→ 19 comments so far ↓

• 1 Joe // Mar 10, 2009 at 10:59 am

  Phil already ruined it for my by telling me about what was missing at the end. Since I already know the story, that was really the only suspenseful element for me and now it is ruined. Way to go dick-weed. You are the worst friend since sliced bread.

  Ok, like Jake, I am writing hyperbole. You aren’t that bad, but who could be you know?

• 2 jake // Mar 10, 2009 at 11:20 am

  I’m glad it was you instead of me who criticized Phil for revealing that stuff. I’m even more glad that I saw the film before he wrote that.

  As much as the words “SPOILER ALERT!” are annoying to some people, they serve an important function for a lot of other people.

  In his defense, though, someone who cared so much might have wanted to see the movie in the first 72 hours.

• 3 phil // Mar 10, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  If you think I can ruin a story that you’ve already read by telling you they changed some stuff around, I don’t know what to tell you. There is still suspense, in fact even more because now you don’t know exactly how it ends!

• 4 Joe // Mar 10, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  Some of us have wives Jake. And some of our wives have not done their homework yet vis-a-vis the comic and refuse to see the movie until they do. Also some of our wives get pissed if we see the movie without them.

  I am not talking about myself, of course. /I/ am just lazy, but you know, some other dudes are in the above predicament.

• 5 Joe // Mar 10, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  Phil, you told me what exactly was missing, not that “they changed some stuff around”. Don’t worry though, I don’t expect someone like you, who is only on the lookout for #1 to understand.

  That is because, when you are focused as much as you are on urine, you don’t have time to care about a friend*’s movie-going experience.

  *so-called

• 6 phil // Mar 10, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  Joe you just ruined the rest of our friendship because I now know exactly what is missing from it.

• 7 jake // Mar 10, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  @Joe: Are you trying to say that it’s reasonable for someone to care more about their wife than they do about Watchmen?

  Don’t get me wrong, though. I agree with you that Phil stepped over the decency-line by including that in his post (at least without alerting the reader to an upcoming spoiler).

• 8 phil // Mar 10, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  Did they ever make that movie of Parfum? That also had a really messed up ending that I figured was unfilmable.

  Decency line?! I have the decency line tattooed on my chest just so I can keep track of it. Reviews of the movie mentioned the same thing I mentioned! If I was Joe my curiosity would be piqued because I’d be wondering how things were different in the movie. If I said there was a remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark God didn’t melt the Nazis’ faces off at the end, would he accuse me of ruining the movie? Nobody ruins anything, ever.

  If he wants to not have it ruined for him, he shouldn’t go down dark corners of the internet where nerds discuss such things. The book came out over twenty years ago and the movie last weekend. What is the statute of limitations on ruining movies for people?

• 9 phil // Mar 10, 2009 at 1:48 pm

  < --Joe don't read this-->

  I liked the movie, but a couple things bothered me:

  The violence was really exaggerated. I never thought of it as being that violent of a story. Maybe it’s just cause film is more visceral so I felt it more, but it never struck me as a particularly bloody story in the book.

  One actress in particular was really stiff, which I don’t blame her for cause she was probably in front of a green screen for 12 hours in a row.

  A lot of the suspense I felt during the movie was “how is Zach Snyder going to do this next scene?” instead of “how will the plot be resolved?” I still don’t think turning this into a movie is any more necessary that making Citizen Kane into a musical would be. It’s a comic that in a lot of ways is about comics and uses storytelling techniques – some borrowed from film – that don’t seem that special when used in a film.

  For some reason, one of my favorite scenes in the comic was the scene where he burns up the map with a lighter, I’m glad that was left in.

• 10 Joe // Mar 10, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  “nobody ruins anything ever” totally phil. Absolutes like this are cool because they are always so true!

  Beth, could you please help me by itemizing for Phil all of the things he either never or always does?

• 11 thadd // Mar 10, 2009 at 2:56 pm

  One of my favorite scenes was seeing that fine babe naked and moaning. I got a bit of a bone.

• 12 beth // Mar 10, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  @ Joe: Oh dang, don’t pull me into this.

• 13 beth // Mar 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm

  @Thadd: I’ll agree that it was hot, but it felt a tad gratuitous.

• 14 prof. fancy pants // Mar 10, 2009 at 6:20 pm

  ok. here it goes. if you haven’t seen the movie don’t read this.

  as a non-casual fan of “the watchmen,” i was more than excited when i saw the still frames of the sets. the pictures gave me some confidence that the movie was going in the right direction. however, when i left the theater, my head was heavy and i felt depressed. here’s why … (remember these are my opinions)

  the opening sequence was brutal. the fight scene punctuated with the comedian being tossed out the window was too graphic, too long. i understand that for those that haven’t read the comic the scene needed to be established, but i felt the length of the scene subtracted some of the mystery, didn’t add greatly to character or plot development, and added unnecessary violence.

  the title sequence (credits or whatever film students call it) was fucking awesome. really. because time is an issue with such a complicated story, adding a sequence that massages the softer parts of the film makers and investors might seem like a waste, but i felt the flashbacks were tasteful and a well done addition.

  the acting at times was awkward and uncomfortable. jake mentioned to me that this could be caused from adhering to the book so tightly. on the other hand it could just be that the actors didn’t have their roles completely developed.

  for instance, night owl is a tubby forty something who happens to don a costume and has the ability to kick some ass. however, he is a giant nerd. he has problems with the ladies and he’s also slightly afraid of rorschach. none of that came through to me, though (except the tubby part, which was cool).

  as for doc manhattan, i feel like they did a good job there, although the spacing of time on mars could have been done more haphazardly to relate how he sees time “all at once.” i didn’t like the omitting of how he got his symbol, but i did like his dick. i’m glad they didn’t cover that up.

  ozymandius? i feel like there was zero character development here and what development there was shaped him as a villain from the get-go. ozymandius is a bad ass all around. he’s brilliant and strong. that’s how he came up with such an awesome plan (thank the hashish) and that’s how he threw the comedian through the window. he’s the only one with super awesome strength, although that’s not established.

  speaking of strength, everyone was too superhero like. kicking people across rooms and shit. breaking bones. that, to me, seems contrary to the story where most of these people (except doc) are normal people with training who like to don costumes.

  the fight scene featuring silk spectre and night owl versus street thugs was ultra violent and unnecessary. not only that, silk spectre would never break a common thugs neck. would she?

  and what the hell is that cat? let’s just throw the cat in there and not use it except to ionize it. if they included the cat at all, then why not have the scene where rorschach is all scared of the cat?

  and the end fight sequence … really? ozymandias letting night owl beat him up repeatedly? c’mon.

  i thought rorschach was done really well. the guys voice and mannerisms were great. not much to complain about anything involving rorschach except a few lines and him actually killing the kidnapper. the original was waaaaaay better. also, the reclamation of his mask and the discontinuity of the prison scene bothered me a bit. again, they could have told more story if there wasn’t a fifteen minute fight scene (that i don’t believe is in the book).

  the sex scene was whatever, although it lost potency (pun intended) by not explicitly demonstrating night owls impotency and how wearing the costume gives him what my people call “macho.” i also hated how the scene to get archie in the sky felt rushed and stumbling. i did like the change in the story where he shot the water barrel, though. although i didn’t like how night owls’ lines were changed and there was coffee only alluded to at the end of the scene (why make the cups?).

  the music (except for march of the valkyries which was comical and kinda lame) was an awesome translation from the comic.

  as for the different ending. it does tie up the story a little better if you omit many of the details that lead up to the original ending. personally, i prefer the o.g. ending as it was more involved and actually made sense how people would be more afraid of the unknown than the known.

  there are also plot holes in the movie that maybe i was sighing and missed or was holding my head and missed.

  all in all, i think i need to try to go see it again sans prejudice and see if i can see it as a good movie, not a translation of one of my favorite stories in the world. my hopes for the DVD is they take all of the other crap they are making (black freighter, etc) and all the things they hopefully filmed and interweave it into a cohesive six hour long epic with BOTH endings (just like clue!). i think only then i will be happy, but only time and repeat viewings will tell.

• 15 jake // Mar 10, 2009 at 6:22 pm

  @Phil: Yes, decency line. As in “decent behavior when deciding to do something that might effect another person’s happiness.” Being told about parts of a movie that you’re really excited to see may not make you unhappy, but if you were to tell me you’re not aware that it bothers many other people, then I’d say “You, sir, are a damned liar!”

  We all know that some (but by no means all) reviews reveal such things, but those people who’d care generally don’t read reviews until after they’ve seen the movie. And reviewers– at least the decent ones– often let the reader know right away that reading further might spoil their movie-going experience. What was especially unfortunate about the way you revealed the information is that it wasn’t even in the context of a review, which Joe might have decided not to read, but was instead hidden within a seemingly-innocent Very Serious Video post.

  Joe knew that things were going to be different in the movie; telling him about something– a major thing– that’s different can’t be defended by claiming it should’ve just piqued his interest in seeing how it’s done. For a fan of the comic, who’s also the type that likes to save the experience for the movie theater, being surprised by learning what they changed– from the movie, not from you– is as valuable as watching how they change it.

  If you told me [SPOILER ALERT!] that Darth Vader was Luke’s father before I saw The Empire Strikes Back, my response wouldn’t be “Hmmm… Very interesting. I wonder how they get to the point of that revelation.” Also, if a re-make of Raiders came out, and you saw it before I did, I’d certainly be upset if you told me how it was different (at least in the first week after its release, which I think is a fair statute of limitations). Again, use of the trusty “spoiler” warning– whether you’re genuinely taking other’s feelings into consideration or just trying to avoid listening to complaints–solves everything.

  Thanks, by the way, for making interesting comments about the movie. I’ll address some of them later.

• 16 phil // Mar 10, 2009 at 8:27 pm

  Victor, I agree with just about everything you said, but I liked it anyways.

• 17 coffee // Mar 15, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  after 300 and now Watchmen, i’m really starting to warm up to Zack Snyder’s “artsy” style

• 18 phil // Mar 17, 2009 at 4:01 pm

  I think the movie should have ended like this!

• 19 jake // Mar 17, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  Yeah, and it should have just been stills of those drawings projected onto the movie screen.

You must log in to comment. I tried it the other way and had to erase 1,000 ads for viagra and mortgages one by one. Register here, it takes less than ten seconds.