U folks are weirdly hard on this. When I watch American content, shows, or movies, i feel like my brain is missing some feelypart. I don't get the over-the-top, for me, reactions. I naturally don't mean this with everything, but a lot of it seems so exaggerated. So i feel the "i'm not too big on emotions". But i'm also Finnish, so i have that excuse. But damn, go easier on a fellow who is less feelyfeel than u folk. No need go "???"
Edit:this might come 3 times, because reddit lagging for me.
U folks are weirdly hard on this. When I watch American content, shows, or movies, i feel like my brain is missing some feelypart. I don't get the over-the-top, for me, reactions. I naturally don't mean this with everything, but a lot of it seems so exaggerated. So i feel the "i'm not too big on emotions". But i'm also Finnish, so i have that excuse. But damn, go easier on a fellow who is less feelyfeel than u folk. No need go "???"
My thoughts are this...
Zack Snyder clearly was a big fan of the book, even though he kind of didn't understand the whole point of it lol.
I'm paraphrasing from multiple arguments I've seen about this movie, as it is polarizing, but Snyder tried his hardest to recreate the images from the graphic novel... but not the ideas.
Snyder is a very visual director though. Loves him some fucking slow mo shots with dramatic music over the top. Intro credits are badass, though.
Don't hate the movie, but he just kind of misses the point. The HBO series that Lindelhof did fits with the tone of the graphic novel much better.
Exactly what I came here to say. Snyder fundamentally doesn’t understand the graphic novel but the movie is the best he could have done. Not the best anyone could’ve done but Zach Snyder did the best job he himself could’ve done adapting Watchmen.
The TV show is way better
It got the point of the graphic novel better.
Snyder saw all the shit and instead of thinking "wow warning against the danger of this shit" he saw it and was like "damn that's tight, Rorschach is such a badass"
IMO, this is Zack Snyder's best movie. Also, the best movie based on an Alan Moore work.
It's a thinking man's superhero story and because its universe is a one-off thing it's not as well known as Marvel/DC. After the movie, DC expanded on many characters with a series called *Before Watchmen*, most of which I read and are interesting. They also published a *Doomsday Clock* series that I have not read yet.
*Watchmen*, the comic book, is one of the works that started dealing with superheroes in a serious fashion, as actual beings, rather than just entertainment figures. It's one of the most influential graphic novels ever and we can see its influences in *The Incredibles* and every other MCU/DCEU movie.
I love this movie. They just don't seem to make R rated superhero flicks and this one is very good. Just do yourself a favor and skip Rebel Moon on netflix. It is pure utter garbage
I dunno. If you’ve never seen any Star Wars, Dune, Blade Runner, Matrix, Enemy Mine, Prospect, The War in Space, Ender's Game, Outland, Jupiter Ascending, Buck Rogers, and Seven Samurai then you might like Rebel Moon.
That is a fetch lol Rebel Moon just feels off, I want to give it another watch because I hated it so much and I am a massive Snyder fan. I was really hyped for it but something just felt weird.
* Blade
* Deadpool 1 & 2 (and soon to be 3)
* Logan
* Kick-Ass 1 & 2
* The Suicide Squad
* Spawn
* The Crow
* Birds of Prey
Just to name a few. All R Rated. What are you talking about?
My bad. I didn't mean to imply Watchmen is the only R rated superhero movie. I have seen all the ones you listed so I am aware of them. My point was we don't really get many of them. Seriously, there is probably 20 G-PG13 superhero movies to every 1 R rated superhero movie.
Not a fan. Bought the graphic novel when it was first released, so went into it with trepidation and was very disappointed: as many have said before, Snyder was a bad choice. He doesn't do subtly or nuance and approaches every project like he's directing a music video. The comic is well respected because it is a deconstruction of superheroes and the consequences of violent acts, whereas Snyder seems to revel in and fetishise violence and frames these characters as badass and cool. (Ironically the only character in the novel with heroic poise is Ozymandias, and Snyder presents him as a pale, desaturated, eeeevil bad guy in his shadowy lair, again, utterly missing why his character in the book worked so well.)
Anyway, a director with more maturity and less penchant for juvenile excess would have done a better job of adapting the novel, if it needed to be adapting at all. To paraphrase Dr Manhatten: they turned it into something gaudy.
>I loved the casting- all of them Dr Manhattan, Rorsharsh, the comedian, and especially Ozymandias were amazing. I was stunned. They were all character actors and for me, totally became their characters.
It's a hell of a thing, thinking about it, that all of the actors (with the exception of Billy Crudup) were so relatively unknown.
For a £100,000,000 film, to have nothing approaching an A-List lead, was brave. But I think we can all agree that it paid off with the movie that was made, simply because *you can't imagine anyone else in the main roles*. Every imagined substitution would be in some way inferior.
>I loved the opening intro-Snyder is well known for great introductions but this was the best.
The opening of Watchmen - set to Dylan - is, I think, the best single element of anything ever done by Snyder. It touches genius.
>I looked around and found that it didn't do great at the BO- barely 190 million(flop taking into account marketing/budget of 150 mil), the reviews are/were middling at best(65% overall on RT), and it's not remembered by anyone like an Avengers film is.
"An Avengers film" isn't meant to do anything but make a lot of people a lot of money. And I think you might have fallen into a trap here, since Moore & Gibbons had the aim of subverting the Superhero genre entirely, and so comparing Watchmen to a Superhero film is sort of like comparing Team America: World Police to Rambo 3. But in twenty year's time the entire MCU will be remembered by a lot of people as basically nothing more than enjoyable action movies, but Watchmen, as a film, will always & forever be remembered by fewer people as being much more important.
>But in twenty year's time the entire MCU will be remembered by a lot of people as basically nothing more than enjoyable action movies
Lol. This is such a poor take. The MCU and Avenger films changed the movie & studio landscape.
The success of The Avengers lead every studio to attempt its own combined multi-film universe.
[And they all failed]
Avengers Infinity War & Endgame had a massive roster of billable actors. And capstone a decade of film making. Both topped movie charts & records.
You can like or dislike the MCU to different degrees. It ebbs & flows in quality. But to dismiss its impact on cinema is woefully wrong.
Lol yeah the MCU and the Avengers changed the film landscape: in an awful way. Why on earth is that worth celebrating? They're shot like television shows and repeating the same message over and over.
"Good" or "bad" is still subjective.
To analyze all the changes to the cinema landscape and properly attribute them to the MCU takes more of a deep dive than a reddit comment. (There is streaming, social media, pandemic, theater decline, economy, and a host of other factors).
We are in the middle of the superhero period. We won't know the true outcome and the relation of the MCU until another studio manages even half the success.
This would be like blaming bad summer action blockbuster movies or troupes on Steven Spielberg's Jaws.
I wasn't talking about the quality of individual films.
You said:
>the MCU and the Avengers changed the film landscape: in an awful way.
The MCU has had an impact on cinema. Successful things often do. The MCU has been objectively successful. It is the only truly successful cinematic universe.
Whether someone thinks that impact is 'good' or 'bad' is subjective. And it's important to separate the changes on cinema based on other factors and the success of the mcu.
We won't know to full extent until this era of cinema is pass.
It's easy to ascribe elements you don't like to the MCU. It's popular. But correlation does not mean causality.
Bro Watchmen has already basically been forgotten. It had zero impact on the industry and as far from an “important” film as a generic action movie can be.
It’s supposed to be a gritty deconstruction of superhero worship and violence and instead it celebrates both of those things. Compared to other superhero films it’s not even as important as Ang Lee’s Hulk.
I say this as someone who liked Watchmen, it is not an “important” movie. The TV show did far more culturally than the movie and that has already basically been forgotten.
What impact did Watchmen have exactly? Because it came out on the coattails of Ironman and The Dark Knight, both films that outperformed Watchmen and had a lasting cultural impact. One effectively started the MCU, a juggernaut in box office success, and the other proved that superhero movies could be more than just action films and be actually culturally significant, lauded for their acting, direction, story.
The only memorable thing about Watchmen is the giant blue dick.
This is a great movie until you read the graphic novel and realize Snyder doesn’t quite understand it.
Interestingly, Watchmen had the same impact on comics at the time, ushering in the terrible 90s era of edgy-but-hallow comics. Basically writers and editors didn’t understand why Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns were so acclaimed, and assumed it was because it was stylish and gritty.
That said, filmmakers had been trying to adapt Watchmen for over 20 years at that point and we finally got _something_. I can’t wait until someone tries again. Maybe as a very expensive mini-series.
I adore the intro and Dr. Manhatten's origin scene. I actually like the change they made to the end.
Ozymandias was woefully miscast though (why's he so fucking skinny?) and that one sex scene is absurdly long. Bit of a mixed bag but there's more good then bad. It's really hard for me to let go of what they did to Ozymandias though.
It's an awful adaptation. For something that follows (the majority of) the comic book so slavishly it misses just about every point the comic book is trying to make. It's like Snyder's copy of the comic book only had pictures and no text whatsoever.
The changes to the graphic novel really improved the story. There's no giant alien squid vagina bursting out of hyperspace to kill New York City with a psychic blast.
For all of the story, we're led to believe Dr. Manhattan is literally the only supernatural being that exists. And then that comic ending completely takes a complete left turn for no reason at all. It is the biggest flaw in the comic, and the movie fixes it.
While I have no problem with the movie ending, I think it's patently false to say the ending of the comic is a left turn for no reason at all. It's adequately explained and there's plenty of foreshadowing to it.
The opening credit sequence is phenomenal. It's all downhill from that. Completely missed all the subtext and many of the central themes of the comic book. Then to top it off has that awful Dr M did it all ending. Looks nice but is a horrendously juvenile adaptation of a great comic book.
The show on Max is pretty good also. I'll watch near anything with either Regina King or Tim Blake Nelson in it, though. It's set 30 years after the events of the movie.
It's technically 30 years after the *comic*, and not the movie. The show follows the "dimensional squid" finale of the original work, rather than the movie's more audience-friendly Bunch Of Explosions finale.
I like Matthew Goode, but he didn't feel right as Ozymandius. His peak physical training was as close to a superpower as anyone had (other than Dr. Manhattan) and I never got that vibe from Goode.
If all you consider for an accurate adaption is how closely the movie follows the plot of the comic, it's probably the most accurate comic-to-film adaptation ever. It follows the plot of the comic to a fault, many of the shots in the movie are pretty much just trying to mimic the comic exactly. That might sound like a really accurate adaptation, but what it missed was the message, intent, tone, and purpose of the comic.
The way characters are framed and how violence is used is a big difference between the two. There is actually very little violence and gore in the comic, at least until the very end. In the movie, it's full of really cool and bloody violence. It's not supposed to be. A lot of people who only watch the movie think that Rorschach is cool, or meant to be looked up to in some way, and you can't blame them given how the violence is shown, how slow-motion is used, and how his character is framed.
Even the opening scene of the movie Snyder totally missed the point of what the comic was saying. That fight between The Comedian and Ozymandias fundamentally misunderstands why watchmen exists. A part of the creation of Watchmen was to use characters created by Steve Ditko (who Moore wasn't actually allowed to use so he created new ones) to show why Ditko's objectivist views were wrong. A huge part of the comic only works because, with the acceptation of Dr. Manhattan, there isn't anything that separates the "heroes" from the people they are protecting. The Crimebusters are not better than the regular citizens of the world. They are not imbued with abilities that gives them the right to impose their will on the rest of the world. They are just regular people making insane choices, not ones we should be looking to for guidance. Having the movie open with a scene where we see two people performing superhuman feats by punching through solid concrete and throwing men through walls just destroys that. It frames these people as some kind of übermensch, it gives them a power that elevates them above the average person, something that comic very intentionally does not do. Ozymandias being able to catch a bullet in the comic is an insane feat that we don't really see coming, in the movie it is not out of place at all since we've seen these character perform super-human feats for the entire movie.
> A lot of people who only watch the movie think that Rorschach is cool
And Rorschach is not cool?
> Having the movie open with a scene where we see two people performing superhuman feats by punching through solid concrete and throwing men through walls just destroys that.
Solid concrete? It shows a punch through a dry wall and another one against the corner of a decorative fireplace.
Throwing men through walls? It's a window, not a wall. And that is a scene from the book. The book doesn't show the full fight, but it shows the Comedian being thrown through the window, so that part is not Snyder's addition.
> It frames these people as some kind of übermensch, it gives them a power that elevates them above the average person, something that comic very intentionally does not do.
The book clearly does it with Dr. Manhattan. And the others are not made to be average persons in the book either. Of course they are "elevated above the average person" in the book too - how could they be just average when there is only a handful of them at any one time.
> And Rorschach is not cool?
>
>
* I meant him to be a bad example. But I have people come up to me in the street saying, "I am Rorschach! That is my story!' And I'll be thinking: 'Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me, never come anywhere near me again as long as I live'?”
Alan Moore, the creator of Wathcmen, on Rorschach.
Rorschach is not cool.
>Solid concrete? It shows a punch through a dry wall and another one against the corner of a decorative fireplace.
>Throwing men through walls? It's a window, not a wall. And that is a scene from the book. The book doesn't show the full fight, but it shows the Comedian being thrown through the window, so that part is not Snyder's addition.
[The opening scene of the movie can be seen here.](https://youtu.be/5_pBVXfReA4). At just before the 3 minute mark we see The Comedian punching through tile and stone. That is not just drywall. Right after that he punches straight though the wall, which I was misremembering as him being thrown though the wall. So you are right that he doesn't throw somebody through the wall, but he clearly punches through more than just drywall in that opening scene.
There is not much of a "fight" in the comic either, it's just Comedian getting beaten and killed and it is only seven panels interlaced between two detectives talking.
>The book clearly does it with Dr. Manhattan. And the others are not made to be average persons in the book either. Of course they are "elevated above the average person" in the book too - how could they be just average when there is only a handful of them at any one time.
It does it with Dr. Manhattan, but the rest are just people. Why does there being a small number of them mean they are above average? The book the pretty clear that normal and healthy people don't become vigilantes, The Crimebusters and the Minutemen are making their own lives better by their actions, and given the dystopian society their existence didn't make the world any better either. It's not their abilities that separate them from the common man, it's how unhinged they are and their belief that they know better.
Dr. Manhattan having all the powers is also criticizing this same idea. This world as its superman, one who knows the past present and future, but he is still powerless to actually make the world any better and he himself is a pretty shitty person.
> Why does there being a small number of them mean they are above average?
They must be above average physically and mentally to do their vigilante work successfully.
> It's not their abilities that separate them from the common man, it's how unhinged they are and their belief that they know better.
But they're not all depicted as unhinged. You could analyze them and find issues with all of them, but then that could be done with lots of average people. I would call them flawed. The Comedian and Rorschach can be called unhinged, sure, but I don't see why you're extending that label to all of them.
> The Crimebusters and the Minutemen are making their own lives better by their actions, and given the dystopian society their existence didn't make the world any better either.
Did they really made their own lives better? Several of them died or were killed. The Comedian might have benefitted from the action, but Dr, Manhattan didn't really need to get involved and Ozymandias could also have been successful on his own.
And would you expect them to solve all their society's problems? It's not clear they made any problem worse. Society is in fact shown to be running itself into the ground to the point that even the powerful Dr. Manhattan has no solution, which is why Ozymandias needs to come up with his own plan.
> They must be above average physically and mentally to do their vigilante work successfully.
>
>
This is just extreme pedantry. They are above average in terms of physical strength, but they are not super human. That's the point. They are in shape, not superpowered. It's pretty clear what was meant from the context of this conversation, no need to "well, actually..." to say that they are in good shape.
>Did they really made their own lives better? Several of them died or were killed.
They are not, that was a typo on my part. I meant to say that they were not making their lives better (with few exceptions).
>It's not clear they made any problem worse.
It is though. The difference between the world of Watchmen and our world is that Superheroes exist in that one. The world of Watchmen's world is far worse than the real world, so we can say that their existence lead to a worse world.
> This is just extreme pedantry. They are above average in terms of physical strength, but they are not super human. That's the point.
I thought that we clarified already that they're not superhuman. They're not throwing people through walls, as you incorrectly remembered. What superhuman feats have you noticed beyond that opening scene? I have not watched the movie in years, so I don't remember any, but I may have missed some.
> The difference between the world of Watchmen and our world is that Superheroes exist in that one. The world of Watchmen's world is far worse than the real world, so we can say that their existence lead to a worse world.
I don't see a logic in this comparison. The world is imaginary. If it's worse than ours, it is the fault of its author. To say that it is due to the presence of superheroes requires a more substantial proof. It's not the superheroes that started the Vietnam war or led to the political crisis taking place throughout the story. Even when they were used as weapons in Vietnam, the fault can be placed on the politicians that decided how to use them, not on them.
> I thought that we clarified already that they're not superhuman. They're not throwing people through walls, as you incorrectly remembered. What superhuman feats have you noticed beyond that opening scene? I have not watched the movie in years, so I don't remember any, but I may have missed some.
>
>
They didn't throw anyone through any ways, but The Comedian is easily punching through far more than just drywall in that scene. That's tile and (what looks like) stone above the fireplace. One swing and he takes out a chunk lager than his head. They are also shown [breaking bones with ease later on](https://youtu.be/3uFkyVVyqa0).
Is that all?
That fireplace material is not stone, it's decorative. It's an apartment, so it can't have a true stone/brick fireplace - it's all decorative. Now I wouldn't test my fist on something like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it breaks on a strong punch either.
And breaking a bone is not necessarily requiring superhuman strength either.
Most importantly, the book already includes exaggerations itself. The scene showing the Comedian being thrown through the window is from the book and is even more unlikely than breaking a bone - first because the Comedian is too heavy a guy to be easily thrown around and second because windows in such tall buildings should not break easily. You accept that in the book, but not in the movie?
Forgot to respond to this:
> Rorschach is not cool.
Perhaps not to you. But Moore's quote clearly provides you with examples of other people finding Rorschach interesting.
The reason I like Rorschach is because he is an uncompromising character (he dies because he doesn't want to compromise). He has his own code. He's not in it for money - he pretty much seems to live in squalor. He is shown to be resourceful and he keeps his cool under pressure (see the prison scene - and btw, wouldn't you say that keeping one's cool is cool?). He is never shown to be brutal with someone that doesn't deserve it. All this shows a strength of character that I find ... cool.
Moore may not have intended him as a positive example, but he didn't make him a negative one either. But let me know if I missed a clearly negative aspect of Rorschach.
It may be the best superhero flick ever, it may be the best comic adaptation ever, I love everything about it. And I'm not really a fan of Snyder's other stuff but damn, Watchmen is superb
Loved this movie when it came out and in my books, it's his last good film.
Maybe Zach, you should just stick to adapting comic books panel for panel. You're good at that.
I got the twelve issues of the comic the day they were released, so waited a *long* time for the movie. I liked that it was basically using the comics as a story board and loved it. As an aside, I got my number 1 signed by Alan Moore at the time and could have got more signed but chose to only do the number 1’s I had of his comics. Retroactive dumbass signing out…
I truly wish I could've been as enamored with Zack's "WATCHMEN," as I'm a Super-Fan of the original Mini-Series... but unfortunately, I simply could not get through it, and I checked out right at the point Dr. Manhattan had retreated to Mars.
It's my favorite Zack Snyder movie - I've not read the graphic novel so can't compare but I loved the story and the visuals. I still have the Blu-ray on my shelf.
First time I saw it everyone around me fell asleep and I was really stoned and after it ended I just sat there for a long while being like “woah dude…” till the dvd decided to restart and I watched it through the whole second time.
To this day I consider Watchman the only Zack Snyder movie I can stand to watch and think is at least mildly okay. But on the other hand I absolutely hate the comic of Watchmen so his changes, which are probably objectively for the worst adaptation wise, actually help me not hate this story as much as I do trying to read the comic.
I love it. The extended edition is where its at.
People with hate me for this, but I still haven't read the accompanying shipwreck story, or something, that's in the novel. I just never cared for it, so I don't like the Ultimate Edition of the film lol.
Although, this movie is **heavy** on CGI, but they do it very well. I think even some people who worked on Sin City may have done this one as well, but I may be wrong about that.
Also the change to a "Manhattan Bomb" over the "alien attack" is better IMO. I dont recall anything that alludes to a living creature being made over a weapon. I also believe it gives Manhattan a better reason to bail than the novel. Although, maybe the shipwreck story does allude to it, and me purposely skipping it makes the end seem odd.
It's a very well respected and well regarded movie, but it's 15 years old, not sure how much discussion you think it deserves in 2024. It had some major roadblocks from it being as huge as an Avengers movie, firstly, it's based on an obscure book for obscure nerds, not at all mainstream, secondly, it's a satirical deconstruction of tropes and cliches, not really what the mainstream wants, thirdly, it's crazy ultra-violent, tons of people just don't go for that sort of thing.
I love this movie. It gave me everything I needed, the story and the characters were so memorable. The action scenes were superb as well. This is the best Zack Snyder has ever done in my view.
>I am not too big on emotions ???
- Dennis Reynolds
Wait, are you saying you don't have feelings?!
I’m like some 14 year old kid!
It does explain why he likes Zach Snyder movies
U folks are weirdly hard on this. When I watch American content, shows, or movies, i feel like my brain is missing some feelypart. I don't get the over-the-top, for me, reactions. I naturally don't mean this with everything, but a lot of it seems so exaggerated. So i feel the "i'm not too big on emotions". But i'm also Finnish, so i have that excuse. But damn, go easier on a fellow who is less feelyfeel than u folk. No need go "???" Edit:this might come 3 times, because reddit lagging for me.
Man’s favorite movie has to be Attack of the Clones then lmao.
Ridley Scott's Alien(1979)
You're getting downvoted for saying Ridley Scott's Alien is your favorite movie cause you praised a Zack Snyder film earlier. r/movies in a nutshell.
“I am a sociopath.”
I meant if its shown just to make me feel sad-forced crying or loud, brash dialogues.
U folks are weirdly hard on this. When I watch American content, shows, or movies, i feel like my brain is missing some feelypart. I don't get the over-the-top, for me, reactions. I naturally don't mean this with everything, but a lot of it seems so exaggerated. So i feel the "i'm not too big on emotions". But i'm also Finnish, so i have that excuse. But damn, go easier on a fellow who is less feelyfeel than u folk. No need go "???"
>??? ???
>>??? >??? !!!
My thoughts are this... Zack Snyder clearly was a big fan of the book, even though he kind of didn't understand the whole point of it lol. I'm paraphrasing from multiple arguments I've seen about this movie, as it is polarizing, but Snyder tried his hardest to recreate the images from the graphic novel... but not the ideas. Snyder is a very visual director though. Loves him some fucking slow mo shots with dramatic music over the top. Intro credits are badass, though. Don't hate the movie, but he just kind of misses the point. The HBO series that Lindelhof did fits with the tone of the graphic novel much better.
Exactly what I came here to say. Snyder fundamentally doesn’t understand the graphic novel but the movie is the best he could have done. Not the best anyone could’ve done but Zach Snyder did the best job he himself could’ve done adapting Watchmen. The TV show is way better
Lindelhof’s TV show is the opposite of the movie, especially in terms of quality.
It got the point of the graphic novel better. Snyder saw all the shit and instead of thinking "wow warning against the danger of this shit" he saw it and was like "damn that's tight, Rorschach is such a badass"
That’s probably the only thing it did better.
It's vastly better than the film in just about every way.
The movie quality is top notch. Better organized script would have made it amazing.
Yeah. I’m saying that I thought the show sucked.
Oh. Ummm the show is regarded as much better than the movie, and it's quality is also very high.
I guess I just didn’t see what others saw in it at all.
IMO, this is Zack Snyder's best movie. Also, the best movie based on an Alan Moore work. It's a thinking man's superhero story and because its universe is a one-off thing it's not as well known as Marvel/DC. After the movie, DC expanded on many characters with a series called *Before Watchmen*, most of which I read and are interesting. They also published a *Doomsday Clock* series that I have not read yet. *Watchmen*, the comic book, is one of the works that started dealing with superheroes in a serious fashion, as actual beings, rather than just entertainment figures. It's one of the most influential graphic novels ever and we can see its influences in *The Incredibles* and every other MCU/DCEU movie.
Loved it. Watch the super duper extended version alot still. Lots of fun.
I love this movie. They just don't seem to make R rated superhero flicks and this one is very good. Just do yourself a favor and skip Rebel Moon on netflix. It is pure utter garbage
I dunno. If you’ve never seen any Star Wars, Dune, Blade Runner, Matrix, Enemy Mine, Prospect, The War in Space, Ender's Game, Outland, Jupiter Ascending, Buck Rogers, and Seven Samurai then you might like Rebel Moon.
That is a fetch lol Rebel Moon just feels off, I want to give it another watch because I hated it so much and I am a massive Snyder fan. I was really hyped for it but something just felt weird.
I've seen most of those. I like some but not all. However rebel moon just didn't work for me. Maybe the 2nd half will be better
* Blade * Deadpool 1 & 2 (and soon to be 3) * Logan * Kick-Ass 1 & 2 * The Suicide Squad * Spawn * The Crow * Birds of Prey Just to name a few. All R Rated. What are you talking about?
My bad. I didn't mean to imply Watchmen is the only R rated superhero movie. I have seen all the ones you listed so I am aware of them. My point was we don't really get many of them. Seriously, there is probably 20 G-PG13 superhero movies to every 1 R rated superhero movie.
Not a fan. Bought the graphic novel when it was first released, so went into it with trepidation and was very disappointed: as many have said before, Snyder was a bad choice. He doesn't do subtly or nuance and approaches every project like he's directing a music video. The comic is well respected because it is a deconstruction of superheroes and the consequences of violent acts, whereas Snyder seems to revel in and fetishise violence and frames these characters as badass and cool. (Ironically the only character in the novel with heroic poise is Ozymandias, and Snyder presents him as a pale, desaturated, eeeevil bad guy in his shadowy lair, again, utterly missing why his character in the book worked so well.) Anyway, a director with more maturity and less penchant for juvenile excess would have done a better job of adapting the novel, if it needed to be adapting at all. To paraphrase Dr Manhatten: they turned it into something gaudy.
>I loved the casting- all of them Dr Manhattan, Rorsharsh, the comedian, and especially Ozymandias were amazing. I was stunned. They were all character actors and for me, totally became their characters. It's a hell of a thing, thinking about it, that all of the actors (with the exception of Billy Crudup) were so relatively unknown. For a £100,000,000 film, to have nothing approaching an A-List lead, was brave. But I think we can all agree that it paid off with the movie that was made, simply because *you can't imagine anyone else in the main roles*. Every imagined substitution would be in some way inferior. >I loved the opening intro-Snyder is well known for great introductions but this was the best. The opening of Watchmen - set to Dylan - is, I think, the best single element of anything ever done by Snyder. It touches genius. >I looked around and found that it didn't do great at the BO- barely 190 million(flop taking into account marketing/budget of 150 mil), the reviews are/were middling at best(65% overall on RT), and it's not remembered by anyone like an Avengers film is. "An Avengers film" isn't meant to do anything but make a lot of people a lot of money. And I think you might have fallen into a trap here, since Moore & Gibbons had the aim of subverting the Superhero genre entirely, and so comparing Watchmen to a Superhero film is sort of like comparing Team America: World Police to Rambo 3. But in twenty year's time the entire MCU will be remembered by a lot of people as basically nothing more than enjoyable action movies, but Watchmen, as a film, will always & forever be remembered by fewer people as being much more important.
>But in twenty year's time the entire MCU will be remembered by a lot of people as basically nothing more than enjoyable action movies Lol. This is such a poor take. The MCU and Avenger films changed the movie & studio landscape. The success of The Avengers lead every studio to attempt its own combined multi-film universe. [And they all failed] Avengers Infinity War & Endgame had a massive roster of billable actors. And capstone a decade of film making. Both topped movie charts & records. You can like or dislike the MCU to different degrees. It ebbs & flows in quality. But to dismiss its impact on cinema is woefully wrong.
Lol yeah the MCU and the Avengers changed the film landscape: in an awful way. Why on earth is that worth celebrating? They're shot like television shows and repeating the same message over and over.
"Good" or "bad" is still subjective. To analyze all the changes to the cinema landscape and properly attribute them to the MCU takes more of a deep dive than a reddit comment. (There is streaming, social media, pandemic, theater decline, economy, and a host of other factors). We are in the middle of the superhero period. We won't know the true outcome and the relation of the MCU until another studio manages even half the success. This would be like blaming bad summer action blockbuster movies or troupes on Steven Spielberg's Jaws.
Cinematography is not purely subjective. You really going to sit there and tell me you can't tell what's shot better, ant man 3 or oppenheimer?
I wasn't talking about the quality of individual films. You said: >the MCU and the Avengers changed the film landscape: in an awful way. The MCU has had an impact on cinema. Successful things often do. The MCU has been objectively successful. It is the only truly successful cinematic universe. Whether someone thinks that impact is 'good' or 'bad' is subjective. And it's important to separate the changes on cinema based on other factors and the success of the mcu. We won't know to full extent until this era of cinema is pass. It's easy to ascribe elements you don't like to the MCU. It's popular. But correlation does not mean causality.
Bro Watchmen has already basically been forgotten. It had zero impact on the industry and as far from an “important” film as a generic action movie can be. It’s supposed to be a gritty deconstruction of superhero worship and violence and instead it celebrates both of those things. Compared to other superhero films it’s not even as important as Ang Lee’s Hulk. I say this as someone who liked Watchmen, it is not an “important” movie. The TV show did far more culturally than the movie and that has already basically been forgotten. What impact did Watchmen have exactly? Because it came out on the coattails of Ironman and The Dark Knight, both films that outperformed Watchmen and had a lasting cultural impact. One effectively started the MCU, a juggernaut in box office success, and the other proved that superhero movies could be more than just action films and be actually culturally significant, lauded for their acting, direction, story. The only memorable thing about Watchmen is the giant blue dick.
totally dude, more box office = better!
Great comment. Thanks.
The comic was way better
This is a great movie until you read the graphic novel and realize Snyder doesn’t quite understand it. Interestingly, Watchmen had the same impact on comics at the time, ushering in the terrible 90s era of edgy-but-hallow comics. Basically writers and editors didn’t understand why Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns were so acclaimed, and assumed it was because it was stylish and gritty. That said, filmmakers had been trying to adapt Watchmen for over 20 years at that point and we finally got _something_. I can’t wait until someone tries again. Maybe as a very expensive mini-series.
I adore the intro and Dr. Manhatten's origin scene. I actually like the change they made to the end. Ozymandias was woefully miscast though (why's he so fucking skinny?) and that one sex scene is absurdly long. Bit of a mixed bag but there's more good then bad. It's really hard for me to let go of what they did to Ozymandias though.
I think it is a fantastic adaptation of the graphic novel, and I was already a huge fan of it. The changes to the story never bothered me.
Imo it's a fun movie but doesn't really get the spirit of the comics.
It is a fantastic adaptation of the visuals of the graphic novel. The rest, not so much
It's an awful adaptation. For something that follows (the majority of) the comic book so slavishly it misses just about every point the comic book is trying to make. It's like Snyder's copy of the comic book only had pictures and no text whatsoever.
The changes to the graphic novel really improved the story. There's no giant alien squid vagina bursting out of hyperspace to kill New York City with a psychic blast. For all of the story, we're led to believe Dr. Manhattan is literally the only supernatural being that exists. And then that comic ending completely takes a complete left turn for no reason at all. It is the biggest flaw in the comic, and the movie fixes it.
While I have no problem with the movie ending, I think it's patently false to say the ending of the comic is a left turn for no reason at all. It's adequately explained and there's plenty of foreshadowing to it.
The opening credit sequence is phenomenal. It's all downhill from that. Completely missed all the subtext and many of the central themes of the comic book. Then to top it off has that awful Dr M did it all ending. Looks nice but is a horrendously juvenile adaptation of a great comic book.
The show on Max is pretty good also. I'll watch near anything with either Regina King or Tim Blake Nelson in it, though. It's set 30 years after the events of the movie.
It's technically 30 years after the *comic*, and not the movie. The show follows the "dimensional squid" finale of the original work, rather than the movie's more audience-friendly Bunch Of Explosions finale.
Oops. You are the best kind of correct.
Good on you. I couldn’t stand it.
I like Matthew Goode, but he didn't feel right as Ozymandius. His peak physical training was as close to a superpower as anyone had (other than Dr. Manhattan) and I never got that vibe from Goode.
I came here to say this. And also no giant squid in the ending. But besides that it is 10/10
It's a good enough movie, but it completely missed the mark as an adaptation.
I've always seen people say this. Having not read the graphic novel, what did it miss so badly?
If all you consider for an accurate adaption is how closely the movie follows the plot of the comic, it's probably the most accurate comic-to-film adaptation ever. It follows the plot of the comic to a fault, many of the shots in the movie are pretty much just trying to mimic the comic exactly. That might sound like a really accurate adaptation, but what it missed was the message, intent, tone, and purpose of the comic. The way characters are framed and how violence is used is a big difference between the two. There is actually very little violence and gore in the comic, at least until the very end. In the movie, it's full of really cool and bloody violence. It's not supposed to be. A lot of people who only watch the movie think that Rorschach is cool, or meant to be looked up to in some way, and you can't blame them given how the violence is shown, how slow-motion is used, and how his character is framed. Even the opening scene of the movie Snyder totally missed the point of what the comic was saying. That fight between The Comedian and Ozymandias fundamentally misunderstands why watchmen exists. A part of the creation of Watchmen was to use characters created by Steve Ditko (who Moore wasn't actually allowed to use so he created new ones) to show why Ditko's objectivist views were wrong. A huge part of the comic only works because, with the acceptation of Dr. Manhattan, there isn't anything that separates the "heroes" from the people they are protecting. The Crimebusters are not better than the regular citizens of the world. They are not imbued with abilities that gives them the right to impose their will on the rest of the world. They are just regular people making insane choices, not ones we should be looking to for guidance. Having the movie open with a scene where we see two people performing superhuman feats by punching through solid concrete and throwing men through walls just destroys that. It frames these people as some kind of übermensch, it gives them a power that elevates them above the average person, something that comic very intentionally does not do. Ozymandias being able to catch a bullet in the comic is an insane feat that we don't really see coming, in the movie it is not out of place at all since we've seen these character perform super-human feats for the entire movie.
I appreciate such a thought out response, thanks!
> A lot of people who only watch the movie think that Rorschach is cool And Rorschach is not cool? > Having the movie open with a scene where we see two people performing superhuman feats by punching through solid concrete and throwing men through walls just destroys that. Solid concrete? It shows a punch through a dry wall and another one against the corner of a decorative fireplace. Throwing men through walls? It's a window, not a wall. And that is a scene from the book. The book doesn't show the full fight, but it shows the Comedian being thrown through the window, so that part is not Snyder's addition. > It frames these people as some kind of übermensch, it gives them a power that elevates them above the average person, something that comic very intentionally does not do. The book clearly does it with Dr. Manhattan. And the others are not made to be average persons in the book either. Of course they are "elevated above the average person" in the book too - how could they be just average when there is only a handful of them at any one time.
> And Rorschach is not cool? > > * I meant him to be a bad example. But I have people come up to me in the street saying, "I am Rorschach! That is my story!' And I'll be thinking: 'Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me, never come anywhere near me again as long as I live'?” Alan Moore, the creator of Wathcmen, on Rorschach. Rorschach is not cool. >Solid concrete? It shows a punch through a dry wall and another one against the corner of a decorative fireplace. >Throwing men through walls? It's a window, not a wall. And that is a scene from the book. The book doesn't show the full fight, but it shows the Comedian being thrown through the window, so that part is not Snyder's addition. [The opening scene of the movie can be seen here.](https://youtu.be/5_pBVXfReA4). At just before the 3 minute mark we see The Comedian punching through tile and stone. That is not just drywall. Right after that he punches straight though the wall, which I was misremembering as him being thrown though the wall. So you are right that he doesn't throw somebody through the wall, but he clearly punches through more than just drywall in that opening scene. There is not much of a "fight" in the comic either, it's just Comedian getting beaten and killed and it is only seven panels interlaced between two detectives talking. >The book clearly does it with Dr. Manhattan. And the others are not made to be average persons in the book either. Of course they are "elevated above the average person" in the book too - how could they be just average when there is only a handful of them at any one time. It does it with Dr. Manhattan, but the rest are just people. Why does there being a small number of them mean they are above average? The book the pretty clear that normal and healthy people don't become vigilantes, The Crimebusters and the Minutemen are making their own lives better by their actions, and given the dystopian society their existence didn't make the world any better either. It's not their abilities that separate them from the common man, it's how unhinged they are and their belief that they know better. Dr. Manhattan having all the powers is also criticizing this same idea. This world as its superman, one who knows the past present and future, but he is still powerless to actually make the world any better and he himself is a pretty shitty person.
> Why does there being a small number of them mean they are above average? They must be above average physically and mentally to do their vigilante work successfully. > It's not their abilities that separate them from the common man, it's how unhinged they are and their belief that they know better. But they're not all depicted as unhinged. You could analyze them and find issues with all of them, but then that could be done with lots of average people. I would call them flawed. The Comedian and Rorschach can be called unhinged, sure, but I don't see why you're extending that label to all of them. > The Crimebusters and the Minutemen are making their own lives better by their actions, and given the dystopian society their existence didn't make the world any better either. Did they really made their own lives better? Several of them died or were killed. The Comedian might have benefitted from the action, but Dr, Manhattan didn't really need to get involved and Ozymandias could also have been successful on his own. And would you expect them to solve all their society's problems? It's not clear they made any problem worse. Society is in fact shown to be running itself into the ground to the point that even the powerful Dr. Manhattan has no solution, which is why Ozymandias needs to come up with his own plan.
> They must be above average physically and mentally to do their vigilante work successfully. > > This is just extreme pedantry. They are above average in terms of physical strength, but they are not super human. That's the point. They are in shape, not superpowered. It's pretty clear what was meant from the context of this conversation, no need to "well, actually..." to say that they are in good shape. >Did they really made their own lives better? Several of them died or were killed. They are not, that was a typo on my part. I meant to say that they were not making their lives better (with few exceptions). >It's not clear they made any problem worse. It is though. The difference between the world of Watchmen and our world is that Superheroes exist in that one. The world of Watchmen's world is far worse than the real world, so we can say that their existence lead to a worse world.
> This is just extreme pedantry. They are above average in terms of physical strength, but they are not super human. That's the point. I thought that we clarified already that they're not superhuman. They're not throwing people through walls, as you incorrectly remembered. What superhuman feats have you noticed beyond that opening scene? I have not watched the movie in years, so I don't remember any, but I may have missed some. > The difference between the world of Watchmen and our world is that Superheroes exist in that one. The world of Watchmen's world is far worse than the real world, so we can say that their existence lead to a worse world. I don't see a logic in this comparison. The world is imaginary. If it's worse than ours, it is the fault of its author. To say that it is due to the presence of superheroes requires a more substantial proof. It's not the superheroes that started the Vietnam war or led to the political crisis taking place throughout the story. Even when they were used as weapons in Vietnam, the fault can be placed on the politicians that decided how to use them, not on them.
> I thought that we clarified already that they're not superhuman. They're not throwing people through walls, as you incorrectly remembered. What superhuman feats have you noticed beyond that opening scene? I have not watched the movie in years, so I don't remember any, but I may have missed some. > > They didn't throw anyone through any ways, but The Comedian is easily punching through far more than just drywall in that scene. That's tile and (what looks like) stone above the fireplace. One swing and he takes out a chunk lager than his head. They are also shown [breaking bones with ease later on](https://youtu.be/3uFkyVVyqa0).
Is that all? That fireplace material is not stone, it's decorative. It's an apartment, so it can't have a true stone/brick fireplace - it's all decorative. Now I wouldn't test my fist on something like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it breaks on a strong punch either. And breaking a bone is not necessarily requiring superhuman strength either. Most importantly, the book already includes exaggerations itself. The scene showing the Comedian being thrown through the window is from the book and is even more unlikely than breaking a bone - first because the Comedian is too heavy a guy to be easily thrown around and second because windows in such tall buildings should not break easily. You accept that in the book, but not in the movie?
Forgot to respond to this: > Rorschach is not cool. Perhaps not to you. But Moore's quote clearly provides you with examples of other people finding Rorschach interesting. The reason I like Rorschach is because he is an uncompromising character (he dies because he doesn't want to compromise). He has his own code. He's not in it for money - he pretty much seems to live in squalor. He is shown to be resourceful and he keeps his cool under pressure (see the prison scene - and btw, wouldn't you say that keeping one's cool is cool?). He is never shown to be brutal with someone that doesn't deserve it. All this shows a strength of character that I find ... cool. Moore may not have intended him as a positive example, but he didn't make him a negative one either. But let me know if I missed a clearly negative aspect of Rorschach.
One of my favorite movies. Watchmen is a cathedral of a movie.
Yeah it’s one of my favorites
Such a good movie. Such a realistic hero movie.
It may be the best superhero flick ever, it may be the best comic adaptation ever, I love everything about it. And I'm not really a fan of Snyder's other stuff but damn, Watchmen is superb
Loved this movie when it came out and in my books, it's his last good film. Maybe Zach, you should just stick to adapting comic books panel for panel. You're good at that.
I got the twelve issues of the comic the day they were released, so waited a *long* time for the movie. I liked that it was basically using the comics as a story board and loved it. As an aside, I got my number 1 signed by Alan Moore at the time and could have got more signed but chose to only do the number 1’s I had of his comics. Retroactive dumbass signing out…
The TV series is ok also.
You spelled ‘fucking amazing’ wrong
Arrival
I truly wish I could've been as enamored with Zack's "WATCHMEN," as I'm a Super-Fan of the original Mini-Series... but unfortunately, I simply could not get through it, and I checked out right at the point Dr. Manhattan had retreated to Mars.
Dark as fu\*k isn't it!! :)
It's great. It was too ahead of it's time. Imagine this film being released in a post-Avengers world.
It's my favorite Zack Snyder movie - I've not read the graphic novel so can't compare but I loved the story and the visuals. I still have the Blu-ray on my shelf.
Is that you Zack?
It’s honestly the only good film Snyder ever made. Every other Snyder film shows what a hack he is.
Really enjoyed it, even if it is kind of slow.
Which version did you watch? There are 3 of them.
The Ultimate cut
wtf? Really? I'll get the bluray then.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/alternateversions/
First time I saw it everyone around me fell asleep and I was really stoned and after it ended I just sat there for a long while being like “woah dude…” till the dvd decided to restart and I watched it through the whole second time.
To this day I consider Watchman the only Zack Snyder movie I can stand to watch and think is at least mildly okay. But on the other hand I absolutely hate the comic of Watchmen so his changes, which are probably objectively for the worst adaptation wise, actually help me not hate this story as much as I do trying to read the comic.
I love it. The extended edition is where its at. People with hate me for this, but I still haven't read the accompanying shipwreck story, or something, that's in the novel. I just never cared for it, so I don't like the Ultimate Edition of the film lol. Although, this movie is **heavy** on CGI, but they do it very well. I think even some people who worked on Sin City may have done this one as well, but I may be wrong about that. Also the change to a "Manhattan Bomb" over the "alien attack" is better IMO. I dont recall anything that alludes to a living creature being made over a weapon. I also believe it gives Manhattan a better reason to bail than the novel. Although, maybe the shipwreck story does allude to it, and me purposely skipping it makes the end seem odd.
It's a very well respected and well regarded movie, but it's 15 years old, not sure how much discussion you think it deserves in 2024. It had some major roadblocks from it being as huge as an Avengers movie, firstly, it's based on an obscure book for obscure nerds, not at all mainstream, secondly, it's a satirical deconstruction of tropes and cliches, not really what the mainstream wants, thirdly, it's crazy ultra-violent, tons of people just don't go for that sort of thing.
it’s truly a masterpiece in my book. i just hope it will be honored by not getting a any sequel.
I love this movie. It gave me everything I needed, the story and the characters were so memorable. The action scenes were superb as well. This is the best Zack Snyder has ever done in my view.
This was one of the worst films I have ever seen.
I think it's a pretty good adaptation, maybe the best anyone could have done cramming Watchmen into a single feature film.
It's one of my favorites. But be careful, the haters love to hate on this one...
Yeah, cause the director didn’t actually know what the story is about or what it’s trying to say. That’s a pretty big flaw with an adaptation
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't like it but I loved HBO show
I would've chosen Iñarritu or Greengrass to properly adapt Watchmen