I read the graphic novel first, admittedly, but I... well I definitely didn't want to watch the film again, after the first interminable three-hour viewing. The music montages were entirely unnnecessary, acting poor at times, pacing generally awful, and visual style over the top to the point of detracting from the film, never mind the preposterous violence on the screen.
I've always wondered about the logic behind that change. The film otherwise uses the comic as basically a story-board.
I can understand not wanting to talk about psychic powered aliens but you could change it to being bioweapon. The change from the genetically engineered alien creature to framing Dr Manhattan doesn't make any sense; nobody asks why Dr Manhattan would do such a thing (Hint: He wouldn't.) and it kinda dulls the poignancy of him having to leave Earth because he can no longer relate to being human.
Snyder is a bit of a dummy though. His films are all style, no substance, as proven by Sucker Punch which is essentially a feature length music video where, admittedly, he at least he proved he could create an original visual aesthetic.
We'll see what Movie Bob thinks of him when he reboots Superman.
Okay well I have a few things to say and I'd like to preface all of this with a little story about my degree.
I currently take joint honours in English and Drama and in my second year this year I am taking a class called literary transformations. This talks about why texts change over time and how the changes affect the legend. For example we talk about Dracula as the "founding narrative" of the vampire(I realise that it's not the first vampire story, but it is what is academically considered the start of what we know as vampire today) and how that was translated into film several times and discussing the differences between book and film. It has taught me a lot about why films are different from the source materiel, not just because of practical reasons, but because it must be noted that the film is always a different text from the book (Films are considered as texts by the academics), and this entails all sorts of artistic and visionary differences. So I'd like to settle this once and for all. The book is NOT better than the film, it is different! It is the same story explored in different media with different artistic outcomes.
And that's my piece.
(P.S. urrr my grammar and structuring are terrible I know, I just rolled out of bed so please don't pull me up on it)
Well you know, I wouldn't be so hostile if you hadn't started accusing me of not grasping any of the subtlety of the novel and then simply regarded my opinion as me bitching, as well as making assumptions that I was unaware of how this affects other movies as well. If I wanted to talk about how all movie adaptations make changes from the novel, I would have made a topic about that.
I GET what they were trying to go for with Manhattan being the threat instead of squid people, but I felt that it was poorly implemented, and just as big a WTF moment as the squid, except without any of the hints being thrown throughout the movie. More like they pulled it out of their ass at the last minute than something that came as a surprise, but could be understood by putting together the pieces.
The fact that they kept Bubastis in the film seemed to suggest that they were still going to go with the genetic squid monster idea, but then nope, just energy bombs. The changed ending wasn't telegraphed, meaning that those who were expecting the squid were thrown out to left field, and those who hadn't read the book were just left confused.
How would you have implemented it then? If you think they did a poor job, then surely you have some ideas on what could have been done differently.
Like I already said, they kept Bubastis in the movie for the already fans of Watchmen. If she wasn't there then you wouldn't of even known about her since you saw the movie before reading the Novel. Bubastis, I will say, is the only confusing part of the entire movie simply because of that reason...but it does not in any way lessen the end result of the plot unfolding and what was achieved.
Those expecting the squid weren't thrown into left field, nor should anyone be confused. If you paid attention to the movie at all you would have watched the scenes where Ozy explains his plan to Nite Owl and where Dr. H confirms that Ozy was able to achieve what masked Heroes have been trying to achieve. Dr. H might not agree with anything Ozy had done, but he acknowledges that the world is better off living in a state of blissful peace and accepts the burden of being the enemy of Earth.
I think the watchmen movie is a good example of why storytelling techniques that work in one medium don't necessarily translate to other media very well. Zack Snyder made a very technically good adaptation that was as faithful as possible to the comic, and it didn't work. Can't blame him for trying, though.
Ignoring the usual departures from (of all things) Comic Book Logic, I rather like the Watchmen movie.
The plot was relatively suspenseful and coherent, and it used foreshadowing rather well.
As a comic book movie, it's still one of the best I've seen. It doesn't play stupid, and the characters actually act like they belong in their setting, instead of constantly mugging.
Of course, I didn't read the comic. So my opinion on the matter means fuck-all.
Err yeah they did explain the Comedian involvement and he felt remorse because of the overall plan itself since it had involve total destruction and the death of million of people not at the horrible site of the thing at the end.
I read the comicbook first before the film was out and when I did saw it I thought it was good. Sure changes were made but I accept that since sometimes changes had been made because the translation from comic to film doesn't fit too well.
I do got to admit the film is somewhat less violence compare to the comicbook well except for the Manhattan scene in Vietnam and against those two gansters. However film these days are less violences compare to the 90's.
Because my rebuttal is spoilerific as your argument,
comedian found out about the plot to blow up the cities using the reactors. and that cancer was given to the friends of Manhattan. Moloch was murdered because Rorschach was close to figuring stuff out from him. The plot was exactly the same, and the motives are all identical, just the tenty-monster was replaced by an easier-to-believe threat: Dr Manhattan himself. When the book was written it was more relavant to use hostile aliens as a credible world-unifier. Not so much nowadays.
The blood and everything was, I felt, perfectly faithful to the book.
That being said, yes, the novel's better, but the movie is far far from bad. To me anyways
The Comedian is forgotten by the end of the movie. For people who have read the comic, they understand, but for the main movie going audience, it makes things confusing.
However, I do have to comment on this. The Comedian was horrified of the squid monster because the thing was an abomination, an absolutely sick creature created through grotesque genetic engineering and human tissue.
Having a bunch of bombs scare the shit out of the Comedian doesn't make sense. This is a guy who revels in bloodshed, killing people not out of a sense of patriotism, but out of pleasure. He doesn't care who lives or who dies, as long as he gets the joke.
He was profoundly disturbed by HOW Ozymandias was going to gain world peace, not WHY. A bunch of energy bombs versus an ungodly thing born of people's worst nightmares?
I suppose a spoiler bar's redundant now, but eh...
He Wasn't scared by the monster, but the mass murder of New York. The murder of all of Doc's friends, the murders of all the employees. He felt it was wrong, while at the same time realizing it's work, and as a man who not only killed for his country, but thoroughly enjoyed it, he breaks down.
Because my rebuttal is spoilerific as your argument,
comedian found out about the plot to blow up the cities using the reactors. and that cancer was given to the friends of Manhattan. Moloch was murdered because Rorschach was close to figuring stuff out from him. The plot was exactly the same, and the motives are all identical, just the tenty-monster was replaced by an easier-to-believe threat: Dr Manhattan himself. When the book was written it was more relavant to use hostile aliens as a credible world-unifier. Not so much nowadays.
The blood and everything was, I felt, perfectly faithful to the book.
That being said, yes, the novel's better, but the movie is far far from bad. To me anyways
I couldn't help but notice, Soviet, that you have not replied to this gentleman. I bring this up because he is correct.
'That one change', as you say, changes nothing at all. Going by your description of the comic, the Comedian has the exact same role, and is killed for the exact same reason.
The only valid part of your argument is that
because Dr Manhattan left, there would be no reason to unite against him. I disagree. He can manipulate matter and travel through space, I hardly think his absence is sufficient justification for forgetting about him.
And even if that wasn't true, I'm OK with the change because - giant squid monster? There is absolutely no way they could've put that up on screen without destroying the mood of the movie. It's just too silly, too hilarious. It actually sounds like a joke ending, like "Giant squid monster appears, everybody dies". I'm not saying the comic doesn't justify it, just that it would look stupid in film.
Because my rebuttal is spoilerific as your argument,
comedian found out about the plot to blow up the cities using the reactors. and that cancer was given to the friends of Manhattan. The plot was exactly the same, just the tenty-monster was replaced by an easier-to-believe threat.
The blood and everything was, I felt, perfectly faithful to the book.
The russians would have seen the destruction of L.A. and Manhattan and several other cities in other countries tied to either side and would realize what the implied message is. Also, they only think he's living on the moon or something, not off in a galaxy far, far, away creating the life that looks so much like us in the star wars universe.
The russians would have seen the destruction of L.A. and Manhattan and several other cities in other countries tied to either side and would realize what the implied message is. Also, they only think he's living on the moon or something, not off in a galaxy far, far, away creating the life that looks so much like us in the star wars universe.
It is just as possible that the Russians would launch their missiles as soon as they were hit, not paying attention to the fact that the US was attacked also. It's equally possible that they'd believe the United States actually hit their own cities in order to throw suspicion off of them---we have people who think that 9/11 was an inside job, after all. And it's even possible that they wouldn't even care, wanting to create a scapegoat and finding the US as good a target as any in all the chaos.
It COULD work out the way Veidt wanted it to...but it's just as likely to go completely to pieces, so it's not an impeccable plan like it kinda has to be for the story to have quite the same effect.
The logic in Ozzy's plan in the movie is flawed. The world would not Unite against Dr. Manhattan in the even that he blew up, setting aside all differences against what is a bigger enemy. Dr. Manhattan was an American project, an American weapon. To put this in real world terms, this would be like America doing some kind of nuclear research, which goes wrong for seemingly no reason, nuking New York city as well as numerous other major world cities (just roll with it), the world would not blame the weapon and vow to set aside their differences to destroy it, they would blame America. This would not lead to the end of the cold war, this would just escalate it. The bit with the giant squid in the book made sense because it was a creature from another dimension altogether, there was no big nation behind it, it was something nobody understood, and of course the nations of the world would understandably put their differences aside to fight a threat from another dimension. This has always been my main complaint with the movie.
The comic IS much better than the movie. They changed a bunch of things that made me nerd rage, like
How Rorschach killed that kid murderer, because supposedly it was to avoid ignorant fuck tards saying that they ripped off Saw, despite the comic was released in the 80's
I also agree about the ending, I hated how they changed that.
I still liked the movie because as far as comic movies go, it was rather well done and had a larger appeal than simply comic readers.
He hand cuffs the guy to the stove, dumps kerosene all over the house. Tosses the guy a hack saw and says "It'll take too long to cut through the chain". Walks away, sets the place on fire and watches outside.
The squid monster may have made more sense (that is a really weird sentence), but there's no way to put it in a film without it looking absolutely ludicrous.
Also, some of the news reports at the end of the comic suggest that people are coming to the conclusion that it was a one-off freak accident; that no alien invasion is forthcoming. How long would the ceasefire hold up under those conditions?
With Dr. Manhattan as the primary threat, the presence of a nigh-omnipotent being who will periodically intervene if Earth's political/military nature gets too screwed up is still an issue.
There are many different ways of telling any story. I quite enjoyed both, though I do believe the comic is better. My only real criticism of the film is that it's a lot harder to follow without having previously read the comic.
On a comic-film adaptation note, is anyone reading Kick-Ass 2? There is no way in hell that that can be translated into a film, for ratings purposes if nothing else.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
