a handsome, chubby man.

And last of all, The Comedian. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, again I don't think I've seen a movie of his, but I couldn't have pictured Eddie Blake any other way. When I saw the trailer for this movie for the first time, I swore they casted flippin' Robert Downey, Jr. Which made me fume a bit. I don't think he's a terrible actor, but I just was scared to see him try to play such an emotional, powerful character as the Comedian. I was afraid he would've been to animated for the part.

All in all, I was happy with the actors and their parts (sans Ozymandias). I think they all portrayed the characters very on T and pretty much flawless. I think Snyder did a good job, but I'm sort of "eh" on his style with all the slow-mo scenes. I understand there was a visual goal to capture, but it's kind of redundant.

The ending........I honestly think it was a good move. Though, I wish it could've been a little more dramatic and intense. But I'm sort of glad they didn't go with the squid (sorry Shy!); I think if they had done the ending that way, it would've flopped. I think it would've came off too corny and outlandish. The entire movie was "real" and so human, that if an alien popped in at the end, it would've totally lost my respect....like Indiana Jones *cough*. Even though I read the novel, and loved it, I'm happy they went a different path in the movie. It just seemed more realistic and plausible. I also loved seeing the small role characters throughout the film; even though they left out their stories and how pivotal their roles where in explaining what was going on in the world and politics.

So, to conclude, I loved the film and have very few complaints...which I hope will be rectified in the DVD version that I'm going to purchase. If you're a fan of the novel, you'd enjoy watching the novel in real life. If you've never read the novel (YOU SHOULD GO GET A COPY OR I'LL PUMMEL YOU), you'll still see a fantastic film. [/color][/size]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Slow, contemplative, and jam packed full of exploding people, glowy big blue penis, and enough breasties to satisfy the most disconsolate of fans...

I enjoyed it, and while I realize that the inextricably long, drawn out plot isn't for everyone, or anyone with the attention span shorter than two minutes, that's okay. I don't expect this movie to set the world on fire so much as I expected it to raise the bar of acceptability for comic book movies. ARE YOU LISTENING ELEKTRA?!

My only real irritation is of course Ozymandius being world's most annoying blonde skinny little *****. He wasn't nearly as buff as the comic book, and while his accent didn't bother me, what really did bother me was the fact that he looked pathetically scrawny. Sure he might be fast, but if a single blow landed when thrown with real strength, he'd be flattened and crying for mommy. ...if only...[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]There was plenty to enjoy in Snyder's adaption though I do have to admit I prefer the original graphic novel by a long stretch. In fairness though for a movie that was considered for a long time to be unfilmable he did a very admirable job of bringing it to the big screen while cutting out some of the ancillary material and still forming a very cohesive plot. I have to disagree though with critics assertions that in staying too close to the source material the film was a lesser entity, if Snyder had strayed too far from it it would have basically proven the original material was unfilmable and the end product would not have been Watchmen.

Perhaps the only thing I didn't like about the film was [spoiler]Ozymandius' character portrayal. He came off as far too villainous far too early in the film (to the point where my father who's never read the book leaned in and said "He's the bad guy" to me). His age and built seemed off as well, far too young and scrawny compared to the original.[/spoiler] Other than that though I thought it was a great adaptation and the Comedian won my favourite character of the movie spot.[/SIZE]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='botar15'] Either they flop, (Like the Hulk.) [/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Hulk had about a 108 million dollar profit at the box office and has decent reviews.

How much better does a movie have to do to not be a flop?[/color]

[Lady Asphyxia]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Right, so I may be one of the few here who a) have not read the comics (in fact I hadn't so much as [I]heard[/I] of the comic until this movie came out) and b) has no intention to read the comics. Ergo, I am truly a Watchman Layperson.

That said, it was [I]brilliant. [/I]I have a general distaste for all comic movies because I just don't understand them, but this one wasn't so much a comic-movie as it was just wonderful in its own right.

Yes, it was complex. Yes, the only reason I got the beginning was because I read a premise before I went. Yes, it was [B][I]long[/I][/B][I] -- [/I]but I was prepared. I [I]deliberately dehydrated myself[/I] that day so as not to need to go to the bathroom during a break, as that inevitably leads to missing the best bits of the movie -- I am ingenious, it's true.

But it was also wonderful. I left the movie feeling as if I knew all the characters. I loved inkblot face (can't spell the name), and Silky, both I and II. They filled in all the stories enough that I [I]got[/I] it...sometimes you had to put 2 and 2 together to get it, but not all audiences need to be led around like a shetland pony.

By the end of the movie, I was so invested in the characters that I almost cried when R. refused to give up his principles and...you know.

I've heard from my friend about some sort of Alien at the end, instead of the movie ending -- but frankly, I would have been completely (excuse the pun) alienated by such an ending. This one tied it all in, made it all part of this amazing world...

Will absolutely buy it on DVD.

[B]EDIT -- [/B]Also, I LOVED Ozy's look. He looked just angular and weird enough that he very much gave out this 'comicy' vibe, that he wasn't quite realistic looking. Wonderful.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Raiha]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Hulk had about a 108 million dollar profit at the box office and has decent reviews.

How much better does a movie have to do to not be a flop?[/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Are we talking about the first Hulk movie that was a three hour snooze fest or this current Hulk movie that was slightly less serious of a waste of cellular degredation?[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Botar]

Guys, it dosen't matter, both Hulk movies rendered me blind, blinded by sheer suckishness and boredom, so we should move on to Watchmen, or Milk, or at least something better like a McDonalds training video or something.

[John]

I'm jumping into this thread late, I know, but my analysis is cool enough to make up for it.

[quote name='Shy'][SIZE=1]The things that 'worked' had nothing to do with him at all, and were a testament to the real 'visionaries' of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons two decades ago. Snyder's only signature on this are the exaggerated slow-motion action/sex scenes, and a handful of shallow performances throughout. Conversely, it's his willingness to preserve the source material at all costs that let Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach truly shine.[/SIZE][/quote] This is exactly right. Everything I enjoyed about the film consisted of things carbon-copied from the comic that evoked memories of when I read it a few years ago, and (almost) every decision Snyder made to deviate from the comic gave me further evidence that he's got a lot more 13-year-old fanboy in him than mature film director. I could give a lot of examples of this, but I'll just choose one case in point. [spoiler]In the comic, the rape scene mostly consisted of one, maybe two, shots to Silk Spectre's stomach from The Comedian before he bent her over the pool table. It was an intense and sickening scene, and for all the right reasons. But Snyder's version had Comedian wailing on her for something like a full minute before pinning her down, with as many deliberately candid shots of her goods that Snyder could cram in between the punches. It wasn't gritty or emotive, it was sadistic exploitation as much as could possibly be managed within the context of the adaptation.[/spoiler] Even when he's trying his hardest to stick to the source material--and his earnest effort did show, at least--Snyder obviously can't get past his immature tits'n'violence tendencies. Between this and the overdone action and sex scenes that Shy brought up, Snyder's directorial tendencies are enough to make me wonder if the comic book version of [I]300[/I] actually consisted mostly of several fine gentlemen chatting and sipping tea.

To his credit, though (or not, because he wasn't a screenwriter), I think the alternate ending worked wonderfully. Or at least as wonderfully as it possibly could have. The original ending would have required so much setup, foreshadowing, and extra story arcs to work that it couldn't conceivably have fit into the movie, which is already packed to the brim with information. Within the confines of the medium, this new solution really makes a lot of sense and was handled very gracefully. I wasn't unhappy with it in the least.

And as far as sticking to the source material, he mostly did a pretty fantastic job. Most of it seemed to be about shot-for-panel, and the meticulous accuracy of it impressed me. Of course, it was a still a stupid move that neglected all the unique features of both media and rendered the film a little soulless, but hey, at least they had faith in the source material and were dedicated enough to pull an adaptation as literal and accurate as that.

So yeah, I'll say this much: [I]Watchmen[/I] was as good a film adaptation as man-child Zack Snyder could have possibly managed; he absolutely tapped his full potential. And it wasn't inconceivably far off from the best adaptation that [I]any[/I] director could have managed.

But here's the big, unavoidable reality: [B][I]Watchmen[/I] can never work as a movie[/B]. It doesn't play by the same rules as other comics, which are merely visual stories lending themselves to legitimate reincarnations through various media. It's a tribute to, sendup of, and experiment within the superhero comics genre and comic books in general. Not only were the length and breadth of its plot form-fitted for the medium, but its narrative structure, visual style, and even (especially?) the very fact of its existence gain their significance from the fact that [I]Watchmen[/I] is written as a comic book. When you make it into a film, it's not just little "extraneous" storylines that are removed, the entire work's identity is drastically altered.

Really, the only way I can conceive of putting the comic on the silver screen successfully is to produce a film that is intended and advertised as a reinterpretation of [I]Watchmen[/I], not an adaptation. An adaptation, in this case, is dishonest, and anyone who sees the film without reading the comic probably thinks they've gained a pretty good understanding of the work by doing so, and why shouldn't they? Film is usually pretty good for adaptations of narrative works, and I feel the same way about lots of works of which I've only seen the film version. It's usually not the whole picture, yeah, but it's pretty much the same thing, abridged and given the illusion of life that is peculiar to film. But it doesn't work like that with [I]Watchmen[/I], and it's a shame that there are people who might have read the comic were it not for the fact that they think they've gotten pretty much the same thing, if not more, by watching the film.

Also, the music was butt.