Holy crap, it's Rorshach!

[ImOscardotcom]

When did insane become sane?

...

Dude.

That is like....

Deep.

[ManUnderMask]

I quite enjoyed it, but I agree that if you don't know what you're getting into, you will be bored.

Think it'll get Rifftraxed?

[gbeenie]

It's a character study, not Die Hard.

  That's probably why I liked it and my friends didn't. 

But here's fingers crossed, hoping it does a good box office this weekend.

It will do very, very well for the opening box office weekend.  My big anticipation is the following weekend.  I'm expecting a 60% drop-off.  And that's my low estimation.  This thing has had the perfect hype blitz that will suffer with the (probable) reality of studio execs saying "Butts in seats.... FIRST weekend!  Expect later disappointment.  Let the audience deal with it.  We need our money back."  Typical strategy for any expected bomb.  The word-of-mouth on Watchmen will absolutely kill it.

That is almost exactly what was predicted about 300.

[BathTub]

I quite enjoyed it, but I agree that if you don't know what you're getting into, you will be bored.

Think it'll get Rifftraxed?

I think it's runtime is a bit long, probably works against it.

[ManUnderMask]

I quite enjoyed it, but I agree that if you don't know what you're getting into, you will be bored.

Think it'll get Rifftraxed?

I think it's runtime is a bit long, probably works against it.

It was only 2 hours and 42 minutes. Fellowship of the Ring was 2 hours 58 minutes and Two Towers was 2 hours 59 minutes.

So run time shouldn't matter.

[gojikranz]

people who havent read the book have no idea what its about.  in my film studies class when we were voting for what film to watch you oculd tell the people who had read watchmen were very strong in their opinions to see it.  and people who hadnt seen it thought it was just a dumb superhero movie "janky batman" was the quote one guy used.  our teacher didnt even know anything and tried to get us not to see it but after the votes went against her she said.  well i can find something interesting to say about any movie.  (and were all thinking if you cant find something interesting to say about watchmen you should reconsider your career).  i guess its just really hard to advertise for but im really wondering what people not knowing about the book are gonna think.  ill let you know what my class says after we see it monday.

[stansimpson]

When did insane become sane?

I believe it was the same time Saruman mistook reason for madness...
::wizard's duel::

I quite enjoyed it, but I agree that if you don't know what you're getting into, you will be bored.

Think it'll get Rifftraxed?

I, for one, would love to see it get the RT treatment.  As much as I really enjoyed it, there are definitely some unintentionally hilarious moments.  It'd be like the Good Movie rifftraxes and Bad Movie rifftraxes combined into some sorta Super RiffTrax.  And, my God, think of the batch jokes!

[Nick]

people who havent read the book have no idea what its about.  in my film studies class when we were voting for what film to watch you oculd tell the people who had read watchmen were very strong in their opinions to see it.  and people who hadnt seen it thought it was just a dumb superhero movie "janky batman" was the quote one guy used.  our teacher didnt even know anything and tried to get us not to see it but after the votes went against her she said.  well i can find something interesting to say about any movie.  (and were all thinking if you cant find something interesting to say about watchmen you should reconsider your career).  i guess its just really hard to advertise for but im really wondering what people not knowing about the book are gonna think.  ill let you know what my class says after we see it monday.

Well so far two of my friends and my sister, none of whom have read the book, thought the movie was awesome. My friends said they didn't have any trouble following the movie either. So I don't buy it that you have to have read the Comics beforehand before seeing this movie.

They only problem my sister had with the movie were the ridiculous Nixon make up effects. And I agree with her. Nixon looked like a cartoon sometimes in the movie.

[gojikranz]

ya i am assuming they will get it but they have to go to get it.  there were a good portion of our class who were really angry saying they would never see this.  luckily now they have to

[Doctor Who?]

Only one more day to go until I can see it.

[LucasM]

Seriously folks... if you haven't read the book and seen the movie, do not look in here!  Don't get ticked if you don't heed this.

Before people start claiming otherwise: I'm not upset purely because they changed things.  I am upset because what they changed it to simply does not work.

They got everything right: almost verbatim... until the pivotal event of the film, and they changed that. Changed it so that the new "thing that happened" would never have accomplished what it was intended to... and therefore the result of that event would have been the opposite of what was intended (regardless of what they actually show in the film).

The original story was actually character studies far more than 'plot', and I agree with everyone here: if one expects an 'action flick' they'll be disappointed.  The beauty of the book (and most of the film) is in the characterizations; just astonishing depth.  The plot wasn't secondary, of course, the characters demonstrate their deepest selves by their relationship to the events of the plot.

In the original story, to save the world from a seemingly unavoidable armageddon between the U.S. and the USSR, Ozymandias sets up a fake invasion from another dimension (an artificially-created being that was 'fitted' with a psychic attack that devastated New York City - and only New York City).  In the book, that united the world, 'against a common enemy'.  In the original the source of the damage was other-worldly.

The movie had something that actually would have precipitated nuclear war, as it was so intensely identified with the U.S. (despite the U.S. taking damage as well in the film).  The U.S. had an 'operative' named Dr. Manhattan, who could, basically, do anything manipulating atoms.  The U.S. had made many arrogant statements such as "yes, God exists, and he is an American" (referring to Dr. Manhattan).  They used him to win the Viet Nam war (causing the atoms in 'the enemy' to fly apart).  Yet, because he was so much more than human, he - though the world was not made aware of this! (a key point in why the film's substitution would not have worked) - never really cared about the United States as an entity, and he gradually ceased caring about any human life.

What was substituted in the film actually would have aggravated the entire world against the U.S. and made it more likely that nuclear war would come about.  Ozymandias faked multiple attacks making it seem as it was Dr. Manhattan doing them.  The fake attacks were around the world instead of just in America.

The political situation was so highly charged (the U.S. at DEFCON 1, for instance) that the damage would have been seen as 'the US's superhuman/God attacking'.  And - in that stressed environment, when everyone was anticipating world war/extermination - it would have been assumed that it was at Nixon's order.  That, despite New York and Los Angeles being totalled: neither is equivalent to Moscow: the seat of the USSR's government!  Nixon didn't die, their leader would have.  Not at all equivalent.  In that political climate it would have been assumed that he sacrificed the two cities to make it look as if it was universal.  There would not be the trust necessary to believe that all were victims for the U.S.'s operative - who the world never knew was 'uninvolved' anymore - to do such a thing.

Therefore, every country that suffered devastation would have reacted as if it had been attacked by the US.  It would not have resulted in unity as the book's other-worldly creature would have. [And the basis for 'other dimensions' was already set in dialogue with Manhattan and Laurie earlier in the film.  So to go with the original story wouldn't have been introducing a new concept at the end of the film (one of the only reasons I could see not using it).  People could deal with it in the 4th Indiana Jones film, so what the hell's the problem?]  Heck, if they didn't want a mega-octopus with a beaked vagina (as someone here described it at some point) they could have substituted a more 'believable' ultra-alien looking thing, or even an amoeboid creature that went 'splat' as soon as it 'arrived': as long as it was alien and the psychic attack was present.

For those not reading in the spoiler: I was disappointed, as the film didn't work for me, regardless how much I loved seeing 98% of it.

[Relaxing Dragon]

While I do see where you're coming from on it, I still think it would've worked. So, I present my (probably weak, since I suck at this) defense:

For starters, I think the damage done to the US would've shown the rest of the world that Dr. Manhattan was no longer on anyone's side. Plus, it's safe to assume that, for instance, the Moscow leadership survived (odds are, since they were facing the same situation as the US, they were in their own little War Room somewhere).

And how could the other countries identify it was Dr. Manhattan who did it at first? I'm not sure they had his energy signature on file like the US did, so they just would've seen it as their cities randomly exploding; no missile, just explosion.

I dunno. I still think it works. But I'll need to watch the film again to get back in the proper mindset.

[LucasM]

Again, the key plot points in both the movie and book are discussed.  Enter at your own risk.

I'll respond to your second paragraph first.

I am certain that Nixon announced that it was caused by Dr. Manhattan being rogue (though probably not with that word) during his immediate worldwide press conference.

How this would impact other countries is demonstrated by an example (although not completely parallel, it gets the idea across).  Let's say someone owned a pit bull, and that pit bull was just fine and behaved at home.  However, if that pit bull got out and ripped the face off a little kid, the responsibility for that attack would not be seen to be solely the pit bull's: the owner would be held responsible, and believed (whether rightly or wrongly) to have treated the pit bull in such a way as to cause the attack.

Dr. Manhattan is the pit bull.  Every country that experienced damage was the little kid's face.  The U.S. would be held responsible.

Now your first point.

I agree with your assessment, and I was mistaken in my initial post: you are probably right that the leadership personnel in the USSR would likely have survived.  But their political infrastructure would've still been destroyed.

The fact that the capitals of other countries, and only large cities in the U.S. were attacked would not be seen as equivalent.  Unless Washington D.C. was a crater, the rest of the world would think that they were considered 'acceptable losses' in a world-wide bluff (to get people to lower their defenses so as to be easily conquered) which would have been assumed to be engineered by Nixon.  Again: it could not have been Dr. Manhattan to be perceived to be behind it.  The U.S. always presented him to the rest of the world as being totally behind the U.S. and on their side.  No 'sudden change' would be believed - particularly in the 'one-minute-to-midnight' doomsday clock scenario they were living in.

An additional human characteristic - shown repeatedly through the last 100 years in the real world (esp the last 10) - is that if a country feels personally threatened, it reduces its contacts with the outside world, and tends to become more jingoistic, not less.  However, when the U.S. was in real life, attacked on 9/11, the world pulled together more than we've seen in ages.  Again: the world would retreat from cooperation with other countries if they were attacked, and would pull together if there was one - and only one - 'victim'.  So again, my point (and Moore's in the book) the U.S. had to be the only place that suffered damage.  And it had to be the U.S. because we had Dr. Manhattan; only if an event occurred that even he couldn't prevent could it be seen as a universal threat.

And even with the U.S. being the only place to suffer damage: it also could originate with any recognized source, because if it was Dr. Manhattan (or any other 'U.S.-owned' event or operative), other countries would see it as a 'personal matter', i.e. that the U.S. did something to personally tick him off; therefore, the damage was unrelated to the rest of the world.  In addition, by the perception of the U.S. doing something to tick off their 'living god', it would result in the U.S. being seen as even more of a threat, as they would be seen as even more unpredictable.

Hence, the final world war, and the destruction of mankind.  The opposite of what was shown in the film.

The book had it right.  The movie blew it.

And again, an after-comment: despite my serious disagreements with a major change, I will likely still try to see it in a theater again, and buy the DVD when it comes out.  Why?  Because I love the story so much, and seeing 98% of the book translated so beautifully to the screen still outweighs the changes.

But, so easily, it could have been perfect.   

[stansimpson]

But, so easily, it could have been perfect.   

I agree with you whole-heartedly about that.  It's my immediate reaction of when people say "Maybe it is unfilmable."  More than anything, the movie proved that it was at least possible.

[mearnest]

I completely understand why they changed the ending and actually like the angle they put on it with Manhattan.  (I think that was vague enough)  The only change that really bothered me is a rather minor one:
When Rorshach is recounting his investigation of the missing girl in the GN he handcuffs the guy and then sets the building on fire.  He gives the killer the chance to escape by cutting himself free.  In the movie they just have him hack the guy up with a meat cleaver.  Since this is a crucial moment for the character I thought it was out of place.  Before that incident he only beat up criminals.