Watchmen film

[TheLeen]

Awesome.

Topic

[Jonathan Capps]

You just *had* to go and watch it before everyone else, didn’t you?

[TheLeen]

Absolutely!

Here’s what I think.

Film vs book:

Very true to the book! The dialogue is there, the music is there, the details in the background are there (so I guess I will watch the film again… and again… and again… until I’ve picked up all the lovely details). Rorschach’s journal – lovely. Rorschach’s “hurm” – spot-on.

Well, there had to be changes. Some will complain. But I agree with most of them.
Side storylines had to go (pirates, film crew, newstand, psychologist’s home life – although most of them are either mentioned or the characters briefly shown) and the main story had to be shortened of course. As it is, the film is over 3 hours long (the director’s cut is said to be 4 hours). The small changes include, for instance, that Dr. Manhattan does not take the detour to the military site to pick up the photo of Jon and Janey, but rather that he carried it with him to the interview in the first place, before beaming to Mars. Stuff I can absolutely live with. Sex and fighting scenes seeemed slightly longer than in the book.
There is one big change to the book – the squid. So Adrian’s destruction isn’t blamed on a giant brain but on Dr. Manhattan. I would have liked to SEE the squid, but at the same time, the Manhattan thing makes sense, too, maybe even more than the original, or at least that’s what I think right now. It just works… especially when they say “people will behave as long as they feel Dr. Manhattan is watching them”.

I especially liked:

The actors were good. Especially Rorschach and Dan Dreiberg were just right.
The eighties look of fashion, make-up, and jewellery was there, without overdoing it.
The news collage in the beginning.
Eyecandy.
We watched the German (dubbed) version, and both the translation and the German voice track seemed okay enough.

Not so much though:

Everyone looked 10 years too young and a little too sexy.
Old and young Sally were played by the same actress – so she really didn’t look much like 67…
the score was… well, it wasn’t bad, but it left no impression on me at all, and I don’t have the feeling that I want to buy it, so there’s at the very least potential wasted there.

I’ll watch it again, and then in English, and then the director’s cut, and then… uh… yeah you get the idea. I liked it!

[Seb Patrick]

Seeing it tomorrow, but in the meantime :

http://www.noisetosignal.org/2009/03/watchmen-the-movies-that-never-were

[TheLeen]

Oooooh, excellent!

[ChrisM]

>Side storylines had to go (pirates,…

That one will be back. I think they’re bringing out a DVD especially for it. And they might combine it with the longer version of the film.

I haven’t been to the cinema since The Incredible Hulk, and I’d really like to see this.
(Come to think of it, there are a few films I’d love to see this year.)

I’ve heard they might bring back the longer version to the cinema later too, but I’m happy to sit through the shorter version in the cinema and if I like it I’ll likely buy the longer version on DVD. (Once the price has gone down a bit.)

[Jonathan Capps]

Well, I thought that was pretty damn good. I never expected it to even begin to touch the quality of the book, so I’ll take what we got gladly.

In the main, the performances were fantastic (I honestly couldn’t imagine a more perfect Rorschach, Dan or Jon) and even the maligned Veidt worked well for me, even if he was played and presented too much like the obvious villain from the start.

Most of the problems lay in Snyder’s directing, though. Far too many overly gratuitous moments, the worst being that horrific sex scene, but I thought the slo-mo bits were fine, and it makes sense to use them when you’re so bent on recreating frames from the book as they give you a lingering snap shot. It wasn’t perfectly executed, but it was mainly fine.

The new ending was also fine. Probably the neatest way they could’ve altered it as it instantly lets them cut out the island/squid plot and still present an almost identical ‘event’. It does change the overall moral of the conclusion, though, as having people being forced to get along because Big Bad Jon is watching is a LOT different to solidarity in preparation for future alien attacks.

I think anyone wanting to watch this movie HAS to read the book, though, as I can’t imagine it being nearly as satisfying without the ability to fill in the gaps with the story. The directors cut might be much more satisfying, but the only way you can possibly get past the lack of real depth in the film is to absorb it all from the book first.

[ChrisM]

I read the book a few years ago, so I had forgotten a lot (although reading reviews here and there has jogged my memory.) I was hoping to buy the book at some point have a reread before going to the film.

I was wondering since it isn’t all that fresh in my memory, would it be best to watch the film first, save spoilage? From your (Capps) review, maybe it would be best to do the read first after all. I doubt it makes much difference, I’ve got a basic idea of what happens anyway.

I’m hoping to catch it on Imax soon. I don’t normally go there (local cinema is usually good enough for me.. and it’s cheaper) but since it’s my birthday soon (and the friend I’m going with has a birthday close to mine) I figured, why not?

[Phil]

Uncollected:

+ I’d say that nearly every significant change to the source material was made for the better. (I’m sure I’ll itemize a lot of them below, but I did feel that this was worth mentioning in a general sense as well.)

+ Rorschach’s mask was unbelievably well-animated.

– No origin story for the mask. While I was not expecting (and certainly not demanding) a complete adherence to all of the content of the book, I think that his mask is an explanation that the audience deserves. (And it would have taken up, what, a minute of the audience’s time?)

+ They guy who plays Dan Drieberg looked so much like Dave Gibbons’ representation that it was fucking spooky.

– Drieberg becomes far too “heroic” when he’s in his Nite Owl gear at last. In the book I always felt that he was more helpful than heroic…still sort of nerdy and not quite aware of himself. (Serving coffee and playing jazz music for those he rescued from the tenement, for example, caused me to read his dialogue as someone with great intentions, but a comically-warped execution.) In the film he puts on his Nite Owl costume but he essentially becomes Batman instead.

+ Rorschach’s growl did not grate with me as much as I had thought it would…

– …but it did render him almost incomprehensible at times. I felt bad for anyone in the theater who hadn’t read the novel first.

+ The Dr. Manhattan origin story was a perfect example of trimming the right things in order to create a stronger narrative.

– Buuuuuut it probably shouldn’t have been given to us all in one huge 20-minute chunk. In the comic book (graphic novel, whatever) that works because it occupies one entire issue. The story was given to us (and crafted in) installments. We expect stops and starts. In the film, we basically just get derailed from the main plot for Dr. Manhattan to silliloquize about what it is that made him him. And you know what? We shouldn’t care. At least Rorschach’s origin story fit better into the natural flow of the film; Doc’s was just him turning to the camera and saying, “Before we go any further, gentle audience, let’s get to know each other.”

+ Rorschach’s origin featured at least one major change…mainly the manner in which he executes the young girl’s kidnapper. And I think that change was perfect. In fact, while I was watching, I was hearing Rorschach breathing heavy, watching him shake, feeling him lose his cool, and I was thinking that this upcoming scene wasn’t going to work; Rorschach was in no state to calmly leave the saw within reach of the kidnapper and set the place ablaze; this scene was going to fail, because the acting was pulling off in a different direction. So I was happy to see that followed through.

+ The ending, as well, was a positive change. I won’t spoil it, but it was much tighter narrative-wise (something lacking else where in a lot of the film) and much more rewarding a solution than “I had some artists make a big squid and I dropped it on the city.”

– But the ending doesn’t stop there…it goes on to the New Frontiersman offices…which you’ll remember from the novel, but not from anywhere else in the film. We don’t know these characters, we don’t even know what type of publication this is meant to be. For all the fresh audience members know, this is a reputable news journal. It was never assigned a personality by the film, and so it has none, and the implications of Rorschach’s journal being published (at least potentially) don’t register properly. Without the New Frontiersman playing any role whatsoever in the film that preceded it, this should have been cut, or reworked substantially. Basically one dumbass giant squid was cut from the film, but another appeared in its place.

– The girl who played the younger Silk Spectre is kind of a shitty actress. She was the weak link. It’s okay because for 70% of her screen time she keeps her mouth shut, and for a good long while we get to look at her naked boobies bouncing around, but man, when she has a scene with her mother, or a confrontation with Jon, you really get a strong idea of her limitations.

– The film had serious pacing and structural issues. I’m not saying that it was too long, per se, but it was too long for what it was. With a runtime like that, it needed to make better use of it, and succeed more at keeping the audience informed of what was going on. Toward the end of the film, during Laurie’s memories of the Comedian, I thought to myself, “Oh yeah, the Comedian. We haven’t heard about him in about an hour.” Which should not have been the case. We shouldn’t get a big chunk of Comedian at first and nothing else until the end; spread it out. Keep the audience reminded. Give it to us in slivers, not in bricks. Ditto Jon’s origin. It was a beautifully-edited sequence, but Jesus Christ, it broke up the movie and stopped things dead.

– Also, Rorschach hardly comes off as the “detective” figure in this mystery at all. By simply having Dan visit Veidt instead, it allows Rorschach to drop out of view completely for much too long. Especially evident when he begins narrating again after not having appeared for a long stretch of time. You think, “Oh, right…he’s the one putting this all together…even if the movie is not providing me with any evidence of such.”

+ It was filled with excellent little moments, though. The soundtrack was great, and the opening title sequence was a piece of art in itself. In fact, the film needed more things of that nature…little, well-paced trollops through the past…and fewer big slowdown centerpieces.

+ Brilliant work by the guy who played the Comedian. MVP in my book.

– The film desperately needed a Hollis. What we got in the film doesn’t count. We needed a human connection to the film that we could lose 2/3 of the way through so that it can impact us the way it impacts Dan.

– I think the guy who played Nixon (and whomever sculpted that glorious nose of his) thought they were making a cartoon.

EDIT: Oh, I should also mention that I really liked it, despite my (valid, IMHO) criticisms of it. I would not discourage anyone from seeing it. One of the friends I went with had never read the book and I intended to pick his brains after the film but he scampered off to bang his high-school girlfriend. Shame, I would like ot have gotten his opinion.

[Seb Patrick]

I actually agree with *almost* every point, there, Phil.

You’re right about the awkward structuring and I have my thoughts on why this was the case, but I’ll save them for the review.

[Phil]

>I?ll save them for the review.

And there I was, coming to this thread, wondering, specifically, “Why hasn’t Seb said anything yet?”

I’ll be excited to read your review. Your NTS piece of the previous attempts was excellent.

[pfm]

Seen it in IMAX today and was blown away, for the most part (though the sheer volume IMAX throws at you makes that an inevitability for almost every film!). I’m not sure The Dark Knight has been gazumped but what Snyder has delivered is way beyond what I expected and, probably, more than what we deserve! We’re not worthy of the level of balls (and blue penises) his Watchmen has.

I didn’t know the story at all, and have waited a good while stopping myself from reading it so I could go into this fresh, so maybe that worked to my advantage, seeing as most of the criticism seems to be coming from nitpicking fanboys (along with those opposed to the aforementioned peni, and the sex and violence, both of which I thought were great!).

I can’t believe it’s like 65% at Rotten Tomatoes. It deserves MUCH more than that. Though it’s gonna take plenty of viewings to take it all in, that’s for sure. I can’t wait for the proper cut on Blu-ray. I’m guessing some of the issues the Watchmen ‘oh it affected my life so much as a teen because, look at me, I’m like the real-life incarnation of Rorschach, don’t you see my mask??’ hardcore have with Snyder’s vision will be quelled by the director’s cut.

> Old and young Sally were played by the same actress – so she really didn?t look much like 67?

At first I thought they were the same actress too but Malin Akerman plays Laurie (the young Silk Spectre) and Carla Gugino plays Sally Jupiter, with plenty of age makeup (she still looked pretty young though). They made them look very alike in the film.

[TheLeen]

> At first I thought they were the same actress too but Malin Akerman plays Laurie
> (the young Silk Spectre) and Carla Gugino plays Sally Jupiter, with plenty of age
> makeup (she still looked pretty young though). They made them look very alike in
> the film.

??!

Yeah I was talking about old and young Silk Spectre I, not Malin Akerman, whose character’s name was not “Sally” either.

Carla Gugino is 37, nowhere near 70, and it SHOWS.

[pfm]

Sorry, I didn’t properly read what you’d put. Of course you didn’t mean Laurie and Sally being the same actress.

[Phil]

It beat Dark Knight for me. I felt that DK was at least slightly overrated. Watchmen, on the other hand, did a fucking fantastic job of overcoming a mountain of fan skepticism.

It basically boils down to this, for me: I saw DK once, and while I’d probably watch it again if it were on TV, I won’t be going out of my way for it. Watchmen I already want to own in its extended version with heaps of commentary and featurettes and whatever the fuck else they want to show me.

Watchmen winszzz.

>Carla Gugino is 37, nowhere near 70, and it SHOWS.

True, but I am perfectly happy accepting her as a GMILF.

[TheLeen]

> I am perfectly happy accepting her as a GMILF.

I am unhappy with her fake hairline and unsufficiently wrinkled face.

Especially as everything else was so carefully crafted into being visually perfect.

[Phil]

>fake hairline and unsufficiently wrinkled face.

Kryten is horny.

[Seb Patrick]

http://noisetosignal.org/2009/03/watchmen

[Seb Patrick]

Oh, but there were some things in your discussion that I didn’t mention, Phil, so I may go through some of them. Especially this :

The film desperately needed a Hollis. What we got in the film doesn?t count. We needed a human connection to the film that we could lose 2/3 of the way through so that it can impact us the way it impacts Dan.

I was largely trying to refrain from spoilers, but I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. Hollis’ death is the most upsetting bit of the book, but it’s absolutely crucial to Dan’s character development. It’s the moment that drives him to actually follow through on accompanying Rorschach through to the end – the moment that reawakens the fire of the sense of injustice that burns inside him.

[Phil]

Wow, Seb. That was an excellent review. I don’t disagree with a single word of it, but I would give it another star at the end. I think, for me, the stuff done exactly right is so deserving of praise whereas the stuff done wrong is largely (but always) pretty easy to overlook and move on.

Wait…actually I’ll disagree about the choice of the Cohen track. In fact, I loved that scene; I thought it was beautiful in all of its ugliness. Snyder is being understandably criticized for his handling of the scene, but I actually fell in love with it.

I wish I had a more intelligent defense of it than that…but I can’t find my words right now. It’s just a difference of opinion, that’s all. On the whole, that was one of the best writeups I’ve seen. (Ebert’s is great, too, if only for the absolute astonishment he expresses over how much the film manages to impress him.)

[Seb Patrick]

>I think, for me, the stuff done exactly right is so deserving of praise whereas the stuff done wrong is largely (but always) pretty easy to overlook and move on.

I was veering towards this (going into the review, I wasn’t sure whether it was going to be 3 or 4 stars), but in the end it was the fact that for all the lovely bits, the film simply didn’t convince me of its NEED to exist that made me drop the extra star. But then, I don’t place anything like as much stock in star ratings and the like that I used to.

Ta, though!

[Phil]

D’oh. Replace my “(but always)” with “(but NOT always)”.

I’m a butt.

[Phil]

I was interested in re-reading Ebert’s review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997) so I navigated back to his site and discovered that he was compelled to return to the theater to see it a second time, and then wrote an extended blog entry about the larger implications of certain aspects of the film, as he sees them:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus.html

Not often at all that a film–at least, a current film–gets this kind of reaction from Ebert. It’s really fun to see him getting this excited.

[Seb Patrick]

See, but what he’s done there is just make me remember a much, much better film that also happened to have Hendrix’s version of All Along The Watchtower in it ;-)

[Phil]

>what he?s done there is just make me remember a much, much better film

Certainly a fair comment, but I think this is one of those films that will find a lot of hearts softening as time goes by. Give it a year, or two years, or five, or certainly ten, and people will stop comparing it to what the film could have been (or, arguably, should have been) and judge it instead for what it is, on its own, apart from the original book or preconceived notions.

I think it will be regarded much more fondly down the line. People will view it many times, start making allowances, and the general consensus (while already impressively positive) will increase. So sayeth Phil.

>also happened to have Hendrix?s version of All Along The Watchtower in it ;-)

Was that not the Hendrix version in the film? I’ve only seen it once (going again this weekend) but in my memory it was Hendrix. *checks soundtrack album* He’s also on the soundtrack, apparently. What was used in the film?

(Related soundtrack question: “Me and Bobby McGee” was in the film? What the hell scene was that in?)

[Seb Patrick]

No, it was the Hendrix version in Watchmen. And in Withnail. That’s what I was saying ;-)

[Tarka Dal]

>> The new ending was also fine. Probably the neatest way they could?ve altered it as it instantly lets them cut out the island/squid plot and still present an almost identical ?event?. It does change the overall moral of the conclusion, though, as having people being forced to get along because Big Bad Jon is watching is a LOT different to solidarity in preparation for future alien attacks.

This.

I’m in two minds about what I saw last night. I’m usually sceptical and dismissive of comic book fans, or any fans, getting to prissy about their precious original work (see the new Star Trek), yet last night I kind of found myself being just that.

All the more confusing since I only finished reading the book on Wednesday and in all honesty I can’t say I was all that blown-away by it.

I tried to judge the movie with a clear mind, purely as a cinema-goer, but found myself thinking if you haven’t read the book then you haven’t got a batshit chance in hell of knowing what’s going on. I know I would have applauded the visual imagery, I know I would have been impressed by a movie trying to do something different. I’m pretty sure I’d have wanted to go a 2nd time (and I probably will).

One element that really was missing for me was the build-up to armageddon. It seemed a very secondary issue, used only when it was convenient. In the novel it turns the screw slowly, but persistently forcing everybody into a stance, driving society’s attitudes and as a knock-on effect those of the crimebusters.

Personally I think where the film fails is in striving to hard be the book on screen. Almost everything that survived the transition was presented in the same order and with an insistence that it had to look authentic (presumably wary of the reaction it might recieve if it didn’t). That for me did most of the damage. A book’s a book, a film’s a film. If they truly wanted to make something that would have a huge impact critical, be worthy of the book’s reputation then to hell with such lavish replication and duplicate only the themes and ideas, even if this means pulling to pieces and re-building the novel’s structure from the ground up.

I’ve not thought this through, but how about the very first scene being the announcement of Dr. Manhattan. That would had immediately plunged the virgin film audience into an alternate 1985* with the thump that event deserves. From their we could have skipped back and forth interweaving the characters histories accordingly.

* – Where John DeLorean was a really successful businessman.

[Andrew]

Saw the film today – finally! – and I was very, very pleased with it. Not Dark Knight good, and arguably hard to follow in the first half-hour without a grounding in the comics, but pleasingly ambitious.

> having people being forced to get along because Big Bad Jon is watching is a LOT different to solidarity in preparation for future alien attacks.

I actually disagree with this. While Jon was American by birth, I always felt – in the comic and the film – that the USa appropriated him. As presented, he’s so far away from humanity that any affiliation to a country is taken only to suit his own choices. What he represents is so ‘other’, so ‘alien’, that he’s as good a ‘threat to humanity’ as an alien invasion. Better, actually, since he’s palpable – he requires no suspension of disbelief. He’s a proven fact, and now a proven threat.

It’s not that he’s watching and has our best interests at heart; it’s not that he’s seen as waiting to spank us if we’re naughty. That, I agree, would be a very different point. But the world thinks he’s gone rogue, decided we are all expendable and might return at ay time to arbitrarily kill us all. Which is close enough to the ‘aliens which may invade at any time’ thing for me.

I think it’s an improvement – thematically close enough, and with an added sense of sacrifice and humanity. I’ll take it.

The losses – things like the full Rorschach back-story – I hope to see in the director’s cut. I didn’t feel the 2:42 running time at all (it ain’t over three hours, myth-makers!) and could have stood a few more minutes quite happily. Structurally, it’s a bit of a mess – it certainly could have used a ‘how film’s work’ pass in the edit, top separate from the comic books’ shape – but I’ll accept that for the greater good of being genuinely interesting and unusual.

I may be the only person who thought Silk Spectre II was well acted. I find Moore’s women often badly written, with Laurie a case in point, and found the film incarnation pleasingly lessened on her creative flaws. I may also be the only advocate for the in-flight sex scene, which I found so utterly dripping in irony – using ‘Hallelujah’ to underscore the triumph over impotence?! – as to be satirical rather than literal. (Much in the same way the film uses extremes of violence and action.)

It didn’t get to the heart of the book’s political points as much as it might – and the ‘WWIII’ threat was as poorly convincing as it was in the source material (I think Moore struggles to demonstrate, sometimes, as so relies on ‘telling’ rather than ‘showing’). Oh, and their Nixon sucked – should just hired Frank Langella. But otherwise, I had a great time at the flicks. The decision to make the book’s schlubby heroes ACTUAL heroes made total creative sense to me.

Not a bold enough film to be too heavily lauded – it’s too slavish, and too literal, to be considered a great adaptation rather than a faithful one – it’s nevertheless a film worth looking at twice, discussing and dissecting.

[TheLeen]

> (it ain?t over three hours, myth-makers!)

Yeah, I realised that later. It was well over 3 hours for us because there were two breaks of 15 minutes or so each, a regular one and second one due to some technical problem.

[pfm]

> I may also be the only advocate for the in-flight sex scene, which I found so utterly dripping in irony – using ?Hallelujah? to underscore the triumph over impotence?! – as to be satirical rather than literal.

That’s EXACTLY right! It’s definitely satirical. I found it funny in a good way. Though I think just about everyone is pissed off with Hallelujah because it’s quickly becoming one of the most over-used tracks (any version), I wouldn’t mind if I never heard it again!

I can’t wait to see the longer cut. Maybe the fanboys will stop whining about the history of the mask not being in there.

[Andrew]

So glad it wasn’t just me…!

> it?s quickly becoming one of the most over-used tracks (any version)

Well of course the American makers aren’t likely to be especially aware of ITV’s X-Factor use of the track at the end of last year…

> > (it ain?t over three hours, myth-makers!)

> Yeah, I realised that later.

Take the blue-bottom spanking you deserve and live with it. :-p

[Seb Patrick]

>I find Moore?s women often badly written

Define “often”? ‘Cos for every Laurie I’ll give you a Halo Jones, a Mina Murray, an Abby Arcane and… ooh, well, two or three in Top Ten…

[ChrisM]

>I find Moore?s women often badly written

I thought Halo Jones, and the other female characters in The Balad of Halo Jones were well written. Having read it relatively recently (over a year ago now actually) it struck me as something Joss Whedon might have written. I’m referring more to the character writing and humour rather than the overall plot. I think wacky stuff like the ‘rat bomb’ might be a bit too out there for Whedon.

That doesn’t contradict you’re point though, since ‘often’ doesn’t = ‘always’. Some of his female characters have struck me as rather contrary, changeable (probably not the right words I’m looking for.) I probably haven’t read enough Moore to judge though.

Still yet to see the film, but I’ll hopefully be catching it on Imax at Waterloo next weekend (or later depending on my mate’s birthday schedule. ;) ).

[ChrisM]

Or what Seb said. ;)
I forgot Mina Murray. A great character.

[Andrew]

> Define ?often?? ?

Mina Murray? Patronising and severe and entrenched in a kind of era-specific convention that all her male counterparts manage to break free from. Doesn’t work for me at all.

The heavily-patronised women in From Hell? The easily-manipulated alternate-protagonist of V For Vendetta? Oh, and the Lost Girls? Sorry, no – the man has genuine genius in his bloodsteam, but he’s not perfect. His writing for female leads, and his emotional capability (over intellectual dissection) remain paramount flaws for me. (Which is not to say I’ve read everything he’s written so – as Chris says – often doesn’t equal always.)

Sorry.

[ChrisM]

Mina Murray? Patronising and severe and entrenched in a kind of era-specific convention that all her male counterparts manage to break free from.

I quite liked that aspect to the character, although I agree it doesn’t make her all that likeable as a person. And whilst severe, she seems a stronger character than a lot of the women often stereotyped in Victorian stories.

She certainly does something rather non era-specific the second book. (Well at least as far as far as the Victorians are often depicted, which granted isn’t that accurate.)
I wasn’t a fan of what they did with the character in book 2 though. Not for showing another aspect to the character, it’s just what they did seemed rather cheap to me.

[Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc]

I read the Watchmen book a few days ago. When it wasn’t focusing on the women, it was pretty good. But Alan Moore’s women in Watchmen do seem a bit, well…As far as I could tell, one of them was there to be raped (or just in love with a violent psychopath, maybe. Did not like that plot thread at all, what with the implication that “she was asking for it, so it was totally okay”) and one of them was there not so much to actually do anything on her own as to inspire the men to actually do all the heroing. I even wrote a little bit about it, in a rambly and loose sort of way, in my LiveJournal.

I can’t really speak for all his other work, but I don’t think Watchmen represents Moore at his best when it comes to writing female characters. I don’t know if the film is any better about this, however, not having seen it.

[TheLeen]

> Take the blue-bottom spanking you deserve and live with it. :-p

I’ll remind you next time we meet!

[Tonguetied]

Breathtaking film; excellent story, actors, sets and visuals. No restrictions. The whole look of the film breathed realism. The pacing was perfect and the plot of course intriguing, there was never a dull moment.Not a generic superhero movie like Spiderman and Batman. A defining move in cinema. The most important comic book ever to be adapted to the silver screen.

[Seb Patrick]

>Did not like that plot thread at all, what with the implication that ?she was asking for it, so it was totally okay?

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahthat was totally not the implication.

Watchmen isn’t a particularly female book, but then, it’s an examination of an almost entirely non-female genre. So, there’s that. At the opposite end of the scale, he wrote Halo Jones and Promethea.

There seems to have been this movement in recent years among certain sections of online comics fandom to paint Moore as some kind of secret misogynist. If you know anything about the man or his life or have ever actually heard him speak on the subject, it’s patently ridiculous. I don’t really want to get into the argument here, because I got tired of it back when it was happening on scans_daily, but… yeah. People basically look at all the well-known stuff that’s been adapted for films – From Hell, LOEG, Watchmen, V – and go “oh, there’s rape in all of those”, and assume that all his work is like that. Despite the fact that he’s written a fuck of a sight more than that. But all over the internet there are bloggers who’ve only ever read a couple of his works who extrapolate that across his entire career. I mean, this is a man who wrote essays attacking the entire comics industry for its treatment of women. Who is heavily influenced by the likes of Angela Carter. Who proudly describes himself as a feminist. But being a feminist doesn’t mean you have to shy away from having bad things happen to your female characters from time to time (and it is “from time to time”, this is why I quibbled with Andrew’s use of the word “often” – two or three books in a thirty year career does NOT equal “often”), especially when – shock horror! – bad things happen to the male characters as well.

I also think there’s more to Laurie in the book (not the film) than people tend to give Moore credit for, but… eh.

[Andrew]

Being a feminist doesn’t necessarily make you good at writing women, though, any more than being in favour of wheelchair access automatically makes you good at writing for the disabled.

I’m not really aware of the discussions you’re talking about – this was just as personal reaction – and I don’t consider his work at all misogynistic. I find his use of rape as a story point in Watchmen clumsy, but intelligently and honestly meant. I just haven’t found him very good at writing female characters. I’m not talking about how they’re used or what they represent. Just base-line characterisation.

In the seven or eight things I’ve read of his – only the high-profile and obvious stuff, I admit – I’ve felt the same way. Which is enough of a hit-rate to say “I find Moore?s women often badly written” – since that’s not a statement about the man’s entire career so much as my experience OF that career. Nor was it a statement about what HAPPENED to the female characters, which is how it seems to have been taken. I have no issue with how they’re ‘treated’ in the narrative, only how they’re built, since I wholly agree that flaws and bad things have to be part of every character’s existence.

[cliff]

Silk Spectre……MMMMM

[ChrisM]

Just booked my tickets for Friday! (BFI IMAX, near Waterloo.)

Unfortunately all the central seats are already taken, but I’m sure the view will be ok.

[Seb Patrick]

>Silk Spectre??MMMMM

The fact that this comment comes immediately after the discussion Andrew and I were having is fantastic. I’d call it a spectacular piece of deliberate irony, but I suspect it’s not ;-)

[Tarka Dal]

After the film, waiting at the tram-stop, I heard a bunch of students ‘discussing’ what they had just seen. This mostly seemed to involve whether the fight scenes were any good, the size of the explosions and whether it was better than the Bourne films.

[ChrisM]

I saw it today at IMAX (well actually yesterday at the time I write this.) I had my doubts considering the mixed reviews, but I largely liked it. Some of the dialogue seemed a bit stilted, (but that might be the result of applying the comic dialogue directly to the film.) Thought provoking, amazing looking… the pros certainly outweigh the cons.

[si]

I have not seen this movie. Am I a freak?

[Ian Symes]

Yes, but not for that reason.

[si]

You are a comfort.

[si]

Sorry, I meant to type ‘cunt’, clearly.

[ChrisM]

Ultimate pants edition.

[Author]

Replies