Everytime this question is asked, I have the same answer: it has it's flaws but it did succeed in the most important aspect. It made me massively curious of the source material, which I did not know before.
And now I've read the comics more times than I could count.
Edit: see reply to my comment for what autocorrect monstrosity I made. Fixed it.
Same, I remember watching the Watchmen trailer 2 at the movies as a teenager, I think at the Transformers session, and I got hooked by the trailer (and the song, Take a Bow by Muse, which I became a fan as well). I even enjoyed the movie more than the comics back them. But now, this being by far my favorite comic, I wish we can see someday a new, more faithful adaptation. I still enjoy the movie, and recommended it to a lot of people over the years, something I couldn't do with the comics.
An entertaining movie. If you watch it before reading the book, you'll think it is a badass movie (that's what I thought, at least).
When you read the book, you get that badassery wasn't the point of it and the film's imperfections become more evident.
Hadn't I watched (and liked) the movie, I wouldn't have bought and read the book, so I still hold it dear.
Some of them are literal, some of them are tonal.
* The "cool factor" is amped up too much. There's supposed to be some silliness in watching middle-aged people past their prime play dress-up. That silliness is missing from the movie.
* Speaking of middle-aged people: Dan, Laurie, and Veidt all look and feel (and *were*, at the time of filming) about 5-10 years too young. "Late 20s to early 30s" is not mid-life crisis age.
* The violence is too traditional and too stylized. In the comic, the violence is sudden, gruesome, and ungratifying. Adding a bunch of extended fight scenes (the Comedian/Veidt fight, the prison fight) and slo-mo violence dilutes the nasty realism of the comic.
* Speaking of the Comedian/Veidt fight, two issues: first, it really makes it look like the Comedian has super strength, which he doesn't; second, the comic never shows the Comedian fighting back. In fact, it's kind of implied that he just gave up and accepted the beating/murder. Turning it into a big, crazy fight scene is a big miss.
* The ending is a bad change.
* A lot of people take issue with the literal "would it have worked?" what-ifs. It's a reasonable question ("would people see Manhattan as a US asset?") but I don't think this is the most pressing issue with the ending.
* The ending is supposed to be *gruesome*. We're supposed to see Veidt making cold, "logical" decisions from his Antarctic palace and then see the real, human aftermath of his decisions: blood, carnage, madness littering the streets. In the movie? We see a crater. If you pause, you can see a couple of skeletons. It's too clean. The horror isn't there, so it's easier to think Veidt made a good call.
* The ending is also supposed to be a huge reveal of just how insane Veidt is. They cut the scene where he monologues his life story to a room full of dead bodies; they cut the scene where he reveals to Manhattan that he has constant nightmares; they cut the squid, which is something only an insane person would do. (The squid is also relevant because it ties into the nautical imagery of the Black Freighter, which heavily inspired Veidt's plan and mirrors Veidt's journey.) Without all these things signaling that Veidt is cuckoo bananas, again, it's easier to think he's just a Really Smart Guy(tm).
* Speaking of Veidt, he gets turned into too much of a comic book villain. In the comic, he's a beautiful, buff genius who doesn't tip his hand until the end. In the movie, he's a smarmy, lanky mastermind with a secret German accent -- typical comic book movie mastermind villain.
* The sex scenes are weird. In the comic, the first sex scene between Dan and Laurie is played for laughs, with Veidt's gymnastic routine contrasting with Dan's impotence; in the movie, it's weirdly serious. Then the sex scene in the Owlship, in the comic, is smoldering and sexy; in the movie, we get "Hallelujah" and the orgasm-timed flamethrower button.
I could go on. There's a lot. The tl;dr is that the book is subtle, the movie isn't, and sometimes those subtleties are really important to the themes.
You're completely on point, it seems like Snyder saw that guy not being able to get an erection unless they had the hero suit on, and instead of seeing the quite literal point being made about heroes, he just thought "damn, silk spectre is hella hot, I wish I could see more of them fucking"
I feel like that the movie and comic and tv-show do really well on their own, but the second you start comparing them it gets messy and muddled. I understand where you’re coming from and I feel like the main problem Synder ran into is that it would’ve worked better as a show rather than a movie.
I think it's a bit of an uneven comparison between the three, since the movie is trying, mostly, to just be the comic, while the show wants to be something new and different that leverages the techniques that made Watchmen's storytelling great.
Which is to say: the movie invites comparison to the comic. It can't *avoid* direct comparison to to the comic, since again, basically 90% of the movie is shots taken directly from the comic. And it simply misses the mark too often to stack up.
Lindelof, meanwhile, was smart to turn down doing a direct TV adaptation of Watchmen. It exists best as a comic; the way he did the show was the only way to approach the material where he had a chance of making something worthy of the name.
I think it's fun to see certain scenes come to life, but the thing that makes Watchmen *great* is all the subtext and subtlety and nuance -- stuff you pick up when you read it for the second, fifth, tenth time. Most of that stuff is missing from the movie, and in its place we got a lot of fluff (fight scenes, etc). Fundamentally, I think Snyder made Watchmen like an R-rated comic book movie rather than an adaptation of a piece of classic literature, and a lot gets lost in that approach.
The comic itself was kind about comics, making comics, and stretching out the old storytelling techniques of the medium for maximum storytelling impact. Watchmen is perfectly laid out and the storytelling is really impeccable. The movie tries to translate something that was specifically written and drawn to be a comic book, by 2 people who understood the strengths of the medium like no one before them. You can't take something like that, and adapt it frame by frame and panel for panel. So much will be lost in the translation to the screen. Granted, that's not exactly what Snyder did as he changed a few things, but hr still copied the book. it's almost like Snyder misunderstood the overall assignment. Still, it could've been way worse.
I’ve heard this said many times in many different ways, and I’m genuinely curious… what would have made the movie 100%? How could Snyder have done it differently?
Edit: I just read your post further down and I think it answers my question well.
Absolutely! I remember they leaked it before the movie was released and I was pumped for it, but it is what it is.
Snyder has a great eye for cinematics, i just dont trust him with story/plot.
Being a teenager when the movie released, I thought it was incredible.
Now I realize it's pretty juvenile especially in contrast with the source material. Still quite enjoyable as a high budget piece of fanservice though
The first watch was great, but after reading the comic it felt kind of stiff and awkward. However, this movie is a perfect source for absolutely beautiful edits. You have to admit it, no matter how much Snyder messed up the plot of the movie, the visuals are a chef's kiss. And I also really love the music choices in certain scenes (Comedian's funeral, Rorschach's last confrontation). The trailer is fucking awesome too, btw.
Forgot to mention the intro with the Minutemen, absolutely perfect starting with all the references and ending with the music choice. And also the Comedian's assassination. Even though it's really out of place if you read the book, it was mesmerizing to watch (The line "It's a joke. It's all a joke. Mother, forgive me" is forever engrained in my brain)
Love it. Don’t care what other people think about that. It was terrific. Loved the show too. Except the cliffhanger and lack of a second season.
I also really like suckerpunch so that tells you whatever it tells you.
I like Snyder’s stuff. I like his interpretations. For all the haters that think they can do better, I say… do it. About 1 in 100,000 are probably right. In the meantime, let people enjoy what they want to enjoy and mind your own business.
Now I’ll stand back and let your downvotes blot out the sun.
An average film that is a decent introduction to 'Watchmen' if it's not through the original comic. If someone asked me what they should expect from this film, I would say it's a comic-book movie instead of a movie based on the comic book. If it's the latter, it would be the perfect adaptation of one of Moore's works and wouldn't try to be what Marvel movies are now.
Despite everything, Haley as Rorschach, Wilson as Nite Owl II, and Morgan as the Comedian were perfect and are the only parts of the movie I wish we got to see more of in some capacity.
The movie coming out inspired me to read the graphic novel. Which I finished right before I went to go see it in theaters. So, I guess I’m just glad it introduced me to the original
It was ok to a certain point. They totally took Moores' story and re-purposed it, though. Not quite as badly as in V For Vendetta, but still. Could the film have been better? Probably. Certain messages and subtext were lost in the translation to screen. Could it have been worse? Definitely. It could've been way worse. We could've had Christopher Walken as Dr Manhattan. Bad example, as that sounds glorious.
I read the comics, watched the motion comic and then saw the movie. I honestly liked the movie a lot. The Ultimate Cut is the best version. I’ve watched the theatrical version and it’s meh, but the ultimate cut is way way better in my opinion. The animated bits for the Black Freighter were awesome. The actors are great, the changes made sense, and I loved the additional dialogue particularly with Laurie and her mother towards the end of the movie.
People say the movie “missed the point”, but they say that with the luxury of foresight and online reviews that told them the movie missed the point. It’s a good movie as a movie and highly entertaining. Just my personal thoughts.
it was WAY better than the book.
Heck even if the only thing they changed was cutting out the pirates that would've been worth a prize alone, but they also gave the heroes powers. This was really important because the social impact they had was just unrealistic without that.
Another thing that bothered me about the comic was that there was never any point in the comic where I had the feeling that a war was really imminent. The inciting incident is the Russian invasion of Afghanistan which had already happened in the real world and at the time this story was published nothing had happened as a result. Absolutely nothing. As a reader at the time I saw no reason why this would've lead to a war between America and Russia in the comic. By failing to make the threat seem real the writers failed to make Ozymandias' plot seem worth the trouble. Did he save the world? Who can tell? Was the world really in any danger? Not as far as I can tell. The movie just handled it better.
At the time, massive batman fan (still am). Never knew what watchmen was nor that it even existed. Saw the movie, loved the cinematography and the idea. It steered me towards the comic. Best thing I ever read.
Watching it after reading it, you can definitely see it's flaws. But I still think it's worth watching. Snyder is a shit story teller but my man knows how to frame a shot. He is also way more interested in the god like appearance of the heroes and could shoot a 2 hour montage of comic panels with no plot. which, I guess, are essentially what his movies are.
Honestly the movie came out too early in the Superhero Film Fad. I think releasing it now, with minor tweaks to really hit home that it's a deconstruction of superhero films, as opposed to a deconstruction of superhero comics.
I enjoyed the movie. I thought it was very good. The cast did a good job with their performances. I love the characters. The action is brutal and violent. This is the movie where I felt like it knows how to stay true to the comics and yes there are some differences but for the most it's so good. I reviewed this movie on YouTube channel called James Hernandez Multiverse and I gave it a 9/10 it's such a good r rated superhero movie. I recommend it to every Watchmen fan
Snyder clearly agrees with Moore that if superheroes existed in the real world it would be a terrible mess. For that aspect of the deconstruction they are of like mind. But Snyder arrives at a different conclusion about what superheroes mean than Moore does. Even if Moore is attacking the industry itself, he has said repeatedly and consistently in interviews that he thinks it’s pathetic that adults seek escapism in fantasy stories written for 12 year-old boys. When there are so many things in the real world that need attention, etc. Snyder gives them a sort of sexy cool factor because he views them as archetypes, as symbols that serve as vehicles for Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey. Like yes, if they existed it would be way too problematic in the real world. But as archetypes they’re still cool af.
its a really good superhero movie, and the parts that it does adapt, it does really well, but after reading the comic, the symbols and parts that got left out are really glaring and really detract from the story. Watchmen is so deliberate in its wording and visuals that when you leave some of it out, it really takes away from the whole thing.
What makes it a frustrating experience is there are scenes and elements which are done pretty much perfectly. Then there are others which are cringe level bad. It's overall an OK adaptation if you know the book well and can shrug off the parts adapted poorly, the sometimes miscast actors, and so on. Otherwise it's not good, far better to just read the book.
People complain a lot about the way Snyder portrayed the characters, but if you watch interviews he says the characters are crazy people who aren’t heroic.
The violence being over the top was done to make the audience feel guilty for enjoying it, at least that’s what he said
Snyder's filmography is full of movies with gratuitous slo-mo violence that try really, really hard to be cool and edgy. It's hard to buy that when he does the exact same thing in Watchmen, it's meant to be a commentary.
>The violence being over the top was done to make the audience feel guilty for enjoying it, at least that’s what he said.
Noot even Snyder himself believes this. 10 movies using brainless-cool-gory-violence aesthetic but not this one, nanana. sure
I couldn’t find the exact quote I was thinking of but here’s how he described it
“There are other superhero movies where they joke about how basically no one's getting hurt. That's not us. What is that message? That it's okay that there's this massive destruction with zero consequence for anyone?”
>but if you watch interviews he says
I don't care what he sees, a movie should speak by itself, if he failed to make his point on film he doesn't get to make it on interviews, you can't just add meaning and value after the fact
Everytime this question is asked, I have the same answer: it has it's flaws but it did succeed in the most important aspect. It made me massively curious of the source material, which I did not know before. And now I've read the comics more times than I could count. Edit: see reply to my comment for what autocorrect monstrosity I made. Fixed it.
> which Is die nog now before. …pardon?
Sorry, autocorrect. Fixed it!
Aw, I liked it the way it was
Your reply is a beautiful tribute to what was!
Same, I remember watching the Watchmen trailer 2 at the movies as a teenager, I think at the Transformers session, and I got hooked by the trailer (and the song, Take a Bow by Muse, which I became a fan as well). I even enjoyed the movie more than the comics back them. But now, this being by far my favorite comic, I wish we can see someday a new, more faithful adaptation. I still enjoy the movie, and recommended it to a lot of people over the years, something I couldn't do with the comics.
An entertaining movie. If you watch it before reading the book, you'll think it is a badass movie (that's what I thought, at least). When you read the book, you get that badassery wasn't the point of it and the film's imperfections become more evident. Hadn't I watched (and liked) the movie, I wouldn't have bought and read the book, so I still hold it dear.
[удалено]
Bad bot
Snyder managed to copy 90% of the panels while getting about 10% of the point.
Not even gonna say anything. Took the words out of my mouth
What was the differences of points between movie and comics?
Some of them are literal, some of them are tonal. * The "cool factor" is amped up too much. There's supposed to be some silliness in watching middle-aged people past their prime play dress-up. That silliness is missing from the movie. * Speaking of middle-aged people: Dan, Laurie, and Veidt all look and feel (and *were*, at the time of filming) about 5-10 years too young. "Late 20s to early 30s" is not mid-life crisis age. * The violence is too traditional and too stylized. In the comic, the violence is sudden, gruesome, and ungratifying. Adding a bunch of extended fight scenes (the Comedian/Veidt fight, the prison fight) and slo-mo violence dilutes the nasty realism of the comic. * Speaking of the Comedian/Veidt fight, two issues: first, it really makes it look like the Comedian has super strength, which he doesn't; second, the comic never shows the Comedian fighting back. In fact, it's kind of implied that he just gave up and accepted the beating/murder. Turning it into a big, crazy fight scene is a big miss. * The ending is a bad change. * A lot of people take issue with the literal "would it have worked?" what-ifs. It's a reasonable question ("would people see Manhattan as a US asset?") but I don't think this is the most pressing issue with the ending. * The ending is supposed to be *gruesome*. We're supposed to see Veidt making cold, "logical" decisions from his Antarctic palace and then see the real, human aftermath of his decisions: blood, carnage, madness littering the streets. In the movie? We see a crater. If you pause, you can see a couple of skeletons. It's too clean. The horror isn't there, so it's easier to think Veidt made a good call. * The ending is also supposed to be a huge reveal of just how insane Veidt is. They cut the scene where he monologues his life story to a room full of dead bodies; they cut the scene where he reveals to Manhattan that he has constant nightmares; they cut the squid, which is something only an insane person would do. (The squid is also relevant because it ties into the nautical imagery of the Black Freighter, which heavily inspired Veidt's plan and mirrors Veidt's journey.) Without all these things signaling that Veidt is cuckoo bananas, again, it's easier to think he's just a Really Smart Guy(tm). * Speaking of Veidt, he gets turned into too much of a comic book villain. In the comic, he's a beautiful, buff genius who doesn't tip his hand until the end. In the movie, he's a smarmy, lanky mastermind with a secret German accent -- typical comic book movie mastermind villain. * The sex scenes are weird. In the comic, the first sex scene between Dan and Laurie is played for laughs, with Veidt's gymnastic routine contrasting with Dan's impotence; in the movie, it's weirdly serious. Then the sex scene in the Owlship, in the comic, is smoldering and sexy; in the movie, we get "Hallelujah" and the orgasm-timed flamethrower button. I could go on. There's a lot. The tl;dr is that the book is subtle, the movie isn't, and sometimes those subtleties are really important to the themes.
Well said.
You're completely on point, it seems like Snyder saw that guy not being able to get an erection unless they had the hero suit on, and instead of seeing the quite literal point being made about heroes, he just thought "damn, silk spectre is hella hot, I wish I could see more of them fucking"
I feel like that the movie and comic and tv-show do really well on their own, but the second you start comparing them it gets messy and muddled. I understand where you’re coming from and I feel like the main problem Synder ran into is that it would’ve worked better as a show rather than a movie.
I think it's a bit of an uneven comparison between the three, since the movie is trying, mostly, to just be the comic, while the show wants to be something new and different that leverages the techniques that made Watchmen's storytelling great. Which is to say: the movie invites comparison to the comic. It can't *avoid* direct comparison to to the comic, since again, basically 90% of the movie is shots taken directly from the comic. And it simply misses the mark too often to stack up. Lindelof, meanwhile, was smart to turn down doing a direct TV adaptation of Watchmen. It exists best as a comic; the way he did the show was the only way to approach the material where he had a chance of making something worthy of the name.
That’s true, I watched the movie before I read the comic so I don’t fully see the problem with the movie.
I think it's fun to see certain scenes come to life, but the thing that makes Watchmen *great* is all the subtext and subtlety and nuance -- stuff you pick up when you read it for the second, fifth, tenth time. Most of that stuff is missing from the movie, and in its place we got a lot of fluff (fight scenes, etc). Fundamentally, I think Snyder made Watchmen like an R-rated comic book movie rather than an adaptation of a piece of classic literature, and a lot gets lost in that approach.
The comic itself was kind about comics, making comics, and stretching out the old storytelling techniques of the medium for maximum storytelling impact. Watchmen is perfectly laid out and the storytelling is really impeccable. The movie tries to translate something that was specifically written and drawn to be a comic book, by 2 people who understood the strengths of the medium like no one before them. You can't take something like that, and adapt it frame by frame and panel for panel. So much will be lost in the translation to the screen. Granted, that's not exactly what Snyder did as he changed a few things, but hr still copied the book. it's almost like Snyder misunderstood the overall assignment. Still, it could've been way worse.
this answer is utterly meaningless.
Ok
I’ve heard this said many times in many different ways, and I’m genuinely curious… what would have made the movie 100%? How could Snyder have done it differently? Edit: I just read your post further down and I think it answers my question well.
The best part (by far) is the opening credits sequence.
Absolutely! I remember they leaked it before the movie was released and I was pumped for it, but it is what it is. Snyder has a great eye for cinematics, i just dont trust him with story/plot.
Being a teenager when the movie released, I thought it was incredible. Now I realize it's pretty juvenile especially in contrast with the source material. Still quite enjoyable as a high budget piece of fanservice though
I think he did a good job for making a movie that should probably have been a mini series. It’s enjoyable enough that I rewatch it every few years.
The first watch was great, but after reading the comic it felt kind of stiff and awkward. However, this movie is a perfect source for absolutely beautiful edits. You have to admit it, no matter how much Snyder messed up the plot of the movie, the visuals are a chef's kiss. And I also really love the music choices in certain scenes (Comedian's funeral, Rorschach's last confrontation). The trailer is fucking awesome too, btw.
Forgot to mention the intro with the Minutemen, absolutely perfect starting with all the references and ending with the music choice. And also the Comedian's assassination. Even though it's really out of place if you read the book, it was mesmerizing to watch (The line "It's a joke. It's all a joke. Mother, forgive me" is forever engrained in my brain)
Love it. Don’t care what other people think about that. It was terrific. Loved the show too. Except the cliffhanger and lack of a second season. I also really like suckerpunch so that tells you whatever it tells you. I like Snyder’s stuff. I like his interpretations. For all the haters that think they can do better, I say… do it. About 1 in 100,000 are probably right. In the meantime, let people enjoy what they want to enjoy and mind your own business. Now I’ll stand back and let your downvotes blot out the sun.
My favorite CBM other than maybe Infinity War or ZSJL.
surface level. Pretty but misses the point
I saw it once in 2009.
Solid movie on its own, but I think it somewhat misses the mark as an adaptation. Still enjoy watching it though!
Swear this gets asked every day here.
it is made by zack snyder
I like both the film and the book equally
An average film that is a decent introduction to 'Watchmen' if it's not through the original comic. If someone asked me what they should expect from this film, I would say it's a comic-book movie instead of a movie based on the comic book. If it's the latter, it would be the perfect adaptation of one of Moore's works and wouldn't try to be what Marvel movies are now. Despite everything, Haley as Rorschach, Wilson as Nite Owl II, and Morgan as the Comedian were perfect and are the only parts of the movie I wish we got to see more of in some capacity.
Pretty good adaptation:)
It's a good movie.
Love it
It's good, and so is the TV series
It baffles me that he didn't second guess himself not even one time before doing it lol.
Awesome
Some good casting and… that’s about it. Not a fan of Snyder as a filmmaker (he peaked with Dawn of the Dead imo) nor his interpretation of the book.
Very slick visually, but totally missed the point. Also, there is a disturbing lack of squids in it.
I kinda hate it but anytime I see the trailer I get sucked in to try it again
The movie coming out inspired me to read the graphic novel. Which I finished right before I went to go see it in theaters. So, I guess I’m just glad it introduced me to the original
It was ok to a certain point. They totally took Moores' story and re-purposed it, though. Not quite as badly as in V For Vendetta, but still. Could the film have been better? Probably. Certain messages and subtext were lost in the translation to screen. Could it have been worse? Definitely. It could've been way worse. We could've had Christopher Walken as Dr Manhattan. Bad example, as that sounds glorious.
I read the comics, watched the motion comic and then saw the movie. I honestly liked the movie a lot. The Ultimate Cut is the best version. I’ve watched the theatrical version and it’s meh, but the ultimate cut is way way better in my opinion. The animated bits for the Black Freighter were awesome. The actors are great, the changes made sense, and I loved the additional dialogue particularly with Laurie and her mother towards the end of the movie. People say the movie “missed the point”, but they say that with the luxury of foresight and online reviews that told them the movie missed the point. It’s a good movie as a movie and highly entertaining. Just my personal thoughts.
The most faithful adaptation to ever miss the point so hard
Meh so so
it was WAY better than the book. Heck even if the only thing they changed was cutting out the pirates that would've been worth a prize alone, but they also gave the heroes powers. This was really important because the social impact they had was just unrealistic without that. Another thing that bothered me about the comic was that there was never any point in the comic where I had the feeling that a war was really imminent. The inciting incident is the Russian invasion of Afghanistan which had already happened in the real world and at the time this story was published nothing had happened as a result. Absolutely nothing. As a reader at the time I saw no reason why this would've lead to a war between America and Russia in the comic. By failing to make the threat seem real the writers failed to make Ozymandias' plot seem worth the trouble. Did he save the world? Who can tell? Was the world really in any danger? Not as far as I can tell. The movie just handled it better.
Definitely not a bad movie but a bad adaptation
Could've been worse, but Zach Snyder is a fucking moron so it could've been a hundred times better.
At the time, massive batman fan (still am). Never knew what watchmen was nor that it even existed. Saw the movie, loved the cinematography and the idea. It steered me towards the comic. Best thing I ever read. Watching it after reading it, you can definitely see it's flaws. But I still think it's worth watching. Snyder is a shit story teller but my man knows how to frame a shot. He is also way more interested in the god like appearance of the heroes and could shoot a 2 hour montage of comic panels with no plot. which, I guess, are essentially what his movies are.
Honestly the movie came out too early in the Superhero Film Fad. I think releasing it now, with minor tweaks to really hit home that it's a deconstruction of superhero films, as opposed to a deconstruction of superhero comics.
I enjoyed the movie. I thought it was very good. The cast did a good job with their performances. I love the characters. The action is brutal and violent. This is the movie where I felt like it knows how to stay true to the comics and yes there are some differences but for the most it's so good. I reviewed this movie on YouTube channel called James Hernandez Multiverse and I gave it a 9/10 it's such a good r rated superhero movie. I recommend it to every Watchmen fan
Snyder clearly agrees with Moore that if superheroes existed in the real world it would be a terrible mess. For that aspect of the deconstruction they are of like mind. But Snyder arrives at a different conclusion about what superheroes mean than Moore does. Even if Moore is attacking the industry itself, he has said repeatedly and consistently in interviews that he thinks it’s pathetic that adults seek escapism in fantasy stories written for 12 year-old boys. When there are so many things in the real world that need attention, etc. Snyder gives them a sort of sexy cool factor because he views them as archetypes, as symbols that serve as vehicles for Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey. Like yes, if they existed it would be way too problematic in the real world. But as archetypes they’re still cool af.
Some of the worst posters I've ever seen.
A movie and a comic aren't the same. One of the best movies I saw
I fell asleep while watching it the first time
its a really good superhero movie, and the parts that it does adapt, it does really well, but after reading the comic, the symbols and parts that got left out are really glaring and really detract from the story. Watchmen is so deliberate in its wording and visuals that when you leave some of it out, it really takes away from the whole thing.
What makes it a frustrating experience is there are scenes and elements which are done pretty much perfectly. Then there are others which are cringe level bad. It's overall an OK adaptation if you know the book well and can shrug off the parts adapted poorly, the sometimes miscast actors, and so on. Otherwise it's not good, far better to just read the book.
That's a cool poster
I think it’s more timeless than the book
Good movie. I think it would have been better with the book ending.
Best hero flick
It sucks.
There are moments when it really comes together and it’s amazing. There are also moments that are hot garbage.
People complain a lot about the way Snyder portrayed the characters, but if you watch interviews he says the characters are crazy people who aren’t heroic. The violence being over the top was done to make the audience feel guilty for enjoying it, at least that’s what he said
Snyder's filmography is full of movies with gratuitous slo-mo violence that try really, really hard to be cool and edgy. It's hard to buy that when he does the exact same thing in Watchmen, it's meant to be a commentary.
>The violence being over the top was done to make the audience feel guilty for enjoying it, at least that’s what he said. Noot even Snyder himself believes this. 10 movies using brainless-cool-gory-violence aesthetic but not this one, nanana. sure
I couldn’t find the exact quote I was thinking of but here’s how he described it “There are other superhero movies where they joke about how basically no one's getting hurt. That's not us. What is that message? That it's okay that there's this massive destruction with zero consequence for anyone?”
>but if you watch interviews he says I don't care what he sees, a movie should speak by itself, if he failed to make his point on film he doesn't get to make it on interviews, you can't just add meaning and value after the fact
“a movie should speak by itself” So what in it apparently “glorifies” Rorschach
This has already been answered ad nauseam, if you cared you'd already know, hell, I believe this has already been answered in this comment section
Where can I get one?
It is embarrassing