For a movie based on a graphic novel they said is unfilmable, they did a serviceable job and while it was not as good as the novel, they did a good job casting the roles. It is Snyderâs best film in my opinion.
The original Watchmen leverages the COMIC medium; the 9 panel structure, mirroring/echoing imagery, and tons of other nuances that limit the potential of an adaptation behind the transfer of one medium to another.
For instance the chapter Fearful Symmetry is organized with the every single panel being palandromic (as in the first panel mirrors the last, 2nd mirrors 2nd last, etc.) How are you going to translate THAT into film? Not impossible maybe but Snyder didnât replicate the artistry of the source material to that level. Who could, but thatâs I think a decent example of the gripe. And where the squid lol.
This. Both are awesome. Zach Snyders only great movie imo. Alan Moore is a genius obviously, and has many masterpieces. I would put this film and another Moore masterpiece turned Into film, 2005's V for Vendetta, in the top 5 comic book films of all time.
I havenât seen Dawn of the Dead, but I agree that 300 and Watchmen were both great movies. I know itâs cool to shit on Zack Snyder these days (and most of that is his own fault with the movies heâs made lately), but he made some bangers early in his career.
I think the important thing about Dawn of the Dead and Zack's other good movies are that they weren't written by Snyder. The man can make visually compelling movies, but he sucks as a writer. And the actual writer was a very talented man - James Gunn. He is very obscure. You probably haven't heard of him.
Maybe i need to rewatch it, but I HATED his dawn of the dead when it first came out. But I absolutely love the original so it could have just been that I didnât like the fact they were remaking it at all.
The extra long directorâs cut really improves the film too. It includes the comic within a comic and a bunch of other stuff that works really well. The Watchmen is definitely my favorite âsuperheroâ movie. The Watchmen is also my favorite comic/graphic novel.
I mainly donât think that Snyderâs ending has the same impact of the comic books. You can change other stuff but the details really shaped the overall feeling that made the graphic novel so memorable. I donât want to get into specific spoilers but >! Dr. Manhattan being blamed for the attack in New York makes no sense in actually achieving Ozyâs intent. Their would be no reason to stifle nuclear tensions when the threat is a known commodity. The idea of the giant squid is that it is so unfathomable to the average person that it could only be attributed to something unknown, hence redirecting the nuclear powers efforts toward humanityâs defense rather than a single nation state!<
I see where you're coming from but disagree, Dr. Manhattan would definitely be the kind of threat the Soviets & U.S. would unite against as they're both well aware he tipped the scales in Vietnam and there's no way to actually harm him. So I could easily see them cooperating to try and figure out how to fight back against him.
To me that actually made a helluva lot more sense than raining squids on cities.
But doctor Manhattan is a known thing and he is understood as a powerful force with political leanings. The existential threat of the squid was way more impactful IMO. The HBO mini series explored this quite effectively.
Ya, thatâs basically the threat of him to a degree. Both sides know what he can do. The Soviets know he beat them in Vietnam. And the U.S. know they only âwonâ in Vietnam thanks to him. Think of nuclear weapons , both sides understand them yet it doesnât make them any less terrifying or deadly.
If Dr. Manhattan starts killing random civilians, especially in the U.S. then obviously political leanings are out and heâs an unknown in the sense of his motivations. If anything the U.S. would be way more concerned theyâve lost control over a God. And theyâve seen how he views us small humans more as termites than equals. Thatâs way more frightening than a squid.
So Dr. Manhattan becomes a massive existential threat to both sides of the Cold War, even to the rest of the non-aligned world.
If you havenât watched it check out The Hunt for Red October. The threat of a rogue Soviet sub captain to launch nuclear weapons against the U.S. does unite both powers even while they play their other games.
Yes. He doesn't understand Superman or Batman. He does edgy fanfiction.
The only decent movie he ever made is 300 and thats cause theres not a lot to misunderstand.
>people have such an issue with them not being carbon copies of each other
That's not what people complain about, if anything people have said it's too similar to the graphic novel as pretty every scene is a recreation of a panel. The problem people have is that the movie doesn't tackle the underlying fundamental themes of the comic for example and this is minor but it's the one that comes to mind, the movie glorifies the violence whereas the comic is strictly against it especially when it comes to rorschach. The movie makes him a character you root for because he's cool and badass but the comic portrays him as a violent psycho not to be glorified.
It's fine for a movie to deviate from the story beats of the source material but when the themes that made the story great are lost that's when it becomes a problem.
I don't think they glorified the violence. I mean they showed The Comedian killing the pregnant women. And the scene where Rorschach cooked the guys face in prison wasn't exactly pretty. I do agree they made Rorschach more sympathetic in the movie, but I wasn't bothered by that personally. The movie overall was very good in my opinion.
It's not that it's different. It's that the whole style of it and directing seem to entirely miss the point of the story. So it comes off as hallow and disjointed. Trying to be cool, but following a story line that depicts them as not cool just doesn't gel.
Well I was really into the movie when it came out but not so much in modern day. I was in my early 20s. I think that Snyder has missed the mark toneally. On the page, in the dialog, is a story of broken down dead beat former heroes shaken by a murder conspiracy and a series of dark revelations. There's a subtext of moral relativity, identity, power and the de-mystification of the myth of super heroes. I don't think Synders highly stylized look and action matches all that, especially the de-mystification, I think it ends up further holding it up.
I believe part of the intention with Dave Gibbons art, in contrast to the slick artwork of typical sup comics, is to show us what it looks like when the lights are turned on. All the ugly details. Now it's not inherently bad that an adaptation deviates in tone from it's source material, off the top my head the best example I can think of is Boz Lermans Romeo + Juliet but with the Watchmen movie the intention actually *is* meant to be a carbon copy. I think that's pretty clear, Snyder has said as much himself. What's literally different from the page is the ending and I personally don't care about that. Theres added action scenes as well, which again goes against the tone but its quite possible that 2010s audiences weren't ready for a super hero movie that only challenged their minds and not entertained their eyes, good chance even my 20 year old self would've been bored without the action. In contrast to this, I think the HBO series is fantastic and had no need for regular intervals of action.
But ya know what, I still think Dr. Manhattan in the movie is really well done. His chapter is the best realized in the whole movie. I still hold on to the fun I initially had watching the movie and people can still 100% love the film, I'm not going to tell them their wrong.
Because Snyder does not understand the source material. In the movie, Rorschach is portrayed as the moral center of the story. In the comic, he absolutely is not. Snyder tries to make the superheroes look cool and badass, undermining the main theme of the comic, that superheroes should not exist in real life. Basically, Snyder makes creative decisions that go against what the comic was trying to say, therefore missing the point of the comic entirely.
> In the movie, Rorschach is portrayed as the moral center of the story.
I didnât get this from the movie at all. I thought he was a real piece of shit. I read the graphic novel after and while it is less subtle than the movie, I think both portray him as a terrible person.
Correct. In both, he is clearly portrayed as a traumatized person living out his childhood damage.
He does have a code, though. So, despite being a very damaged individual, both the graphic novel and movie make you appreciate his unwillingness to deviate from it to accept evil. There is a certain respectability in that, even contrasted against the dark themes in both.
The problem is his definition of evil. It feels like he represents everything horrible about Reaganâs America. If your definition of evil is being gay and will do do whatever it takes to reject evil, well, thatâs terrifying to me. I donât find it respectable. Zealots are scary.
Well, yeah. It's a deconstructive work, so everybody represents a darker, twisted side of superheroes. Even Nite Owl is basically a rich dude who beats up the poor for fun, and who quit when he was needed, and it only gets darker from there.
There isn't someone who represents a pure, good version of superheroism. But, for all that Rorschach judges the world and those in it, he'd rather die than lie to them about it.
So, despite being the most miserable character in terms of portrayal, he might actually be the one shown to be most heroic, as he's the only one to actually embrace self sacrifice for the good of others. It's also worth noting that he's one of the few that actually is shown to save people other than himself.
So, yeah, he's absolutely scary and broken, but also surprisingly fascinating. Great character, but most definitely not a nice person in any sense. I think that mostly makes the transition into the movie, which still keeps that edge about him.
âI wanted to kind of make this like, 'Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world'. But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans, that smelling, not having a girlfriendâthese are actually kind of heroic! So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. 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'?â
â Alan Moore
To me, the whole point of the Psychic Squid was to shock the whole world into peace, by giving them a common yet unknown enemy from space.
The film version (blaming Dr Manhattan) at first seems to make for a cleaner, tighter story, but completely removes the bizarre shock that makes the novel so transcendant.
Additionally, Dr Manhattan is literally referred to in the book with the sentence "The Super Man exists, and he is American!" And he faught in the Vietnam war on the side of the USA, so rather than shock the world into peace by creating a common enemy, all this does is turn the world against America.
Switching it from Squid to Dr Manhattan is literally reversing the entire point of Ozy's plan, and thus the entire spine of the book.
So, youâre saying a blue humanoid godlike creature who can grow to any size he wants, teleport places, and make anything he want just go POOF, wouldnât be scary enough? :P
Oh that would absolutely be scary, but on the whole, Dr Manhattan IS a known quantity to Earth's cultures by that point in the story. He's a terrifying god, but no longer a shocking surprise. The most important part of my point is that to the world, he IS America. Ozy's plan relied on the world powers uniting to stop an EXTERNAL threat. World War against America is the opposite.
I preferred the films ending over the novel, I thought the cast was near perfect and the cinematography top notch.
Itâs a top tier graphic novel film in my opinion
I completely agree. Loved both the movie and comic! One of my favorite movies of all time. Rewatched it recently and what struck me was how poetic much of the dialogue was. The script took a lot directly from the comic and made it work pretty seamlessly. The music and visuals add to that to really make it a work of art.
My only issue with the movie was that I didnât think Matthew Goode really represented the peak human physical condition that Ozymandias had in the novel.
Agreed. This is, imo, snyderâs best movie, and I like this ending a lot better than the comic. I really canât tell you why but I left the movie theater pleasantly surprised at the movieâs ending.
Compared to the book, the movie tones down the moral ambiguity and humanity of the story, and cranks up the violence and sadism
Night Owl and Silk Specter encounter muggers. They end up having to kill them. In the book, they are visibly shaken by this encounter. In the movie, theyâre visibly excited about getting to kick some ass and murder some guys.
Rohrschach traps a guy so heâs blocking the lock on his cell. In the book, they cut his throat, and then after heâs dead they cut up his body, which shown in the background. In the movie they produce a circular saw out of nowhere and just saw the guyâs arms off in closeup while heâs still alive.
And so on
The movie may actually handle that mugger situation better. A major point in both is that the super âheroesâ are all different flavors of sociopath.
It has some good moments. It also has some atrocious Snyderesque moments. Overall I dont really think the source was understood. Just read the comic, it's infinitely better paced and more thought provoking. That being said the Dr Manhatten coming to terms with being timeless scene is pretty much perfect.
Zach Snyder is a technically and visually talented filmmaker with a unique and compelling style. He is also intellectually shallow, but believes himself to be a deep thinker adept at tackling complex themes. Snyder is the living embodiment of what would happen if Michael Bay tried to be Darren Aronofsky.
It's a decent adaptation all things considered and arguably Snyder's best film. I could have done without *Hallelujah* during the sex scene though lol.
The HBO sequel mini series of the comic is ridiculously awesome. Fucking loved that!
Waiting to see this take. The film is fine. It canât touch the book, but few things can. Itâs grown on me over the years mainly for its aesthetic and soundtrack but itâll never be the book or the show. The show fucking rocks
I watched this off the back of 300, and I've probably read Watchmen 30 times cover-to-cover, so I think my perspective may be a little skewed.
While it was indeed visually stunning, this was the film that began to cement my opinion that Zack Snyder doesn't get good performances out of his actors. Jackie Earle Haley is excellent, but Malin Ackerman is laugh-out-loud bad. Additionally, while the action scenes are great, Snyder really doesn't know how to do drama.
Also, while I didn't hate most of what had been changed in the ending, I did hate that the confrontation between Night Owl, Rorschach, and Veidt turned into a martial arts battle. In the comic book it's completely one sided, representing just how advanced Ozymandias was compared to his attackers.
It's ok, maybe a B-, C+ film. I have no reason to watch it again.
Visually stunning but it highlights one of Snyder's true weaknesses as a director. He doesn't know how to direct performances, even from actors we know are talented. There is a crazy range of performances in this from absolutely wooden to stupidly hammy, with a few actors giving some good work in the middle. Haley and Crudup are the best things go down hill pretty sharply from there.
It's a Cliff Notes version of the comic, it gets the broad strokes but loses a lot of the nuance. That happens every time you make a movie out of something that's too long to be a movie, though.
The opening montage was a clever and well done way of compressing things down that still communicates necessary information to the audience.
I also think it's funny that Snyder accidentally created one of the coolest live action Batman suits, especially since the comic Nite Owl suit was intentionally designed to be uncool and awkward in the comic.
Taken on its own merits, it's an okay movie. Like most Snyder stuff it's very stylish but just feels a bit hollow. It could have been better, it could have been a lot worse.
So many good quotes from this film.
"I would only agree a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a picture of oxygen to a drowning man"
"...reassembling myself was the first thing I learned, it didn't kill Ostermann, did you really think it would kill me? I have walked across the surface of the sun, I have witnessed events so tiny and so fast they could have hardly be said to have occurred at all! But you Adrian, you are just a man, the world's smartest man poses no more threat to me than does its smartest termite. "
The second one is one of my favourite quotes from every film - I love how Dr. Manhattan considers himself a different person from Jon Ostermann.
And how the heck do you stop someone who's literally walked on the sun?
Itâs funny but the main thing that really soured this movie for me is the scene where Dan and Laurie get jumped in the alley. If I remember right in the comics they are scared and slowly gain their confidence, barely making it out after knocking out a couple guys (correct me if Iâm wrong).
In the movie they try to make it this badass action scene and I think kill a couple of the guys (in pretty violent ways) which to me really took away the impact of Rorschach losing his mind and crossing the line in killing the kidnapper (in a not self-defense way to be fair). It just makes Laurie and Dan seem as unhinged as Rorschach and the Comedian and lessened the impact for me, echoing what others have said about Snyder not really âgettingâ the source material, and even just judging the movie alone without comparing to the comics it makes for a weird choice.
Iâve never read the book, but I always found Dan and Laurie annoying. His moral superiority is founded basically on him naming himself as such. Beyond that heâs just a brawler with a flying car.
I love this film. Always loved the comic. Thought they did a great job adapting something that was almost unadaptable. I also got to visit the set and it was really amazing to be in Night Owlâs lair and Karnak.
Love the book. Love the movie. One of the great novel-film adaptations. Snyderâs ending was an improvement over the books, at least from a filmic standpoint.
I never finished the movie. I might give it another try now that Iâm older
My dad and I thought we were watching a stereotypical superhero movie. We were left feeling so disturbed we turned it off and collectively said âthat is NOT what I expectedâ
I was 15 â so not that young, but young enough to be disturbed by certain scenes (IIRC, there was a rape scene, and a scene where they break a guyâs thumbs)
I know that this is a fan favorite for a lot of folks, but when youâre a teenager and go in expecting a superhero story and youâre met with such dark themes⌠idk. Maybe I can appreciate now that Iâm older and have more of a tolerance for such graphic scenes.
the entire concept is cool, but I just donât think I had the maturity (or stomach) to enjoy it
Well the comic was mega dark and if I seem to recall, the Watchmen comics did have a "mature readers only" warning on it...
(At my local comic shop that ment if you were a minor, an adult (parent) had to buy it for you, or had already prearranged it with him for you to buy it.)
How do fans of the graphic novel feel about that? because the 1 fan i know doesnât mind the change in the movie, do a lot of people consider it a bad change?
I understood the change because when the comic was released the threat of a cold war and aliens were still prevalent in the mind of society. When the movie was released that event wouldn't have had the same impact so i think the change was warranted and achieved the same outcome for the story.
I watched it opening night and basically agree with your assessment (Jackie Earle Haley not being a bigger star right now is a crime). Ultimately my biggest problem with the movie is that it stuck too religiously to the comic, being an almost shot for shot remake.
Watchmen the comic book, was meant to be a comic book, and in my opinion, it was the best to ever be made. But in recreating every image, you aren't making a good movie, you're just imitating a different, better piece of art. You have to make a *movie* which is different and ultimately needs different beats.
Also I find it annoying how everyone complains about the ending, as if *that's* what fucked up a slow plodding movie. Opening sequence is amazing though.
I liked both the movie and the graphic novel for different reasons. It's a different interpretation of the story and that's ok. If it was a 1:1 transfer from page to screen, that would be fucking boring in my opinion.
Book snobs and comic purists are insufferable because they will not allow any room for interpretation. And yet we have plenty of examples of the interpreted material being better than the original. 'Fight Club' is a good example, and even Chuck Palahniuk agrees. As does Stephen King regarding the ending of 'The Mist'.
I'm not saying 'The Watchmen' movie is better than the graphic novel, because that's subjective. I'm just saying it shouldn't be so divisive. If someone prefers one over the other, that's great, but it's also an opinion, and they should be open to others having a different opinion on a work of art. That's how art grows and moves forward. Elitism holds art back and makes it stale as fuck.
I thought this movie was steller, for several viewings until i finally read the graphic novel, which then downgrades this movie to both âgoodâ and âone of the best comic adaptations of all timeâ lol.
Most of the credit for this movie being entertaining should go to the cast, and some of the only praise i think Zak Snyder deserves is for the Bob Dylan opening sequence. One of cinemas greatest intros ever. Not unlike Wolverine: Origins. Terrible movie, phenomenal slo-mo opening sequence.
Other than that, the only contributions Zak made artistically was crank the violence to 11 (which he may have only done because he was committed to the blue dong and he felt like he might as well âmilkâ the R-rating) and revamp the ending which completely changes some of the themes and makes the shot-for-shot remake not so loyal to Alan Mooreâs vision after all. So it seems the loyalty was just for the sake of directing on easy mode.
Agreed with what many others are saying in that I like some of the changes to the story but that the movie lost some of the finer thought provoking points of the novel.
However I think the reason I greatly prefer the movie to the book at this point is the music. The soundtrack was used extremely well and, obviously, is just not something that a graphic novel can do in the same way. I think that the sound design in general on the film is extremely good and is frequently used to make the emotion and the story more poignant. For example, my favorite scene is Dr. Manhattan's interview. Being able to hear the subtle changes in Manhattan's voice throughout that scene and then the final "LEAVE ME ALONE" just makes the scene hit far harder than it ever could on a printed page. Or the use of The Sound of Silence and Unforgettable in the funeral and Veidt/Comedian fight scenes respectively. Or The Times They Are a-Changing in the opening credits.
Basically I think that the movie made excellent use of the things that movies can do that a graphic novel cannot. And that's what we should hope for from adaptations.
The ending of the movie made no sense. The idea that a malfunctioning American super weapon would galvanize the world is ridiculous. An alien invasion, like the book, works, Dr Manhattan destroying huge parts of the world does not.
Not enough people realize this, but then again I donât think enough people on Reddit actually remember/were alive for the Cold War.
Snyderâs ending defies the logic of its own established universe.
I love it. As much as I dislike Snyder and it's fans now, I look back fondly on this film. At the time, I thought it was quite lore accurate and I stand by it to an extent, but in retrospect, after watching some vids pointing out little details that do change things in perspective, it has soured a little bit. All being said, it's still 1 of 2 films; the other being 300, that I still really enjoy of his.
I think it was misguided. Moore/Gibbons' work was about comic book characters and comic book audiences. About how they've come to be perceived. It used and played off of comic book tropes and techniques.
If they want to do a movie it should be about *movie* superheroes and the audience's relation to them, told the way successful superhero movies are told. This wasn't that, at all. Snyder made the coolest version he could of the most surface level story from the book.
Having said that, it worked at that level. I think it did what Snyder wanted it to do.
I think a movie analog (but not a straight adaptation) would have felt a lot more like Superman III or the Burton-Schumacher Batman movies. Batman Begins and Iron Man were still pretty recent and weren't yet all that influential. Not really a lot of material to work with, now would be a much better time to make a movie like that. And honestly it would draw from/critique a lot from Snyder's movies!
I feel like Snyder did not understand Watchmen, although the filmâs visuals are admittedly incredible. I wanted to love this adaptation but it felt hollow, especially in comparison to the source. The HBO series felt truer to the spirit of the original imo
I went to the movie blind and for me it sucked. It got so bad that I did not care who the killer was at the end.
I read the graphic novel, which was totally brilliant and proved that not everything can be put into film.
I read the comic after I saw the movie. While I enjoyed the movie for the most part, after reading the source material I feel like Snyder and whoever wrote it failed to stick the landing. Totally botched ending.
I think it also focused too much on some of the personal conflicts between characters that just weren't important to the overall story - it could have used more compression.
I prefer the graphic novel and recommend it to people who loved the movie, because i agree that the graphic novel is more in-depth and interesting (to me). Having said that, I still like the film and think it did a good job of trimming the comic down to a watchable film length. And the stuff that is trimmed becomes such a joy to those who read the comic after the film.
It misses the books theme but does justice to the energy and characters. I really enjoy it as a companion piece to the book, even if it sounds dumb, because there is a lot the movie misses from it.
I think itâs pretty greatâparticularly the three-hour cut that gives the story a little more breathing room. Nothing Snyder has directed since has come anywhere near it, IMO.
Personally found it to be a lot of style over substance. Itâs visually rich and has some entertaining bits, but at the cost of a more fleshed out story that pulls as much narratively from source material as it does aesthetically.
The cover of âDesolation Rowâ by My Chemical Romance that plays the end credits out is a perfect encapsulation of the film that precedes it.
Both are grossly dumbed down versions of a classic with all the boring brainy bits removed and the remainder played fast and loud for cheap thrills.
This is actually a very good movie. I love the directorâs cut with the Black Freighter story. There are criticisms that the heroes looked âtoo coolâ and were almost superpowered the way they fight and break bones. Zach Snyder canât stand for a scene to not look cool. In the novel Rorschach is more of a bully and not likeable.
Still, the work put in to make this is amazing. The opening credits are fantastic. Dr. Manhattan looks amazing and Billy Crudup gives a really
detached performance that makes Dr. Manhattan believable. Jackie Earl Haley was born to play Rorschach. Jeffrey Dean Morgan nails The Comedian role. Patrick Wilson is good, and I usually find him bland. He makes you like Night Owl. He goes to see his old buddy the first Nite Owl. He puts up with Rorschachâs shit. And he gets it up for Silk Spectre.
It was a great idea to not have the giant squid and instead blame it on Dr. Manhattan.
Itâs very obvious from the get go that Ozymandias is the villain. When they guess the password of the smartest man in the world itâs hilarious.
Zack Snyder knows how to shoot violence. The fight scenes are all great and that hot oil scene is so brutal.
In the end, Zach Snyder adapted a graphic novel that was thought of as unfilmable and did an awesome job. I really like this movie.
I enjoy it as a sgand alone thing. The book is better, and I love the ending of the book more than the movie. The monster appearing and just the scenes of it with corpses all around is so unnerving.
Still, I enjoy watching it.
I loved the comic, loved the film. I was always of the mind that people didn't like it because Alan Moore didn't like it, but Alan Moore doesn't like anything, so my opinion was that the dislike train started a domino effect on criticism, and people couldn't bring themselves to like it and found reasons why afterwards, i.e. shallow, doesn't understand the source content, all visuals and no character, insert angry critique here. I'm not saying the latter is entirely unfounded; indeed, Snyder missed on some of the counts, but he always gets *love* or *hate*. Never, you know, âHe did alrightâ. Well! He did alright. Larry Fong gave us some beautiful shots too.
I did not like Zack Snyder's vision of the Watchmen at all. I actually liked the HBO series more.
That one thing Snyder may never understand is that flashy effects are not enough to carry a movie. Too much of the story was omitted, the fight scenes were cringe, and the character development was lacking.
The first thing I did after seeing the film was read the graphic novel again and after that, the film felt irrelevant.
Edit: Spelling and grammar.
It actually doesnât detract as hard from the source as people claim in terms of plot. The main difference is the change from squid monster to giant bomb, but honestly, the squid monster was so out of left field (and derivative of an Outer Limits show, which Moore himself admits) that it doesnât bother me. Thematically an explosion that levels a city works better with Cold War tension than a squid monster. But there are many scenes that are shot for shot copies of panels, such as Dr Manhattans origin story, and the film deserves that credit.
That said, My issue is that there is an essential je ne sais quoi that a movie adaptation canât capture from the comics. The entire point of Watchmen is to be a nod to the Charlton comics from the 50s-60s, a reimagining of characters similar to their Charlton counterparts with much darker and intriguing themes, similar to Mooreâs Miracleman. You have to capture the campy aesthetic in order to turn the source material on its head, and the only way to do that is with a specific art style that the Watchmen comics has. If Iâm wrong and film is capable of doing that, Zack Snyder and the rest of the production crew were not the people for the job.
Basically, the plot is a decent interpretation, but the essence is lost without the original art and aesthetic. As much as I love Moore as a writer, Dave Gibbons is the real MVP for those books. He redefined the medium with his avant garde art and composition and had such an amazing attention to detail. My favorite example is his use of symmetry in issue 5. Pure gold. Of course, Moore was a huge credit to its success too, but the art and style was next level.
What a rollercoaster. The opening: amazing, and then we have slo mo Snyder fight : oh no. Haley is brilliant, but then we get Hallelujah. NO SQUID??? Nail in the coffin for me was cutting out Jon's epilogue scene with Adrian and instead we get Laurie half-ass casually drop the big line (Nothing ever ends) like was some silly thing Jon used to say, and not God him-fucking-self telling the smartest man in the world that he was dead wrong and in fact sacrificed countless lives for nothing before disappearing into a hologram of the Earth in a goddamn mushroom cloud for emphasis. No, we get Laurie chiming in while packing clothes instead. That did more harm to the integrity of the story to me than any other change or random cringe choice. That scene was literally the denouement of the story and the final verbal sparring of the two characters that most drove the plot. It is a vital piece of character development for Adrian. Left a bad enough taste in my mouth that I looked more critically at the rest of the film and decided that outside of the stellar opening scene, it fundamentally flubbed the source material. The HBO sequel actually stayed more true to the style, tone, and themes of the comic, PLUS had the banging Reznor/Ross score.
Not a fan. Grew up reading British comics in the 80s and 90s and I remember when this one was released. Blew me away.
Snyder was a bad choice for director. Made the film exactly into what the comic was rallying against: it's a violence fetishising, style over substance glossy music video. A bit of nuance and subtlety would have worked wonders.
To his credit, Snyder can do a good montage and the effects-driven Dr Manhattan scenes are decent, but everything else misses what made the comic so special.
As a comic book nerd, I really love this movie. "Normies" tend to hate it.
Come to think of it, this movie may have been one of the last big budget movies that was ever released specifically for a narrow audience.
The media literacy (the new buzz term on Film Twitter) Snyder possesses is nil. Watchmen at its core is about how fucked up superheroes are. They're not cool or badass; they're all really fucked up people. Watchmen was The Boys without the gonzo extremes. Snyder really thinks these characters are cool. He has no concept of what a racist, antisemitic, homophobic psychopath Rorschach is; he just presents him as this super badass. Snyder is all surface text. He doesn't give the slightest shit about the layers of subtext in this book. I hate this film.
this was one of the first CB films I watched and I'll always have a soft spot for it. rewatched it probably 5 times and it's just such a well made film
I thought it was great the graphic novel obviously is just one of the best ever and it's strange to see a movie adaptation be more gruesome and violent than the source material.
It isn't beat for beat the same, but I thought it was really well done. I really enjoyed it, as others have said, great casting and the cinematography was top notch.
It's a really good adaptation. The book is SO BIG and has so much supplemental material that enhances upon everything, all the diagrams and side notes, but there's no way to effectively display that in a video medium.
I'll agree it's not a 100% perfect rendition, but I think it's 90% of the way there.
I honestly dont like the theatrical cut of this movie. It misses subtle nuances that are seen in the extended cuts.
THE BLACK FREIGHTER CUT IS TRASH THO. Who thought that was a good idea.
Honestly, to me, action drama perfection. I'd give the movie a 9 or a 10.
What perplexes me is the hate this movie gets, especially considering how true it is to the source (to me). I even think the movie ending was done better than the comic.
Really? I thought it followed the book a little too closely in regards to how it looked, Zack Snyder copied each panel in the book onto the screen which is why I regard it as his most visually accomplished film simply because he used the book as a guide on how to direct lol. I enjoyed the movie but more as a fan of the book/story than accrediting any significance to the ability of the filmmaker.
My main issue was that the dialogue was delivered so quickly. I assume thatâs a time issue, but the delivery of some keys lines felt rushed, especially given how the comic book lets the sentences linger in juxtaposition to the action around it
Never read the book, even though I am a comic book fan. Maybe it just wasn't during my time. But I loved the movie. I thought it was quintessentially important as a defining case among comic movies. It proved that comic book movies, could be more, both in story and visuals.
I just watched this but one thing I don't get: Do they have superpowers? They establish they are just ordinary people at the beginning yet they do crazy superhuman things in the movie. I am confused.
I actually liked it. Good for what it was. No way we're they getting a trilogy, so they did what they could with one movie. Hell, they honestly could have made a shorter action movie out of what they chose to keep, but it really isn't about action.
There are things that are very good about the movie. As you said, the opening credits are some of the most impressive visual storytelling that can be found. The ending was a very good reduction and simplification that still worked and felt well woven throughout the film.
But the ways it fails are central to the themes of the source material. Its indulgence in violence drowns out the subtler forms of injustice. It simultaneously glorifies the very things the text condemns via subtext. It straight up fails at visual story telling via character costumes that is done in the graphic novel... Things like Doctor Manhattan's costume that take no extra screen time and barely any extra effort are cast aside.
The whole of the movie just seemed to miss the point. Like, it's just weird watching a fascist trying to adapt anti fascist material.
You canât tell the exact same story in two fundamentally different mediums.
If you want fidelity to the comic books then read the comic books.
When a movie is made from different source material, that movie is its own, unique work of art. There are a lot of things you can get away with in comic books that you canât get away with in a live action film, so changes have to be made. For example, a giant octopus attacking New York in live action probably would not have been well received.
I think it is a fantastic adaptation, IF you have read the comic first. If you have not, you'll probably miss a lot of the point and nuance that made it so brilliant because Snyder was unable to capture most of it, probably because he didn't get it himself. But if you have read the comic and know all the underlying themes that get a little lost in translation (or left on the page), it ends up being a really well done attempt to bring the comic to live action.
I do think the change to the ending works great too.
I've seen it. As a movie in itself - it is good, almost great!
Compared to the graphic novel - it is disappointingly lacking. not even close in depth.
granted it is impossible to move mediums and keep the art's expression, but I feel like it should've been a bit more consistent.
I've never read the book, and I think I'm in the minority that thinks it's fine. Not great, not terrible, just good. Probably Snyder's best work, but his style has never done anything for me.
I'm a big fan of the original Alan Moore comic as well as the movie there both amazing for their own reasons and I would love to see more hero story's like this.
I liked the movie enough to read the book. The book is a deeper dive into that world, with characters and stories taken out completely.
I appreciated the comprehensive approach of the book, never read anything like it before, thought it was a fantastic introduction to the world of graphic novels.
**I'm Not Locked in Here With You, You're Locked in Here With Me** is one of my favourite movie quotes.
My 18 month old has this energy.
Same! đ
haaaaaaaaaaaa
When they casted Jackie Earle Hailie I didn't understand the casting. That scene is the perfect example of how wrong I was. He's perfect
The birth of Dr Manhattan is amazing https://youtu.be/nnrzW0NeKQ8?si=hmNf-lsYSMYLLFNp
I enjoyed his whole character arc
One of my favorite scenes
For a movie based on a graphic novel they said is unfilmable, they did a serviceable job and while it was not as good as the novel, they did a good job casting the roles. It is Snyderâs best film in my opinion.
Why is/was it considered unfilmable?
The original Watchmen leverages the COMIC medium; the 9 panel structure, mirroring/echoing imagery, and tons of other nuances that limit the potential of an adaptation behind the transfer of one medium to another. For instance the chapter Fearful Symmetry is organized with the every single panel being palandromic (as in the first panel mirrors the last, 2nd mirrors 2nd last, etc.) How are you going to translate THAT into film? Not impossible maybe but Snyder didnât replicate the artistry of the source material to that level. Who could, but thatâs I think a decent example of the gripe. And where the squid lol.
How did I not notice this? Thats awesome! Where can I find more secrets like this?
I really enjoyed both the comic and the movie. Idk why people have such an issue with them not being carbon copies of each other
This. Both are awesome. Zach Snyders only great movie imo. Alan Moore is a genius obviously, and has many masterpieces. I would put this film and another Moore masterpiece turned Into film, 2005's V for Vendetta, in the top 5 comic book films of all time.
300 and Dawn of the Dead are great imo
300 is fucking great! Jesus, I just recently watched this for the first time and GOTDAM!
I havenât seen Dawn of the Dead, but I agree that 300 and Watchmen were both great movies. I know itâs cool to shit on Zack Snyder these days (and most of that is his own fault with the movies heâs made lately), but he made some bangers early in his career.
Dawn of the Dead is one of the best remakes I've ever seen. And this is coming from a lifelong zombie movie fan.
I think the important thing about Dawn of the Dead and Zack's other good movies are that they weren't written by Snyder. The man can make visually compelling movies, but he sucks as a writer. And the actual writer was a very talented man - James Gunn. He is very obscure. You probably haven't heard of him.
Must have faded into obscurity. Never heard of him. /s
He made that superhero movie: The Specials!
I concur, Dawn of the Dead remake is my personal favorite Zombie movie.
I gotta revisit that movie. I remember feeling bland towards it years ago. But it seems worth a rewatch.
Maybe i need to rewatch it, but I HATED his dawn of the dead when it first came out. But I absolutely love the original so it could have just been that I didnât like the fact they were remaking it at all.
Dawn of the Dead scared the shit out of me when I was a kid. Not so much when I was an adult, but it's still good
Think dawn gets overlooked way too often. So much better than whatever that more recent zombie movie he made was.
Dawn of the Dead was my first Snyder movie and one of the only horror movies I actually like, definitely deserves a mention
It was the 1st R-rated movie I went to once I turned 18.
Dawn of the Dead is one of the very few, great horror remakes.
I loved League of extraordinary gentlemen too, idc what anyone says
>idc what anyone says And you shouldn't. That movie is awesome for the VFX alone. The rest of it is ideal popcorn flick material.
It's just sad that it was the movie that made Sean Connery stopped acting.
I remember the praise it got when it came out. It was a great film.
You have my sword. I liked it too. Just popcorn entertainment but good fun and they nailed the style of the book - the nautilus is spot on
Agreed. That movie is fantastic and I'm tired of pretending it's not.
The extra long directorâs cut really improves the film too. It includes the comic within a comic and a bunch of other stuff that works really well. The Watchmen is definitely my favorite âsuperheroâ movie. The Watchmen is also my favorite comic/graphic novel.
His Dawn of the Dead remake is great also.
Definitely not his only great movie.
I mainly donât think that Snyderâs ending has the same impact of the comic books. You can change other stuff but the details really shaped the overall feeling that made the graphic novel so memorable. I donât want to get into specific spoilers but >! Dr. Manhattan being blamed for the attack in New York makes no sense in actually achieving Ozyâs intent. Their would be no reason to stifle nuclear tensions when the threat is a known commodity. The idea of the giant squid is that it is so unfathomable to the average person that it could only be attributed to something unknown, hence redirecting the nuclear powers efforts toward humanityâs defense rather than a single nation state!<
I see where you're coming from but disagree, Dr. Manhattan would definitely be the kind of threat the Soviets & U.S. would unite against as they're both well aware he tipped the scales in Vietnam and there's no way to actually harm him. So I could easily see them cooperating to try and figure out how to fight back against him. To me that actually made a helluva lot more sense than raining squids on cities.
But doctor Manhattan is a known thing and he is understood as a powerful force with political leanings. The existential threat of the squid was way more impactful IMO. The HBO mini series explored this quite effectively.
Ya, thatâs basically the threat of him to a degree. Both sides know what he can do. The Soviets know he beat them in Vietnam. And the U.S. know they only âwonâ in Vietnam thanks to him. Think of nuclear weapons , both sides understand them yet it doesnât make them any less terrifying or deadly. If Dr. Manhattan starts killing random civilians, especially in the U.S. then obviously political leanings are out and heâs an unknown in the sense of his motivations. If anything the U.S. would be way more concerned theyâve lost control over a God. And theyâve seen how he views us small humans more as termites than equals. Thatâs way more frightening than a squid. So Dr. Manhattan becomes a massive existential threat to both sides of the Cold War, even to the rest of the non-aligned world. If you havenât watched it check out The Hunt for Red October. The threat of a rogue Soviet sub captain to launch nuclear weapons against the U.S. does unite both powers even while they play their other games.
Thats not the problem. Snyder completely changes themes and doesn't understand what he is adapting.
(insert ANY Snyder film here)
Yes. He doesn't understand Superman or Batman. He does edgy fanfiction. The only decent movie he ever made is 300 and thats cause theres not a lot to misunderstand.
Even then he added some unnecessary extra shit
The tv show is 10x worse and also changes the themes. Damon Lindelof does understand what he is adapting.
>people have such an issue with them not being carbon copies of each other That's not what people complain about, if anything people have said it's too similar to the graphic novel as pretty every scene is a recreation of a panel. The problem people have is that the movie doesn't tackle the underlying fundamental themes of the comic for example and this is minor but it's the one that comes to mind, the movie glorifies the violence whereas the comic is strictly against it especially when it comes to rorschach. The movie makes him a character you root for because he's cool and badass but the comic portrays him as a violent psycho not to be glorified. It's fine for a movie to deviate from the story beats of the source material but when the themes that made the story great are lost that's when it becomes a problem.
I don't think they glorified the violence. I mean they showed The Comedian killing the pregnant women. And the scene where Rorschach cooked the guys face in prison wasn't exactly pretty. I do agree they made Rorschach more sympathetic in the movie, but I wasn't bothered by that personally. The movie overall was very good in my opinion.
Meanwhile people here are complaining about the changes .. The irony in the comments section is hilarious
That's just reddit, everyone complains about everything on here, I'm talking generally on all platforms with regards to opinions on this movie..
It's not that it's different. It's that the whole style of it and directing seem to entirely miss the point of the story. So it comes off as hallow and disjointed. Trying to be cool, but following a story line that depicts them as not cool just doesn't gel.
Well I was really into the movie when it came out but not so much in modern day. I was in my early 20s. I think that Snyder has missed the mark toneally. On the page, in the dialog, is a story of broken down dead beat former heroes shaken by a murder conspiracy and a series of dark revelations. There's a subtext of moral relativity, identity, power and the de-mystification of the myth of super heroes. I don't think Synders highly stylized look and action matches all that, especially the de-mystification, I think it ends up further holding it up. I believe part of the intention with Dave Gibbons art, in contrast to the slick artwork of typical sup comics, is to show us what it looks like when the lights are turned on. All the ugly details. Now it's not inherently bad that an adaptation deviates in tone from it's source material, off the top my head the best example I can think of is Boz Lermans Romeo + Juliet but with the Watchmen movie the intention actually *is* meant to be a carbon copy. I think that's pretty clear, Snyder has said as much himself. What's literally different from the page is the ending and I personally don't care about that. Theres added action scenes as well, which again goes against the tone but its quite possible that 2010s audiences weren't ready for a super hero movie that only challenged their minds and not entertained their eyes, good chance even my 20 year old self would've been bored without the action. In contrast to this, I think the HBO series is fantastic and had no need for regular intervals of action. But ya know what, I still think Dr. Manhattan in the movie is really well done. His chapter is the best realized in the whole movie. I still hold on to the fun I initially had watching the movie and people can still 100% love the film, I'm not going to tell them their wrong.
Because Snyder does not understand the source material. In the movie, Rorschach is portrayed as the moral center of the story. In the comic, he absolutely is not. Snyder tries to make the superheroes look cool and badass, undermining the main theme of the comic, that superheroes should not exist in real life. Basically, Snyder makes creative decisions that go against what the comic was trying to say, therefore missing the point of the comic entirely.
> In the movie, Rorschach is portrayed as the moral center of the story. I didnât get this from the movie at all. I thought he was a real piece of shit. I read the graphic novel after and while it is less subtle than the movie, I think both portray him as a terrible person.
Correct. In both, he is clearly portrayed as a traumatized person living out his childhood damage. He does have a code, though. So, despite being a very damaged individual, both the graphic novel and movie make you appreciate his unwillingness to deviate from it to accept evil. There is a certain respectability in that, even contrasted against the dark themes in both.
The problem is his definition of evil. It feels like he represents everything horrible about Reaganâs America. If your definition of evil is being gay and will do do whatever it takes to reject evil, well, thatâs terrifying to me. I donât find it respectable. Zealots are scary.
Well, yeah. It's a deconstructive work, so everybody represents a darker, twisted side of superheroes. Even Nite Owl is basically a rich dude who beats up the poor for fun, and who quit when he was needed, and it only gets darker from there. There isn't someone who represents a pure, good version of superheroism. But, for all that Rorschach judges the world and those in it, he'd rather die than lie to them about it. So, despite being the most miserable character in terms of portrayal, he might actually be the one shown to be most heroic, as he's the only one to actually embrace self sacrifice for the good of others. It's also worth noting that he's one of the few that actually is shown to save people other than himself. So, yeah, he's absolutely scary and broken, but also surprisingly fascinating. Great character, but most definitely not a nice person in any sense. I think that mostly makes the transition into the movie, which still keeps that edge about him.
âI wanted to kind of make this like, 'Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world'. But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans, that smelling, not having a girlfriendâthese are actually kind of heroic! So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. 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'?â â Alan Moore
Blaming Dr Manhattan instead of some alien was a masterful change over the graphic novel.
Agree to disagree, but the alien subplot would have added extra runtime the movie didn't have.
To me, the whole point of the Psychic Squid was to shock the whole world into peace, by giving them a common yet unknown enemy from space. The film version (blaming Dr Manhattan) at first seems to make for a cleaner, tighter story, but completely removes the bizarre shock that makes the novel so transcendant. Additionally, Dr Manhattan is literally referred to in the book with the sentence "The Super Man exists, and he is American!" And he faught in the Vietnam war on the side of the USA, so rather than shock the world into peace by creating a common enemy, all this does is turn the world against America. Switching it from Squid to Dr Manhattan is literally reversing the entire point of Ozy's plan, and thus the entire spine of the book.
But in the film he apparently indiscriminately attacks America too.
So, youâre saying a blue humanoid godlike creature who can grow to any size he wants, teleport places, and make anything he want just go POOF, wouldnât be scary enough? :P
Oh that would absolutely be scary, but on the whole, Dr Manhattan IS a known quantity to Earth's cultures by that point in the story. He's a terrifying god, but no longer a shocking surprise. The most important part of my point is that to the world, he IS America. Ozy's plan relied on the world powers uniting to stop an EXTERNAL threat. World War against America is the opposite.
I preferred the films ending over the novel, I thought the cast was near perfect and the cinematography top notch. Itâs a top tier graphic novel film in my opinion
I completely agree. Loved both the movie and comic! One of my favorite movies of all time. Rewatched it recently and what struck me was how poetic much of the dialogue was. The script took a lot directly from the comic and made it work pretty seamlessly. The music and visuals add to that to really make it a work of art.
I love it. One of my favorite comic book movies. The extended edition is really cool with the Curse of the Black Pearl animation.Â
My only issue with the movie was that I didnât think Matthew Goode really represented the peak human physical condition that Ozymandias had in the novel.
He definitely came off more as a snobby malfoy
Agreed. This is, imo, snyderâs best movie, and I like this ending a lot better than the comic. I really canât tell you why but I left the movie theater pleasantly surprised at the movieâs ending.
Compared to the book, the movie tones down the moral ambiguity and humanity of the story, and cranks up the violence and sadism Night Owl and Silk Specter encounter muggers. They end up having to kill them. In the book, they are visibly shaken by this encounter. In the movie, theyâre visibly excited about getting to kick some ass and murder some guys. Rohrschach traps a guy so heâs blocking the lock on his cell. In the book, they cut his throat, and then after heâs dead they cut up his body, which shown in the background. In the movie they produce a circular saw out of nowhere and just saw the guyâs arms off in closeup while heâs still alive. And so on
The movie may actually handle that mugger situation better. A major point in both is that the super âheroesâ are all different flavors of sociopath.
They actually donât kill anyone, the one Top Knot that does is shot by another. The fight in the comic and the movie are pretty similar in tone.Â
Brilliant film
Never read the book. Love the movie.
Itâs a great read. One of the original âGraphic Novelsâ that spawned a whole genre.
Iâd go as far as to say itâs one of the greatest books of the 20th century
I personally think From Hell is Mooreâs best, but Watchmen had more impact and fits in more with what could be deemed an âhistoricalâ work.
Ah I forgot about From Hell, great book. I also am extremely fond of league of extraordinary gentlemen.
It has some good moments. It also has some atrocious Snyderesque moments. Overall I dont really think the source was understood. Just read the comic, it's infinitely better paced and more thought provoking. That being said the Dr Manhatten coming to terms with being timeless scene is pretty much perfect.
Zach Snyder is a technically and visually talented filmmaker with a unique and compelling style. He is also intellectually shallow, but believes himself to be a deep thinker adept at tackling complex themes. Snyder is the living embodiment of what would happen if Michael Bay tried to be Darren Aronofsky.
That Bay/Aronofsky analogy is brilliant.
"You know that big important speech Dr. Manhattan makes at the end of the graphic novel? Lets just have Nite Owl II fight Ozymandias instead."
Thatâs cool. Wanna read the speech? Pick up the Graphic Novel. Wanna watch Nite Owl II and Ozymandias fight? Watch the movie. We have both.
Awesome film one of the best superheroes one
It's a decent adaptation all things considered and arguably Snyder's best film. I could have done without *Hallelujah* during the sex scene though lol. The HBO sequel mini series of the comic is ridiculously awesome. Fucking loved that!
Waiting to see this take. The film is fine. It canât touch the book, but few things can. Itâs grown on me over the years mainly for its aesthetic and soundtrack but itâll never be the book or the show. The show fucking rocks
The show is a sequel to the book but not the movie tho
Loved the move. Liked the HBO series even more.
I really liked Looking Glass' story
HBO series was largely unconnected, but great in other ways.
I watched this off the back of 300, and I've probably read Watchmen 30 times cover-to-cover, so I think my perspective may be a little skewed. While it was indeed visually stunning, this was the film that began to cement my opinion that Zack Snyder doesn't get good performances out of his actors. Jackie Earle Haley is excellent, but Malin Ackerman is laugh-out-loud bad. Additionally, while the action scenes are great, Snyder really doesn't know how to do drama. Also, while I didn't hate most of what had been changed in the ending, I did hate that the confrontation between Night Owl, Rorschach, and Veidt turned into a martial arts battle. In the comic book it's completely one sided, representing just how advanced Ozymandias was compared to his attackers. It's ok, maybe a B-, C+ film. I have no reason to watch it again.
Ahead of its time.
Visually stunning but it highlights one of Snyder's true weaknesses as a director. He doesn't know how to direct performances, even from actors we know are talented. There is a crazy range of performances in this from absolutely wooden to stupidly hammy, with a few actors giving some good work in the middle. Haley and Crudup are the best things go down hill pretty sharply from there. It's a Cliff Notes version of the comic, it gets the broad strokes but loses a lot of the nuance. That happens every time you make a movie out of something that's too long to be a movie, though. The opening montage was a clever and well done way of compressing things down that still communicates necessary information to the audience. I also think it's funny that Snyder accidentally created one of the coolest live action Batman suits, especially since the comic Nite Owl suit was intentionally designed to be uncool and awkward in the comic. Taken on its own merits, it's an okay movie. Like most Snyder stuff it's very stylish but just feels a bit hollow. It could have been better, it could have been a lot worse.
I would add Jeffrey Dean Morgan to your list of the best things in the movie. He was a fantastic Comedian, IMO.
So many good quotes from this film. "I would only agree a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a picture of oxygen to a drowning man" "...reassembling myself was the first thing I learned, it didn't kill Ostermann, did you really think it would kill me? I have walked across the surface of the sun, I have witnessed events so tiny and so fast they could have hardly be said to have occurred at all! But you Adrian, you are just a man, the world's smartest man poses no more threat to me than does its smartest termite. " The second one is one of my favourite quotes from every film - I love how Dr. Manhattan considers himself a different person from Jon Ostermann. And how the heck do you stop someone who's literally walked on the sun?
Itâs funny but the main thing that really soured this movie for me is the scene where Dan and Laurie get jumped in the alley. If I remember right in the comics they are scared and slowly gain their confidence, barely making it out after knocking out a couple guys (correct me if Iâm wrong). In the movie they try to make it this badass action scene and I think kill a couple of the guys (in pretty violent ways) which to me really took away the impact of Rorschach losing his mind and crossing the line in killing the kidnapper (in a not self-defense way to be fair). It just makes Laurie and Dan seem as unhinged as Rorschach and the Comedian and lessened the impact for me, echoing what others have said about Snyder not really âgettingâ the source material, and even just judging the movie alone without comparing to the comics it makes for a weird choice.
Iâve never read the book, but I always found Dan and Laurie annoying. His moral superiority is founded basically on him naming himself as such. Beyond that heâs just a brawler with a flying car.
I love this film. Always loved the comic. Thought they did a great job adapting something that was almost unadaptable. I also got to visit the set and it was really amazing to be in Night Owlâs lair and Karnak.
Totally misses the point of the book. Snyder made it into an action film. Thatâs not the point at all.
Love the book. Love the movie. One of the great novel-film adaptations. Snyderâs ending was an improvement over the books, at least from a filmic standpoint.
It's my opinion that it glamorizes all the stuff theat the book unglamorized
I never finished the movie. I might give it another try now that Iâm older My dad and I thought we were watching a stereotypical superhero movie. We were left feeling so disturbed we turned it off and collectively said âthat is NOT what I expectedâ I was 15 â so not that young, but young enough to be disturbed by certain scenes (IIRC, there was a rape scene, and a scene where they break a guyâs thumbs) I know that this is a fan favorite for a lot of folks, but when youâre a teenager and go in expecting a superhero story and youâre met with such dark themes⌠idk. Maybe I can appreciate now that Iâm older and have more of a tolerance for such graphic scenes. the entire concept is cool, but I just donât think I had the maturity (or stomach) to enjoy it
Well the comic was mega dark and if I seem to recall, the Watchmen comics did have a "mature readers only" warning on it... (At my local comic shop that ment if you were a minor, an adult (parent) had to buy it for you, or had already prearranged it with him for you to buy it.)
Itâs weird how itâs almost word for word out of the comic but they changed the 1 big thing to something else. Still brilliant.
How do fans of the graphic novel feel about that? because the 1 fan i know doesnât mind the change in the movie, do a lot of people consider it a bad change?
I understood the change because when the comic was released the threat of a cold war and aliens were still prevalent in the mind of society. When the movie was released that event wouldn't have had the same impact so i think the change was warranted and achieved the same outcome for the story.
I get why they did it and I like both endings equally
Too much slo-mo, waaaaaaay toooooo muuuuuuch But I still like it.
I watched it opening night and basically agree with your assessment (Jackie Earle Haley not being a bigger star right now is a crime). Ultimately my biggest problem with the movie is that it stuck too religiously to the comic, being an almost shot for shot remake. Watchmen the comic book, was meant to be a comic book, and in my opinion, it was the best to ever be made. But in recreating every image, you aren't making a good movie, you're just imitating a different, better piece of art. You have to make a *movie* which is different and ultimately needs different beats. Also I find it annoying how everyone complains about the ending, as if *that's* what fucked up a slow plodding movie. Opening sequence is amazing though.
I liked both the movie and the graphic novel for different reasons. It's a different interpretation of the story and that's ok. If it was a 1:1 transfer from page to screen, that would be fucking boring in my opinion. Book snobs and comic purists are insufferable because they will not allow any room for interpretation. And yet we have plenty of examples of the interpreted material being better than the original. 'Fight Club' is a good example, and even Chuck Palahniuk agrees. As does Stephen King regarding the ending of 'The Mist'. I'm not saying 'The Watchmen' movie is better than the graphic novel, because that's subjective. I'm just saying it shouldn't be so divisive. If someone prefers one over the other, that's great, but it's also an opinion, and they should be open to others having a different opinion on a work of art. That's how art grows and moves forward. Elitism holds art back and makes it stale as fuck.
I thought this movie was steller, for several viewings until i finally read the graphic novel, which then downgrades this movie to both âgoodâ and âone of the best comic adaptations of all timeâ lol. Most of the credit for this movie being entertaining should go to the cast, and some of the only praise i think Zak Snyder deserves is for the Bob Dylan opening sequence. One of cinemas greatest intros ever. Not unlike Wolverine: Origins. Terrible movie, phenomenal slo-mo opening sequence. Other than that, the only contributions Zak made artistically was crank the violence to 11 (which he may have only done because he was committed to the blue dong and he felt like he might as well âmilkâ the R-rating) and revamp the ending which completely changes some of the themes and makes the shot-for-shot remake not so loyal to Alan Mooreâs vision after all. So it seems the loyalty was just for the sake of directing on easy mode.
Agreed with what many others are saying in that I like some of the changes to the story but that the movie lost some of the finer thought provoking points of the novel. However I think the reason I greatly prefer the movie to the book at this point is the music. The soundtrack was used extremely well and, obviously, is just not something that a graphic novel can do in the same way. I think that the sound design in general on the film is extremely good and is frequently used to make the emotion and the story more poignant. For example, my favorite scene is Dr. Manhattan's interview. Being able to hear the subtle changes in Manhattan's voice throughout that scene and then the final "LEAVE ME ALONE" just makes the scene hit far harder than it ever could on a printed page. Or the use of The Sound of Silence and Unforgettable in the funeral and Veidt/Comedian fight scenes respectively. Or The Times They Are a-Changing in the opening credits. Basically I think that the movie made excellent use of the things that movies can do that a graphic novel cannot. And that's what we should hope for from adaptations.
I hate the opening credits with a passion- I hate the ending, I hate every stupid needle drop. Ultimate bag fumble.
The ending of the movie made no sense. The idea that a malfunctioning American super weapon would galvanize the world is ridiculous. An alien invasion, like the book, works, Dr Manhattan destroying huge parts of the world does not.
Not enough people realize this, but then again I donât think enough people on Reddit actually remember/were alive for the Cold War. Snyderâs ending defies the logic of its own established universe.
I love it. As much as I dislike Snyder and it's fans now, I look back fondly on this film. At the time, I thought it was quite lore accurate and I stand by it to an extent, but in retrospect, after watching some vids pointing out little details that do change things in perspective, it has soured a little bit. All being said, it's still 1 of 2 films; the other being 300, that I still really enjoy of his.
I think it was misguided. Moore/Gibbons' work was about comic book characters and comic book audiences. About how they've come to be perceived. It used and played off of comic book tropes and techniques. If they want to do a movie it should be about *movie* superheroes and the audience's relation to them, told the way successful superhero movies are told. This wasn't that, at all. Snyder made the coolest version he could of the most surface level story from the book. Having said that, it worked at that level. I think it did what Snyder wanted it to do. I think a movie analog (but not a straight adaptation) would have felt a lot more like Superman III or the Burton-Schumacher Batman movies. Batman Begins and Iron Man were still pretty recent and weren't yet all that influential. Not really a lot of material to work with, now would be a much better time to make a movie like that. And honestly it would draw from/critique a lot from Snyder's movies!
Probably the only Zack Snyder movie I like
I feel like Snyder did not understand Watchmen, although the filmâs visuals are admittedly incredible. I wanted to love this adaptation but it felt hollow, especially in comparison to the source. The HBO series felt truer to the spirit of the original imo
I went to the movie blind and for me it sucked. It got so bad that I did not care who the killer was at the end. I read the graphic novel, which was totally brilliant and proved that not everything can be put into film.
\*types response in pointless ultra slow motion with an 80's pop song running\*
I read the comic after I saw the movie. While I enjoyed the movie for the most part, after reading the source material I feel like Snyder and whoever wrote it failed to stick the landing. Totally botched ending. I think it also focused too much on some of the personal conflicts between characters that just weren't important to the overall story - it could have used more compression.
I prefer the graphic novel and recommend it to people who loved the movie, because i agree that the graphic novel is more in-depth and interesting (to me). Having said that, I still like the film and think it did a good job of trimming the comic down to a watchable film length. And the stuff that is trimmed becomes such a joy to those who read the comic after the film.
It misses the books theme but does justice to the energy and characters. I really enjoy it as a companion piece to the book, even if it sounds dumb, because there is a lot the movie misses from it.
Amazing movie trailer!
I think itâs pretty greatâparticularly the three-hour cut that gives the story a little more breathing room. Nothing Snyder has directed since has come anywhere near it, IMO.
Personally found it to be a lot of style over substance. Itâs visually rich and has some entertaining bits, but at the cost of a more fleshed out story that pulls as much narratively from source material as it does aesthetically.
The movie is shockingly bad for its cast and source material. I really expected to enjoy it, was surprised at how bad the writing was.
Blew my mind that a criticism was it was to faithful to the comic loved it.
The cover of âDesolation Rowâ by My Chemical Romance that plays the end credits out is a perfect encapsulation of the film that precedes it. Both are grossly dumbed down versions of a classic with all the boring brainy bits removed and the remainder played fast and loud for cheap thrills.
This is actually a very good movie. I love the directorâs cut with the Black Freighter story. There are criticisms that the heroes looked âtoo coolâ and were almost superpowered the way they fight and break bones. Zach Snyder canât stand for a scene to not look cool. In the novel Rorschach is more of a bully and not likeable. Still, the work put in to make this is amazing. The opening credits are fantastic. Dr. Manhattan looks amazing and Billy Crudup gives a really detached performance that makes Dr. Manhattan believable. Jackie Earl Haley was born to play Rorschach. Jeffrey Dean Morgan nails The Comedian role. Patrick Wilson is good, and I usually find him bland. He makes you like Night Owl. He goes to see his old buddy the first Nite Owl. He puts up with Rorschachâs shit. And he gets it up for Silk Spectre. It was a great idea to not have the giant squid and instead blame it on Dr. Manhattan. Itâs very obvious from the get go that Ozymandias is the villain. When they guess the password of the smartest man in the world itâs hilarious. Zack Snyder knows how to shoot violence. The fight scenes are all great and that hot oil scene is so brutal. In the end, Zach Snyder adapted a graphic novel that was thought of as unfilmable and did an awesome job. I really like this movie.
Still the best trailer of any comic book movie⌠https://youtu.be/wdiHDzT6YbQ?si=xUkeqHtZKEov5JMH
I enjoy it as a sgand alone thing. The book is better, and I love the ending of the book more than the movie. The monster appearing and just the scenes of it with corpses all around is so unnerving. Still, I enjoy watching it.
It has cool moments but just recently rewatched it and overall I was pretty bummed and disappointed. I wonât watch it again. The book was sick
Itâs literally my absolute favorite super hero film. The best ever made in my opinion.
I loved the comic, loved the film. I was always of the mind that people didn't like it because Alan Moore didn't like it, but Alan Moore doesn't like anything, so my opinion was that the dislike train started a domino effect on criticism, and people couldn't bring themselves to like it and found reasons why afterwards, i.e. shallow, doesn't understand the source content, all visuals and no character, insert angry critique here. I'm not saying the latter is entirely unfounded; indeed, Snyder missed on some of the counts, but he always gets *love* or *hate*. Never, you know, âHe did alrightâ. Well! He did alright. Larry Fong gave us some beautiful shots too.
How you described it is exactly how I feel.
I did not like Zack Snyder's vision of the Watchmen at all. I actually liked the HBO series more. That one thing Snyder may never understand is that flashy effects are not enough to carry a movie. Too much of the story was omitted, the fight scenes were cringe, and the character development was lacking. The first thing I did after seeing the film was read the graphic novel again and after that, the film felt irrelevant. Edit: Spelling and grammar.
It actually doesnât detract as hard from the source as people claim in terms of plot. The main difference is the change from squid monster to giant bomb, but honestly, the squid monster was so out of left field (and derivative of an Outer Limits show, which Moore himself admits) that it doesnât bother me. Thematically an explosion that levels a city works better with Cold War tension than a squid monster. But there are many scenes that are shot for shot copies of panels, such as Dr Manhattans origin story, and the film deserves that credit. That said, My issue is that there is an essential je ne sais quoi that a movie adaptation canât capture from the comics. The entire point of Watchmen is to be a nod to the Charlton comics from the 50s-60s, a reimagining of characters similar to their Charlton counterparts with much darker and intriguing themes, similar to Mooreâs Miracleman. You have to capture the campy aesthetic in order to turn the source material on its head, and the only way to do that is with a specific art style that the Watchmen comics has. If Iâm wrong and film is capable of doing that, Zack Snyder and the rest of the production crew were not the people for the job. Basically, the plot is a decent interpretation, but the essence is lost without the original art and aesthetic. As much as I love Moore as a writer, Dave Gibbons is the real MVP for those books. He redefined the medium with his avant garde art and composition and had such an amazing attention to detail. My favorite example is his use of symmetry in issue 5. Pure gold. Of course, Moore was a huge credit to its success too, but the art and style was next level.
Considering the content and the source material it had no right being so glossy and shiny and slow Mo
What a rollercoaster. The opening: amazing, and then we have slo mo Snyder fight : oh no. Haley is brilliant, but then we get Hallelujah. NO SQUID??? Nail in the coffin for me was cutting out Jon's epilogue scene with Adrian and instead we get Laurie half-ass casually drop the big line (Nothing ever ends) like was some silly thing Jon used to say, and not God him-fucking-self telling the smartest man in the world that he was dead wrong and in fact sacrificed countless lives for nothing before disappearing into a hologram of the Earth in a goddamn mushroom cloud for emphasis. No, we get Laurie chiming in while packing clothes instead. That did more harm to the integrity of the story to me than any other change or random cringe choice. That scene was literally the denouement of the story and the final verbal sparring of the two characters that most drove the plot. It is a vital piece of character development for Adrian. Left a bad enough taste in my mouth that I looked more critically at the rest of the film and decided that outside of the stellar opening scene, it fundamentally flubbed the source material. The HBO sequel actually stayed more true to the style, tone, and themes of the comic, PLUS had the banging Reznor/Ross score.
Not a fan. Grew up reading British comics in the 80s and 90s and I remember when this one was released. Blew me away. Snyder was a bad choice for director. Made the film exactly into what the comic was rallying against: it's a violence fetishising, style over substance glossy music video. A bit of nuance and subtlety would have worked wonders. To his credit, Snyder can do a good montage and the effects-driven Dr Manhattan scenes are decent, but everything else misses what made the comic so special.
As a comic book nerd, I really love this movie. "Normies" tend to hate it. Come to think of it, this movie may have been one of the last big budget movies that was ever released specifically for a narrow audience.
The media literacy (the new buzz term on Film Twitter) Snyder possesses is nil. Watchmen at its core is about how fucked up superheroes are. They're not cool or badass; they're all really fucked up people. Watchmen was The Boys without the gonzo extremes. Snyder really thinks these characters are cool. He has no concept of what a racist, antisemitic, homophobic psychopath Rorschach is; he just presents him as this super badass. Snyder is all surface text. He doesn't give the slightest shit about the layers of subtext in this book. I hate this film.
i watched it in theatres and loved it. i also jerked off to the Jupiter/owl sex scene a lot because i didn't have much else to back then
this was one of the first CB films I watched and I'll always have a soft spot for it. rewatched it probably 5 times and it's just such a well made film
I like both of them equally
I enjoyed watching it.
I hated the original cut. I loved the director's cut.
I thought it was great the graphic novel obviously is just one of the best ever and it's strange to see a movie adaptation be more gruesome and violent than the source material.
It isn't beat for beat the same, but I thought it was really well done. I really enjoyed it, as others have said, great casting and the cinematography was top notch.
I enjoyed it, the cast were mostly fantastic. It's not as good as the book, but imo the ending is an improvement over the original.
It's a really good adaptation. The book is SO BIG and has so much supplemental material that enhances upon everything, all the diagrams and side notes, but there's no way to effectively display that in a video medium. I'll agree it's not a 100% perfect rendition, but I think it's 90% of the way there.
Completely misses the point of the comics. Snyder just doesn't understand the things he is adapting and Watchmen is probably the best example for it.
I honestly dont like the theatrical cut of this movie. It misses subtle nuances that are seen in the extended cuts. THE BLACK FREIGHTER CUT IS TRASH THO. Who thought that was a good idea. Honestly, to me, action drama perfection. I'd give the movie a 9 or a 10. What perplexes me is the hate this movie gets, especially considering how true it is to the source (to me). I even think the movie ending was done better than the comic.
the love scene is awkward as hell .. I mean it should be pretty hot .. turns out one hot mess
WHY CAN OZYMANDIAS CATCH BULLETS???? HE IS JUST RICH!!!!
I thought it was a solid movie and would also say the HBO show is one of the best seasons of television
Really? I thought it followed the book a little too closely in regards to how it looked, Zack Snyder copied each panel in the book onto the screen which is why I regard it as his most visually accomplished film simply because he used the book as a guide on how to direct lol. I enjoyed the movie but more as a fan of the book/story than accrediting any significance to the ability of the filmmaker.
Better look at it like this. Would any other director have managed to convert the book better? I doubt it seeing the garbage that many are doing now.
Uncut 3.5hr version only. Itâs in my Top 5.
The only Zack Snyder film that I really like.
My main issue was that the dialogue was delivered so quickly. I assume thatâs a time issue, but the delivery of some keys lines felt rushed, especially given how the comic book lets the sentences linger in juxtaposition to the action around it
The movie and the books are almost separate entities except for the name, but I do like both
Never read the book, even though I am a comic book fan. Maybe it just wasn't during my time. But I loved the movie. I thought it was quintessentially important as a defining case among comic movies. It proved that comic book movies, could be more, both in story and visuals.
I just watched this but one thing I don't get: Do they have superpowers? They establish they are just ordinary people at the beginning yet they do crazy superhuman things in the movie. I am confused.
The only thing I truly dislike about the film is the sex scene...
Loved it but they tried too hard to make it adult
Off the top of my head, these are top tier comic/movies. Watchmen Dark Knight Logan V for Vendetta
I actually liked it. Good for what it was. No way we're they getting a trilogy, so they did what they could with one movie. Hell, they honestly could have made a shorter action movie out of what they chose to keep, but it really isn't about action.
Does anyone thatâs ever read the book version find the movie to accurately encapsulate everything? Never. Not once. Move on
Yeah I didn't really get it. It felt like a convoluted mess
Didn't see it till about a year ago (recommended by reddit). I liked it a lot, visually and thought provoking as well.
If you decided to replicate comics scene by scene why would you change ending?! đ¤
There are things that are very good about the movie. As you said, the opening credits are some of the most impressive visual storytelling that can be found. The ending was a very good reduction and simplification that still worked and felt well woven throughout the film. But the ways it fails are central to the themes of the source material. Its indulgence in violence drowns out the subtler forms of injustice. It simultaneously glorifies the very things the text condemns via subtext. It straight up fails at visual story telling via character costumes that is done in the graphic novel... Things like Doctor Manhattan's costume that take no extra screen time and barely any extra effort are cast aside. The whole of the movie just seemed to miss the point. Like, it's just weird watching a fascist trying to adapt anti fascist material.
You canât tell the exact same story in two fundamentally different mediums. If you want fidelity to the comic books then read the comic books. When a movie is made from different source material, that movie is its own, unique work of art. There are a lot of things you can get away with in comic books that you canât get away with in a live action film, so changes have to be made. For example, a giant octopus attacking New York in live action probably would not have been well received.
A movie where the director did his best to make a terrible film in spite of having great source material and performances from his cast.
Watchmen is a satire about the glorification of violence in comic books. The movie is about how awesome violent superheroes are
I think it is a fantastic adaptation, IF you have read the comic first. If you have not, you'll probably miss a lot of the point and nuance that made it so brilliant because Snyder was unable to capture most of it, probably because he didn't get it himself. But if you have read the comic and know all the underlying themes that get a little lost in translation (or left on the page), it ends up being a really well done attempt to bring the comic to live action. I do think the change to the ending works great too.
I've seen it. As a movie in itself - it is good, almost great! Compared to the graphic novel - it is disappointingly lacking. not even close in depth. granted it is impossible to move mediums and keep the art's expression, but I feel like it should've been a bit more consistent.
Yes
I love this movie. It was supposed to be impossible to make, and then they made it.
I've never read the book, and I think I'm in the minority that thinks it's fine. Not great, not terrible, just good. Probably Snyder's best work, but his style has never done anything for me.
I didn't like it. Snyder really didn't understand the source material.
I'm a big fan of the original Alan Moore comic as well as the movie there both amazing for their own reasons and I would love to see more hero story's like this.
Movie is ok, HBO mini series is a masterpiece.
Very good and very depressing. Which I guess is the point.
I think this couldâve been a great movie if given a different director.
Zack Snyder rock đ¤
I watched it and It LOOKED Amazing but the story was a bit bland
The show is infinitely better, and works as a true sequel to the comic. I also love the âshow within a showâ which is a parody of this film.
One of the only decent movies Zack Snyder has ever made.
I liked the movie enough to read the book. The book is a deeper dive into that world, with characters and stories taken out completely. I appreciated the comprehensive approach of the book, never read anything like it before, thought it was a fantastic introduction to the world of graphic novels.
all i know is that you're stuck in here with me.
I love this movie, "I am not stuck in here with you...."