The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.

[Watchmen] All a Man Needs is Canned Beans and Sugar Cubes (SPOILERS)

1356763

Posts

  • UrianUrian __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    Proto wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Yeah but they weren't worthless.

    300 was. What worked in the comic didn't work at all in the movie. All yelling and screaming and stupid macho bullshit. I seem to be alone in this opinion though.


    I worry about the same thing happening here:
    A note for note translation of the book into film. Shot for shot, word for word. But the result won't be the same, Watchmen was written to be a comic, not a movie. I can see all the subtleties disappearing. All the little things that make Watchmen great. The movie will tell the story well enough, but it won't have nearly the same impact.

    That really comes down to extreme personal preference. You can't fault the director for making the best movie that could have been made given the source material and the fact that it's an adaptation, when you just don't like it because it simply can't capture the comics magic because of the format.

    Urian on
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Proto wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So, after reading the article, I take it the movie is going to be just as annoyingly pretentious as the comic?

    I'm curious, how exactly is it pretentious?

    The whole "This is going to kick superhero movies in the balls and make people take them seriously because we're not some kiddy flick, we're rated R because we have penises and a guy who kills people and another guy who also kills people and rapes them and then makes them... fall in love with him... presumably by raping them and we have some guy who doesn't actually know how quantum physics works and anyway the point is that this movie is going to be so hardcore" thing screamed poser to me when I read Watchmen and I get the same feeling from reading that article.

    But it sure does look pretty.

    Actually it's more of a "We're 3-dimensional characters and just because we fight crime does not mean we are perfect and do not have motivations to lead fulfilling lives."

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I have no idea what Watchmen is but the trailer was pretty fuckawesome at Dark Knight Imax.

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    The trailer looks a lot better in HD. But I'm still not sold this is going to be ANY better than 300 (which was absolutely awful. . .seriously. . .it was).

    As for the WATCHMEN hate - really? Seriously now? Why make art now since in a few years it'll be referentially irrelevant (symbology wha? - Timeless metaphor who know?!).

    And cmon folks - some people HAVEN'T read the book and spoiling the end or letting these fine folks figure it out by your not-to-subtle attempts at vagueries is really a disservice to someone who might actually go out and buy the book based on this.

    ED! on
    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Alright, this is just too much to ignore (spoilers):
    There are several things that I think make up the foundation of my belief that Watchmen is seriously overestimated:

    a) It may have politically relevant to, I don't know, my parents. I don't think I was even born yet when Nixon was president. I don't give a damn about Nixon. Or the Cold War. Cause apparently we were totally able to get over it without needing superheroes to do it. So the basic, core idea of the plot, that Dr. Manhatan leaving will cause nuclear holocaust and that Ozymandius is doing something necessary, rings completely hollow to me.

    b) As low as my opinion of mankind is, it's still miles above Moore's apparently. His characters are not representative of humanity, they are the worst of it, to a ridiculious degree. The idea of having flawed characters is not to have them made up of nothing but flaws, and hardly anyone in Watchmen has any redeeming qualities at all.

    c) That's not how physics works. (In regards to Manhatans bullshit living in all times thing. It quite simply goes far beyond the barrier of my suspension of disbelief).

    d) I really think a lot of the shit that happens is there for shock value rather than any deep attempt at drama and "realism".

    e) Also, the Comedian is a complete jackass and none of the characters seem to realize this.
    a) It may have politically relevant to, I don't know, my parents. I don't think I was even born yet when Nixon was president. I don't give a damn about Nixon. Or the Cold War. Cause apparently we were totally able to get over it without needing superheroes to do it. So the basic, core idea of the plot, that Dr. Manhatan leaving will cause nuclear holocaust and that Ozymandius is doing something necessary, rings completely hollow to me.

    No shit? Because this book was printed when it was relevant. Just because we're not in the middle of Cold War now does not remove this book of all political merit.

    b) As low as my opinion of mankind is, it's still miles above Moore's apparently. His characters are not representative of humanity, they are the worst of it, to a ridiculious degree. The idea of having flawed characters is not to have them made up of nothing but flaws, and hardly anyone in Watchmen has any redeeming qualities at all.

    Their reality and ours are quite different. They are all products of their environment.

    c) That's not how physics works. (In regards to Manhatans bullshit living in all times thing. It quite simply goes far beyond the barrier of my suspension of disbelief).

    You're reading a comic book about people with superpowers. Dr. Manhatten gets trapped in a machine that doesn't exist that does something impossible. And your having a problem with suspension of disbelief?

    d) I really think a lot of the shit that happens is there for shock value rather than any deep attempt at drama and "realism".

    I'd like examples of what you consider shock value. Rorschach is an extreme character that loses it after an extreme experience. Yeah, it's shocking, but I don't think Rorschach is meant to be this incredibly deep and dramatic character. He's the darker side of crimefighting.

    e) Also, the Comedian is a complete jackass and none of the characters seem to realize this.

    Everyone realizes this. It's said over and over in the book: The Comedian is a parody of society. He's the only person who really understands that superheroes are ridiculous and doesn't try to stand for justice and peace. He kills people indiscriminately and does as he pleases.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    a) It may have politically relevant to, I don't know, my parents. I don't think I was even born yet when Nixon was president. I don't give a damn about Nixon. Or the Cold War. Cause apparently we were totally able to get over it without needing superheroes to do it. So the basic, core idea of the plot, that Dr. Manhatan leaving will cause nuclear holocaust and that Ozymandius is doing something necessary, rings completely hollow to me.

    Two things about this.

    You're not sure if you were born during Nixon's presidency or not? Really?

    It was 1969 to 1974. Just so you know.

    Second... yeah, we were able to get over the Cold War without superheroes.

    We were also able to
    catch Nixon for Watergate without the Comedian murdering Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

    I mean, how could the cold war have ended poorly if we had help like that?

    (this is setting aside the primary reasoning mentioned in the story, that Doc Manhattan caused a power imbalance and terrified Russia, giving them a much greater incentive to attack once Doc leaves.)

    Tarantio on
  • chrono_travellerchrono_traveller Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    GoodOmens wrote: »
    Part of me hopes that the whole pirate substory is removed, though I understand that it has important parallels to the main blah blah blah.

    Otherwise, though, oh hellz yeah!

    I believe in the EW article they mention that the pirate substory is removed and will be made into a separate animated DVD.

    And seriously, we're now worried about spoilers on 20+ year old material?

    chrono_traveller on
    The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
  • Dyrwen66Dyrwen66 the other's insane Denver CORegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I may not have enjoyed 300 as much as some, sure it was a decent concept that played out to its end, but Snyder has some potential to do quality work. 300 showed he could direct pretty decently and the Dawn of the Dead remake was pretty nice, even though he didn't help write it. I'll give it a shot, as it looks like a decent adaptation, certainly better than most.

    Dyrwen66 on
    Just an ancient PA person who doesn't leave the house much.
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    This isn't Rosebud or Psycho. The book isn't some cultural watershed. There IS the possibility that people simply haven't read it, especially NON comic book readers.

    ED! on
    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    The 300 book and 300 movie are almost scene-for-scene exact. Even the dialogue.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • deowolfdeowolf is allowed to do that. Traffic.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    ED! wrote: »
    This isn't Rosebud or Psycho. The book isn't some cultural watershed. There IS the possibility that people simply haven't read it, especially NON comic book readers.

    Yeah, but those people are bad and we shouldn't care about them.

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Prot3usProt3us Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I did not mean to be a dick but honestly the comic is so niche, I figured most people who came in here would have read it. I apologize. Now go forth and purchase it in hopes that Moore writes something else like it.

    Prot3us on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    ED! wrote: »
    This isn't Rosebud or Psycho. The book isn't some cultural watershed.

    Well it should be.

    And "Rosebud" was the sled's name, not the film's title.

    DarkPrimus on
  • ScreampunkScreampunk Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Prot3us wrote: »
    All I hope for now is an R. Rating, you can do it Warner Bros!

    As of right now, it has been slated for an R rating release. Snyder has pointed out on numerous occasions that this is an adult film for adult viewers.

    Screampunk on
    9u72nmv0y64e.jpg
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »
    This isn't Rosebud or Psycho. The book isn't some cultural watershed.

    Well it should be.

    And "Rosebud" was the sled's name, not the film's title.

    Thank you, but I'm more than aware of that. I was just tossing out names. Hell there are some people who haven't seen CK so I inadvertently did them a solid.

    ED! on
    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Rather than trying to answer twenty people individually I'll just roll things into the big issues:

    First of all, my point about the relevancy is that Watchmen might be a decent satire of the Cold War but that's all it is. There isn't anything deeper to it once you strip that away. Which makes it not all that great, in my opinion.

    Second, on the Comedian: over half the fucking cast has nothing better to do than make excuses for him. And the author appears to get in on that action as well. And this results in people saying stuff like this:
    Everyone realizes this. It's said over and over in the book: The Comedian is a parody of society. He's the only person who really understands that superheroes are ridiculous and doesn't try to stand for justice and peace. He kills people indiscriminately and does as he pleases.

    This is bullshit. There is no grander meaning to what the Comedian does, the guy is just a jackass and draping the shit he does in some venier of nihilism is insulting to nihilism, society, and humanity.

    Oh, and that whole Comedian-raping-Silk-Spectre's-mum-but-she's-cool-with-it-so-it's-all-okay thing pretty much broke the cieling on the stupidest-things-ever-meter. It was actually more stupid than Thomas Covenant.

    As for Dr. Manhatan, the character is just stupid. If he doesn't care about humanity anymore then he should really just actually leave rather than hanging around on Mars to have pointless philisophical whine-fests with people about how he's not going to do anything. If the book had been set now, he would have probably started a blog. Or a LJ. He is easily the poorest attempt at conceptualizing such a being that I've ever seen.

    In the end, Watchmen comes off as going for either being really Objectivist or really Relativist and pretty stupid either way. Frankly it seems to me that it does about everything in it's power to make you hate it and in that I guess Moore succeeds brilliantly.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Rather than trying to answer twenty people individually I'll just roll things into the big issues:

    First of all, my point about the relevancy is that Watchmen might be a decent satire of the Cold War but that's all it is. There isn't anything deeper to it once you strip that away. Which makes it not all that great, in my opinion.

    Second, on the Comedian: over half the fucking cast has nothing better to do than make excuses for him. And the author appears to get in on that action as well. And this results in people saying stuff like this:
    Everyone realizes this. It's said over and over in the book: The Comedian is a parody of society. He's the only person who really understands that superheroes are ridiculous and doesn't try to stand for justice and peace. He kills people indiscriminately and does as he pleases.

    This is bullshit. There is no grander meaning to what the Comedian does, the guy is just a jackass and draping the shit he does in some venier of nihilism is insulting to nihilism, society, and humanity.

    Oh, and that whole Comedian-raping-Silk-Spectre's-mum-but-she's-cool-with-it-so-it's-all-okay thing pretty much broke the cieling on the stupidest-things-ever-meter. It was actually more stupid than Thomas Covenant.

    As for Dr. Manhatan, the character is just stupid. If he doesn't care about humanity anymore then he should really just actually leave rather than hanging around on Mars to have pointless philisophical whine-fests with people about how he's not going to do anything. If the book had been set now, he would have probably started a blog. Or a LJ. He is easily the poorest attempt at conceptualizing such a being that I've ever seen.

    In the end, Watchmen comes off as going for either being really Objectivist or really Relativist and pretty stupid either way. Frankly it seems to me that it does about everything in it's power to make you hate it and in that I guess Moore succeeds brilliantly.
    When you force a story into its setting you lose sight of the overall themes, and there are a shitload of themes that are as relevant then as they are now. The entire impetus of Ozy's plan is centered around the confrontation between the USA and USSR over an Arab state. Yea, we CERTAINLY don't that going on today.
    Second, on the Comedian: over half the fucking cast has nothing better to do than make excuses for him. And the author appears to get in on that action as well.

    Isn't that the point? If the Comedian is a reflection of humanity at its most absurd, don't we do this for our brothers, neighbors, world leaders, people we give power to protect us EVERY DAY: Oh my son didn't do that and if he did he had a reason; oh well, if the cop put 100 bullets in that boy I'm SURE he deserved it; well, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried about FISA.

    As for The Comedian forcing himself on Silk Spectre and she still loving him, go down to a battered womans shelter and shellack those women for still loving the men who abused them and how stupid they are.
    If he doesn't care about humanity anymore then he should really just actually leave rather than hanging around on Mars to have pointless philosophical whine-fests with people about how he's not going to do anything.

    I can't recall Manhattan whining. I can recall him having pretty long internal monologues as he tries to reconcile the part of him that remembers his humanity, and the part that is above all that. What you see as philosophical whining, some see as an honest exploration of what happens when you give omniscience to something that has had the chance to be flawed. Or as I like to think of it, remember that Ducktales episode where the pirates try to steal that All-Knowing-Rock, and when they do steal it and become All-Knowing, they simply put the rock back because well, thats what enlightened people do, realize the pettiness of their actions.

    ED! on
    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Prot3usProt3us Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    HamHamJ, your name is stupid please leave the thread and it means absolutely nothing to me in a subjective sense, just like your opinion on Watchmen. The fact that this is an internet forum where people should be entitled to names as ridiculous as they want within reason does not defend your name in any way.
    I hope you at least have the minute intelligence required to see the parallels of what I just said, to what you are saying about Watchmen.

    Prot3us on
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited July 2008
    Don't bother with him. If someone managed to so spectacularly miss the point of Watchmen there's no point arguing with them about it. If someone thinks the Mona Lisa sucks, it says more about them than it does about the Mona Lisa.

    Tube on
  • GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    My favorite part of the book was always the comic book within a comic book.

    Tales of the Dread Pirates or something?

    Do we know if that's going to be in this?

    Greeper on
  • MunacraMunacra Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Wait, so Watchmen sucks because it's not relevant today?

    What about Dr. Strangelove?

    Munacra on
  • ScreampunkScreampunk Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Greeper wrote: »
    My favorite part of the book was always the comic book within a comic book.

    Tales of the Dread Pirates or something?

    Do we know if that's going to be in this?

    It is going to be a direct to DVD animated feature from what I hear.

    It's "The Black Freighter" I believe.

    Screampunk on
    9u72nmv0y64e.jpg
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    The trailer is cool, but (and this is a huge but) it's long on the action and slow-motion punching and all that jazz, and that is so not what made Watchmen good.

    Trailers don't typically show things like meaningful dialogue and exposition, and lacking those, even the spiffiest action and special effects will make Watchmen a huge disappointment for me.

    Trailers are just eye-candy. It's great that the film will be pretty. Will it do the source material justice? Impossible to tell at this point.

    Regina Fong on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Proto wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So, after reading the article, I take it the movie is going to be just as annoyingly pretentious as the comic?

    I'm curious, how exactly is it pretentious?


    To be fair, Watchmen is a literary deconstruction of the superhero genre.


    Literary deconstruction is pretentious. I mean, Jesus, look at Poldy.

    Regina Fong on
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    vlcsnap861797bo7.jpg

    hah

    tofu on
  • ScreampunkScreampunk Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Why the hah?

    Screampunk on
    9u72nmv0y64e.jpg
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Look at what the gunman is holding.

    tofu on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    You're evaluating this story based on 2008 standards - the physics are from 1985.

    That is not an excuse.

    Whatever Rorschach

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    tofu wrote: »
    Look at what the gunman is holding.

    It's obviously not a gun... But I have no idea what it is.

    Regina Fong on
  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Is that a bottle of coke?

    ....

    Is that better or worse than replacing guns with walkie-talkies?

    Tarantio on
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    et1982pl4.jpg

    tofu on
  • ScreampunkScreampunk Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Maybe he just threw a knife?

    Screampunk on
    9u72nmv0y64e.jpg
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    tofu wrote: »
    Look at what the gunman is holding.

    A zatnikatel?

    Apothe0sis on
  • MiSTieOtakuMiSTieOtaku Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Looks like a walkie-talkie. That's weird considering it's a gun just a few frames later.

    MiSTieOtaku on
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Are you sure its not just a weird angle?

    MuddBudd on
    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • MiSTieOtakuMiSTieOtaku Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Are you sure its not just a weird angle?

    I checked the trailer and, to me, he's holding a solid block of something (kind of hard to see details) with a thin antenna. Looks like a walkie talkie to me.

    MiSTieOtaku on
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited July 2008
    It's a joke. They weren't allowed to have a gun pointed right at the screen in the trailer, there's some rule about it. They photoshopped in walkie talkies ala Spielberg.

    Tube on
  • CangoFettCangoFett Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Hes using the walkie talkie in the trailer, you just cant hear it.

    Hes yelling, "HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO KILL HIM WITH A 2 WAY RADIO, I NEED A GUN, THIS MAN IS A SUPER HERO!"

    CangoFett on
  • JAEFJAEF Unstoppably Bald Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
  • itylusitylus Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Proto wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    So, after reading the article, I take it the movie is going to be just as annoyingly pretentious as the comic?

    I'm curious, how exactly is it pretentious?


    To be fair, Watchmen is a literary deconstruction of the superhero genre.


    Literary deconstruction is pretentious. I mean, Jesus, look at Poldy.

    Something is only pretentious if it creates the impression of doing or intending to do something far more ambitious than it actually achieves. There's a lot of pretentious literary deconstruction (pretentious because it's either not literary or not actually deconstruction or just because it's plain bad) but there's no inherent reason why it needs to be.

    itylus on
This discussion has been closed.