Poll: 5 reasons why a Watchmen Movie was unnecessary.
- Thread starter Shurikens and Lightning
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I hate to be this guy but the graphic novel was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better. Also a lot of important/cool stuff was left out.
While a Watchmen movie was hardly necessary, neither was the V for Vendetta movie. Nor was The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Spider-Man, although a lot more lighthearted and child-appropriate than a lot of the comics(He didn't accidentally kill that one girl by breaking her neck, stuff like that), also wasn't necessary.
It's really just a way to keep a medium alive. Although poor Alan doesn't want them to be made, they are made, and just think of how many people were introduced to the Watchmen comic, the V for Vendetta comic, all of those things when the movies were made. I know that happened to me on The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and on V for Vendetta.
So it's just a way to first of all: Make money, and second of all: To bring seemingly forgotten things right back to life. I could list things that this happened to for quite a while, there's a lot that these sorts of things happened to.
It's really just a way to keep a medium alive. Although poor Alan doesn't want them to be made, they are made, and just think of how many people were introduced to the Watchmen comic, the V for Vendetta comic, all of those things when the movies were made. I know that happened to me on The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and on V for Vendetta.
So it's just a way to first of all: Make money, and second of all: To bring seemingly forgotten things right back to life. I could list things that this happened to for quite a while, there's a lot that these sorts of things happened to.
This is a purpose nonetheless, my friend, Sparty B.Spartan Bannana said:
I only agreed with on point, that was number 3.
I blew off the guy the minute he called Sin City irrelevant.
I would say that no matter how much it sucked it needed to be made to direct people towards the comic. This is getting Alan Moore good PR and Bad PR at the same time.
But nothing it truly nessesary, you get to breathe air, eat, take a dump, and reproduce, after that is entertainment nessesary? Is the obnoxious review nessesary? Is this forum nesseary? No! Don't be so quick to judge anything as nessesary of unessesary, it was made for the purpose of making money, entertaining, and making the Watchmen more above ground.
Let me put it like this
Watchmen comic: AMAZING, best comic ever made
Watchmen movie in current state: Goood! Its a fine movie, hit over the top but good enough for me to own and sometimes watch.
Watchmen with all the deleted and edited scenes which express relationships between characters more and etc: PHENOMINAL!
It it takes is them to recreate the comic, they need the esstiental scenes from the book, like Rosarch donning his mask, the unsolvable knot, and more Rosarch monolagues etc. That is what would make this movie perfact, it was under to much time constraits to be the perfact film...
If they cut it right and have the scenes, it was soooo nesseary! If anything but living is nessesary!
I would say that no matter how much it sucked it needed to be made to direct people towards the comic. This is getting Alan Moore good PR and Bad PR at the same time.
But nothing it truly nessesary, you get to breathe air, eat, take a dump, and reproduce, after that is entertainment nessesary? Is the obnoxious review nessesary? Is this forum nesseary? No! Don't be so quick to judge anything as nessesary of unessesary, it was made for the purpose of making money, entertaining, and making the Watchmen more above ground.
Let me put it like this
Watchmen comic: AMAZING, best comic ever made
Watchmen movie in current state: Goood! Its a fine movie, hit over the top but good enough for me to own and sometimes watch.
Watchmen with all the deleted and edited scenes which express relationships between characters more and etc: PHENOMINAL!
It it takes is them to recreate the comic, they need the esstiental scenes from the book, like Rosarch donning his mask, the unsolvable knot, and more Rosarch monolagues etc. That is what would make this movie perfact, it was under to much time constraits to be the perfact film...
If they cut it right and have the scenes, it was soooo nesseary! If anything but living is nessesary!
I've actually read the thread and the article in question through, now. As said before, entertainment is a...Wow, I'm having a complete mental failure...It's something that is there to make us happy, it's not necessary...I forget what the word is...
But yeah.
Also, I disagree with this post:
Personally, I would have sat down for 6 hours watching that movie and holding in the want of a urine break, but 3 hours is apparently pushing it for general film audiences these days.
/rant
Also: The music was kick-ass. Just thought I'd say that.
But yeah.
Also, I disagree with this post:
It's actually NOT. The novel and the movie are both very, very similar to each other. Overall, aside from a few things in the movie that had to be changed to make sense, and a few things that were changed, as it is with all film adaptions of things, such as the removal of unnecessary bits and pieces, and the addition of a few more action scenes, watching the movie is quite a bit like reading the comic in itself. Yeah, you don't get the fake news articles and whatnot at the end of every chapter, because that would have taken away from the movie, and they completely removed The Tales of the Black Freighter as far as I can see, but it's all just stuff that wasn't completely necessary and would have caused a movie to drag on for even longer.mackemsniper said:
Personally, I would have sat down for 6 hours watching that movie and holding in the want of a urine break, but 3 hours is apparently pushing it for general film audiences these days.
/rant
Also: The music was kick-ass. Just thought I'd say that.
The Movie was well done. Was it necessary though? No. It was not necessary. But then again, Is any film adaptation of ANY book necessary? I mean just go read the book if you want the story. So no I don't believe it was necessary but I won't shit on it because they made the movie. In fact I woud love to go see it just because it looks like a great film.
But the problem with this logic is that people HATE reading these days. "Why read a 300 page book for a month when I can watch a movie of it for an hour and a half?", to quote one of my friends. I very much would rather read a book, thanks, but the point is that people don't like to read.xxcloud417xx said:
For a deeper comment, I feel that the movie was grandly successful in a number of areas, and yet I can't help but feel that something was amiss.
Thoughout the movie it seemed as though I was always trying to follow too many thematic threads to see where they went. In the serial nature of a comic book, a writer/artist can freely explore new themes every issue even if the series ends up as a single graphic novel. Single movies, even when incredibly long simply seem to be a poor medium for exploring so many seperate ideas.
I can only point to V for Vendetta, another movie adaptation of the same (writer? Artist? one of the two I don't recall) work. The movie made substantial changes to the plot and even altered my perception of many key characters. While I was initially outraged at the changes, when I viewed the movie simply as a movie and not an adaptation of a beloved book I realized that the changes were, in all likelyhood for the better. Rather than explore the diverse themes of the nature of the hero, the potential blunders of conservatism taken too far, the evils and ills of warfare, the docile acceptance of the people and so forth, they delivered a streamlined version where there was little thematic conflict in most areas. At the end of the day, in V for Vendetta one cannot help but root for the murderous V, yet by the end of the saga in the novel I was hopelessly torn. Where V's goals of revenge are essentially in pursuit of the noble cause of freeing Britain fom tyranny in the movie, in the novel he undertakes his mission of vengence simply to plunge the nation into chaos.
When I watched the movie The Watchmen, I had not ever (and still have not) read the graphic novel. Yet, at the final accounting it seemed that only Rorsasch remained a hero, though he is revealed as being essentially powerless. The rest trade in their notions fo heroism for pragmatism and Viedht himself is painted as being nothing more than a well intentioned, well spoken murderous thug. I can't help but think I'm supposed to respect his action and grudgingly regard him as the hero, but I just can't bring myself to like someone who has plotted long and hard to murder tens of millions. Yes, he did it in order to gain world peace, but I can't help but think there had to be a better way.
In short, having never read the novel I can only assume that this problem is the direct result of too close an adaptation, but this is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. Most of the rest of my qualms are momentary at best. The softcore porn sequence springs to mind. But, in spite of these gripes I think the movie succeeded in more ways than not. I'll pick up the graphic novel here in the next few days so I can attempt to better resolve my problems with the themes. It might be a flaw of the novel but I suspect that's not the case.
Thoughout the movie it seemed as though I was always trying to follow too many thematic threads to see where they went. In the serial nature of a comic book, a writer/artist can freely explore new themes every issue even if the series ends up as a single graphic novel. Single movies, even when incredibly long simply seem to be a poor medium for exploring so many seperate ideas.
I can only point to V for Vendetta, another movie adaptation of the same (writer? Artist? one of the two I don't recall) work. The movie made substantial changes to the plot and even altered my perception of many key characters. While I was initially outraged at the changes, when I viewed the movie simply as a movie and not an adaptation of a beloved book I realized that the changes were, in all likelyhood for the better. Rather than explore the diverse themes of the nature of the hero, the potential blunders of conservatism taken too far, the evils and ills of warfare, the docile acceptance of the people and so forth, they delivered a streamlined version where there was little thematic conflict in most areas. At the end of the day, in V for Vendetta one cannot help but root for the murderous V, yet by the end of the saga in the novel I was hopelessly torn. Where V's goals of revenge are essentially in pursuit of the noble cause of freeing Britain fom tyranny in the movie, in the novel he undertakes his mission of vengence simply to plunge the nation into chaos.
When I watched the movie The Watchmen, I had not ever (and still have not) read the graphic novel. Yet, at the final accounting it seemed that only Rorsasch remained a hero, though he is revealed as being essentially powerless. The rest trade in their notions fo heroism for pragmatism and Viedht himself is painted as being nothing more than a well intentioned, well spoken murderous thug. I can't help but think I'm supposed to respect his action and grudgingly regard him as the hero, but I just can't bring myself to like someone who has plotted long and hard to murder tens of millions. Yes, he did it in order to gain world peace, but I can't help but think there had to be a better way.
In short, having never read the novel I can only assume that this problem is the direct result of too close an adaptation, but this is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. Most of the rest of my qualms are momentary at best. The softcore porn sequence springs to mind. But, in spite of these gripes I think the movie succeeded in more ways than not. I'll pick up the graphic novel here in the next few days so I can attempt to better resolve my problems with the themes. It might be a flaw of the novel but I suspect that's not the case.
Well, some of the songs, like Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are a-Changin'" and Nena's "99 Red Balloons" were songs that were mentioned or played in the graphic novel, so they put them in the movie as well. When it comes to "Hallelujah" playing while Dan and Laurie have sex, the lyrics of song kinda matches the situation (there are a number of sexual references in the song, to the point where one version of song is actually dedicated to sex).Altorin said:
is there such a thing as necessary entertainment...
Movies are commodities offered to consumers, if we like it, we get more.
Movies are commodities offered to consumers, if we like it, we get more.
Well, that's a big point of the comic. They're super, but not necessarily heroes. While they do save people, and they have their motives and all that, it is all satire of other "supers". The Comedian is a realistic Captain America, Nite Owl is a lot like Batman...It's all just showing how a hero would apply to the real world.Eclectic Dreck said:
Now, think about it: There aren't many really likable characters as far as the big picture goes, in the real world. Even the "heroes" of the world, both back in the Cold War and today, seem a lot less heroic, more of people who try to do good. Which is exactly what the Watchmen are. They're just representations of the classic heroes we know and love, only applied to a more realistic standpoint as far as emotions, motives, etc. go.
EDIT: Also, god, I'm posting a lot in this thread...
Why is any form of art necessary? Why is anything necessary besides food and shelter? It's because we desire value and to share those values. A group of people found value in the works of Alan Moore's graphic novel and were so moved by it that they wished to share the ideas through a movie. Ideally, isn't that what the media is for? A tool to spread ideas on an almost global scale. For without value we'd still be animals, living our lives predictably following our biological instincts.
Or maybe Snyder is a greedy bastard who just wanted teh moniez.
Or maybe Snyder is a greedy bastard who just wanted teh moniez.
Technically, that's not necessary either. It's just necessary to sustain life. But I'm not gonna start up a philosophical debate here, disregard this, I just really wanted to say it...=DArntor said:
Pretty much that. =P
In that regard the movie may succeed, to an extent. Part of what makes a super hero a super hero IS their unwillingess to compromise with evil, even if it's probably for the greater good (though, admittedly, rarely does that even come up in comic books I'm aware of but I'm hardly well read in that regard). That none of then but Dr. Manhattan actually have super powers is irrelevent (they are clearly endowed with extraordinary levels of strength, agility, intelligence and whatnot, but not to the traditional extent). What consistently annoys me about comic book characters is their motivation.Crazzee said:
Why does Superman, a man of nearly limitless power actually fight to protect the weak rather than exploit them (good ole american values?). Why does no amount of blood ever sate the Punisher's lust for vengence (he can call it what he want's, it's just a bloody vendetta). Why does the Batman continue to hopelessly fight against crime as Gotham crumbles around him? These are the things I'm interested in and yet rarely does the comic medium ever actually explore the reality of why these people do what they do.
In The Watchmen we have a woman who is forced into the costume by the expectations of a parent, a man who finds that ironic heroics are the only way to deal with the world, a man who fights because he is afraid and another who fights because he is driven to madness by the evils of mankind. These are motivations that actually mean something to me - I can empathaize with the struggles to a great extent that leads to a better interaction between myself and the characters.
But, as I said previously, the movie seems to fail in this regard because in each of the characters we have a different theme (or even themes in some cases) being explored. Rather than plumbing the depths of a single theme we are given but scant glimpses before the movie rushes off to the next thread. It is perhaps this reason that the book was called "unfilmable" - The surface story is easy to tell but it is the motivation that drives the characters that seems to make the story special. As I said previously, perhaps the problems I find with the characters may be alleviated when I read the novel (I suspect as much actually), but as it stands they are certainly present and noted in the movie but they were not so distracting as to render the experience anything less than enjoyable.
It's quite literally the best movie I've seen in years. That said, I can only imagine what could have been if that mythical perfect adaptation had been made.