Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Will you watch these Watchmen?

<< < (47/74) > >>

Dimmukane:
Well, he went from saying pretty negative things about that whole debate to "they may become what I consider to be art possibly in my lifetime and maybe I also have done a little more research".  Seeing as the dude is somewhere around 80 (I have no idea actually), that isn't exactly a small change of stance.

KvP:
Slate has a bunch of stuff about Watchmen today. Particularly of note is a critique of how the comics industry (and comics fans) fucked up the opportunity for renaissance that it presented.

Also, a review of the comic from it's 20th, some hypotheticals w/r/t different directors helming the movie, and a contemporary examination of the Rorschach blot.

They just posted their review of the film as well. Their worry is that people who see the movie but haven't read the comic will miss the point of it, and that's a pretty valid concern (see also: Fallout 3)

ackblom12:
Personally, I thought it was pretty great.

Be My Head:
I didn't think it was up to the same level of subtlety as the book, but then again what movie is? (Oh wait, plenty). Anyway, it was definitely a great movie. They could have put a lot more thought into the sets and the "special" effects, in my opinion, as each shot seemed to get progressively more boring.

KvP:
Overall I thought it was pretty good.

Good things:
 - Special Effects were pretty good, I guess
 - Not afraid of male nudity, which is rare these days
 - Kept a brisk pace
 - Jackie Earle Haley was really good. Better when he didn't have the mask on, which was unfortunately not often.
 - Most of the other actors acquitted themselves, for the most part

Bad things:
 - Some of the other actors, particularly Carla Gugino as Silk Spectre I, were pretty bad.
 - Altered ending makes less sense than original ending
 - Most (if not all, I haven't read the comic in quite some time) of the dialogue was transplanted straight from the comics. The movie ran into problems when it entered Emotional Monologue Mode. There's only so much you can take of people discussing how Dr. Manhattan is atomically autistic in real time. I shut down during various parts of the film because of this. The beginning montage set a pretty high bar for gracefully providing backstory and some of the monologues after that just felt forced (looking at you, Veidt).
 - I saw it with a friend who hadn't read the comic and he solved the mystery shortly into the film, and I can definitely see how he could. I didn't have this experience with the comic.

I didn't have any specific beef with the action sequences even if they drastically increased the protagonists' abilities. It was the cutting of the B and C story that irked me a bit more. As it stands the movie is fine, but it doesn't really touch the comic. I think there's some risk that the film could supplant the book in the public consciousness as far as how people think about Watchmen. If you're reading this you're a nerd and this possibility likely seems absurd, but you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't care to read comic books or "classic literature", if you want to get picky about it. As I hinted at earlier, this is the same sort of dilemma that fans of the old Fallouts faced upon the release of Fallout 3. From that point on, the older, better games effectively didn't really matter. As the brand came out of the cult and into the wider public consciousness it changed in certain small but significant (to the cult, anyway) ways, such that it won't ever be what it was again. Maybe Watchmen the comic is too salient to suffer that sort of thing, but it's something to consider at least.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page