Who Watches The WATCHMEN...?

Post by **Ben** » March 7th, 2009, 5:39 pm

Nearly $25m from day one...

I'm probably dropping into my local on Monday evening.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » March 7th, 2009, 8:25 pm

I saw it this Saturday.

Would have gone Friday but I felt like @#$@#! yesterday.

Remarkably good adaptation of the original comic and the revised ending made logical sense.

I see the POV of the director in changing the end a bit.

This is the best comics adaptation I've seen since Superman: The Movie (1978). Gonna be very tough to top this one.

I really don't see a point in an extended Director's Cut. The film is nearly 3 hours long as it is and tells the story it needs to.

P.S. -- This is NOT a kids' film! Don't kid yourself about the R-rating... There's a reason for it! Besides plenty of graphic violence with people getting shot, bones broken, stabbings, and some nasty compound fractures (with bones sticking out of skin...! YIKES!)), there are scenes of nudity and sexual content.

(Goes without saying several of the four-letter words you shouldn't say on public radio or TV get said, too.)

We don't see frontal genital nudity for the human characters but the CGI Dr. Manhattan character appears throughout at least 90-some minutes of the film exhibiting his

! Yes, he's not wearing briefs!

Imagine seeing that in IMAX format on a 3-story tall screen!

I could have done without that imagery, myself.

Even Dave Gibbons "covered" up Dr. Manhattan in the original comic.

I don't know what the director and VFX people were thinking for this film...

Post by **eddievalient** » March 8th, 2009, 7:35 am

Wow, if George liked it, it must be good. I'm seeing it today and I can't wait!

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » March 8th, 2009, 11:32 am

Remember, you

A lot of it!

CGI, yes, but definitely more

than I cared to see.

Post by **Dacey** » March 8th, 2009, 1:14 pm

*feels like this topic is quickly heading into NC-17 territory*

Here are the weekend estimates for the film:

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Not bad at all, but I *really* hope that this movie shows some strong legs. If it doesn't, Paul Blart will remain the box office champ of the year until May.

Post by **Macaluso** » March 8th, 2009, 3:20 pm

Having never read the source material, I loved the movie. I absolutely loved the opening credits as well. The song was perfect.

Post by **Dacey** » March 8th, 2009, 3:26 pm

Oh, yeah, the opening credits were AWESOME! In fact, the first fifteen minutes of the movie were pretty much close to perfect, bold as that may seem for me to say.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » March 8th, 2009, 6:42 pm

It's definitely an R-rated film, and I'm surprised it got that based on some things...

I don't know how the film got away with that since the comic covered up the character in-question every time he appeared in panel. What was done in the film wouldn't fly in a mainstream comic even today let alone 24 years ago.

Remember, the same MPAA almost gave Return of the Jedi (1983) an "R" rating mainly because of objections over Princess Leia's slave girl outfit.

$55 million opening is not bad for an R-rated film, but this is definitely not a film to take kids to.

Post by **eddievalient** » March 8th, 2009, 6:52 pm

Just got back and I must say I was very, very impressed. My mom saw it with me and, surprisingly, she enjoyed it almost as much as I did. I like what they did with the ending. My one problem with the book is that the ending comes out of nowhere and it's a bit outlandish. At least here, it's foreshadowed early on.

I understand why the book was considered unfilmable for so long and given that, I think Zach Snyder did the best job that anyone possibly could have, though it amounts to being the most expensive art film in history. $55 million isn't a bad opening at all, but I sincerely hope the film continues to do good business 'cause if this one can't be successfull, it'll probably put a damper on other comic book movies currently in the pipeline. We'll just have to wait and see how it goes.

Post by **Meg** » March 9th, 2009, 7:40 am

I actually went to a midnight screening of this on Thursday night - really enjoyed myself, thought it was a very well done adaption of the book. I had my problems with it of course, but they were generally nitpicky and not large enough to distract from my overall feelings towards the film.

Looking forward to the director's cut!

Post by **Randall** » March 11th, 2009, 2:00 am

Saw it, loved it, and I expect to love the extended cuts even more. Now bring on the Black Freighter!

Watchmen: The Motion Picture may not be *perfect*, but it's darn closer than I would have ever expected! I kept smiling at all the things they got right, so I won't dwell on my minor points of contention. The fact is, any adaptation has to compromise, and I think they did a great job. I would've toned down the gross violence, though. OTOH, I could deal with Jon's nudity just fine, as I didn't notice it much.

Post by **Randall** » March 11th, 2009, 2:23 am

OK, so who thought that Sony ImageWorks did a pretty decent job on Dr. Manhattan? To me, this went way beyond their previous motion capture/animation work.

This aticle has a bit on that:

http://www.newsarama.com/film/090310-wa ... fects.html

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » March 11th, 2009, 3:57 am

The furor over the movie is dying down pretty quickly...

It's been said that it might take a while for WB for make back the money they put into this production. $200 million.... They'll have to make close to 3 times that to break even! That may take a few more years...

Looks like my prediction that the fans for this film were people who actually read the original comic version was on the mark.

A shame. It's not a bad film, and I don't feel like I wasted my time like I did with The Dark Knight. Night and day difference in satisfaction.

Oh, and the original comics were about this bloody. It's just having the gore in full 24fps motion that's unsettling. Dr. Manhattan was definitely more covered in the original comic, though!

The change in the ending made sense and frankly was a bit more satisfying than the original book. I didn't see the fuss the wound-up Moore fans had about this.

Again, any adaptation will have to take some liberties in translation to film. There are things that just won't work as well in a film context.

Post by **Meg** » March 11th, 2009, 7:37 am

I actually thought the level violence in the film was a little unnecessary at times, since it was definitely more gory than the book...The language and sex also seemed more pumped up to me than the original novel. I was admittedly a little bothered by this at first, but only because it felt like the increased 'maturity' in the film was only there to make sure it got an R rating. Still, minor nitpick as far as I'm concerned. Loved the movie anyway!

Also, George, in the comic, Dr. Manhattan is covered in the beginning but the attempts to 'hide' him gradually vanish as the book goes on. The movie did seem to show more of him in some scenes but I didn't feel squeamish at all towards it.

Post by **Ben** » March 11th, 2009, 12:16 pm

I wasn't bothered by the nudity...not like they had gratuitous close ups.

I thought Imageworks did a fair job, but wasn't at all convince he was a "real " person. Sometimes I kept wondering why they didn't use a real guy and add an effect to it, but it was close but not convincing.

The film as a whole? It was okay. Not having read the comic I had nothing to compare but I wasn't left out in the cold by the storytelling either. I got it all.

But maybe the whole dark hero thing has just been done to death now? I never really connected with the characters, especially Dr Manhattan, who's name just sounds like a bad mad scientist.

I will say that it never felt camp or like the almost three hours it was, and I was impressed for the most part, but I felt I was watching something that looked great but had nothing underneath. For all the exetensial mutterings, I thought it was <I>amazingly</I> shallow.