Batman-Online.com

When did anyone first read this? i read it 27 years ago when i was 5 and it blew me away as it became one of my faves then later bought the graphic novel tradepaperback when  i was 14 and became my fave graphic novel.

I first read it when I was about 22. I'd cut my teeth on post-Watchmen comics so the fullness of Watchmen's innovations and originality were kind of lost on me. Still, it wasn't a total loss. I could enjoy the characters and the layering of the story even if I wasn't wowed by how fresh and unique those things were.

I know the OP made this thread years ago, but they read it when they were 5, and also understood it?

lolwut?

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 22 Sep  2019, 17:57
I know the OP made this thread years ago, but they read it when they were 5, and also understood it?

lolwut?

LOL! :D

This show is one and done. They got woke. Then they went broke.

I read Watchmen eight years ago, a year after I saw the film. Admittedly, I wasn't a fan of the film adaptation because I led myself to believe it was meant to be a typical action blockbuster. Suffice to say, I was ignorant.

I do remember coming across some lunatic on YouTube who ranted against the Snyder adaptation because he changed the alien squid plotline with Ozymanias framing Doctor Manhattan for wiping out millions of people. You can tell how unhinged this guy is by calling Watchmen "his bible".

I, for one, believe both versions are valid. At the end of the day, Ozymandias saw that engineering a hoax at the expense of millions of people was a necessary call to arms for the human race to stop destroying itself. The film doesn't change that. Besides, it's possible that Snyder chose to have Doctor Manhattan framed because it was an economical decision, in terms of special effects.

However, in terms of which version of Watchmen that I prefer, I still prefer the comic. It has certain details that I appreciate more, such as an overweight and past-his-prime Nite Owl compared to his fitter film counterpart, the large panel of Ozymandias staging his own assassination attempt, the moment how Rorschach lost his humanity when he dealt with the child killer as opposed to the film's more graphic interpretation. It's the sort of stuff that's deemed "unfilmable" which makes the comic a more enriching experience, in my opinion.

I'm still curious about Snyder's three hour director's cut, though.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  1 Jun  2020, 03:40
I read Watchmen eight years ago, a year after I saw the film. Admittedly, I wasn't a fan of the film adaptation because I led myself to believe it was meant to be a typical action blockbuster. Suffice to say, I was ignorant.

I do remember coming across some lunatic on YouTube who ranted against the Snyder adaptation because he changed the alien squid plotline with Ozymanias framing Doctor Manhattan for wiping out millions of people. You can tell how unhinged this guy is by calling Watchmen "his bible".

I, for one, believe both versions are valid. At the end of the day, Ozymandias saw that engineering a hoax at the expense of millions of people was a necessary call to arms for the human race to stop destroying itself. The film doesn't change that. Besides, it's possible that Snyder chose to have Doctor Manhattan framed because it was an economical decision, in terms of special effects.

However, in terms of which version of Watchmen that I prefer, I still prefer the comic. It has certain details that I appreciate more, such as an overweight and past-his-prime Nite Owl compared to his fitter film counterpart, the large panel of Ozymandias staging his own assassination attempt, the moment how Rorschach lost his humanity when he dealt with the child killer as opposed to the film's more graphic interpretation. It's the sort of stuff that's deemed "unfilmable" which makes the comic a more enriching experience, in my opinion.

I'm still curious about Snyder's three hour director's cut, though.

I rather admire Snyder's Watchmen film (director's cut, natch). I really only have one quibble with it, in fact.

"I'm not a Republic serial villain" vs. "I'm not a comic book villain"

One of those lines is a logical metaphor for Ozymandias to speak in, serving textual and subtextual purposes.

The other line is a completely illogical metaphor for Ozymandias to speak in as it borders on the very self-parody that the Snyder had gone far out of his way to avoid during the rest of the movie. I can halfway excuse it because "Republic serial" was far outmoded in 2009 when the movie came out and a big chunk of the target audience wouldn't have understood what that meant without Google. But it's still distracting.

But I weigh that creative choice against alternative visions for the movie, some of which advocated moving the story into "the modern day". On that basis, I'm prepared to look the other way on one questionable line considering how amazing the rest of Snyder's film is.

In the final analysis, perhaps the REAL problem with the film is that it was made about ten years too soon.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  1 Jun  2020, 05:28
I rather admire Snyder's Watchmen film (director's cut, natch). I really only have one quibble with it, in fact.

"I'm not a Republic serial villain" vs. "I'm not a comic book villain"

One of those lines is a logical metaphor for Ozymandias to speak in, serving textual and subtextual purposes.

The other line is a completely illogical metaphor for Ozymandias to speak in as it borders on the very self-parody that the Snyder had gone far out of his way to avoid during the rest of the movie. I can halfway excuse it because "Republic serial" was far outmoded in 2009 when the movie came out and a big chunk of the target audience wouldn't have understood what that meant without Google.

There you go. Modern day audiences wouldn't have picked up what the term "Republic serial villain" meant. Honestly, I didn't even fully know what it meant at the time either.

For better or worse, Ozymandias referring to the comic book villain cliche is more universally understood for the film going audience. The only negative by doing that is Snyder might've gotten some flack from comic book fans who may have believed he was dismissing the genre.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  1 Jun  2020, 05:28
In the final analysis, perhaps the REAL problem with the film is that it was made about ten years too soon.

Looking at how the bloggers make Snyder to be this bogeyman nowadays, I strongly doubt it. In fact, I'd go far to say Watchmen would've been torn apart if it were made today.

I used to be rather critical of the guy's work myself, but as time goes on, the hyperbole has gotten so out of control to the point I'm start to reevaluate my opinions of most of his films.

I've seen ridiculous things aimed at Snyder, of accusations that he's a rape fetishist because he showcased scenes of the Comedian attempting to rape Sally Jupiter/Silk Spectre I, and how Silk Spectre II's costume in the film is oversexualised compared to the comic. Unsurprisingly, these comments are made by feminists with an axe to grind.

I say it's all ridiculous. The Comedian/Sally Jupiter scene was written by Moore. If Snyder's guilty of anything, it's for adapting that scene from the comic, and even then, the film version is not even as uncomfortable as the comic, with Sally begging and all.

And as for Snyder oversexualising women - FFS - are we just going to ignore all the full frontal male nudity in his film? Like in the comic, Laurie Jupiter doesn't even come close to exposing herself as Dan Dreiberg or Doctor Manhattan does. Even Bruce Wayne in BvS: Ultimate Edition showcased his bare ass while taking a shower. If anything, Snyder proves that he believes in equal opportunity when it showcasing nudity. Hell, you can probably make the argument he shows more naked men than he shows naked women.

Neither Moore nor Snyder are fetishists, as far as I'm concerned. If these critics are going to cry foul over every little thing they consider taboo but not apply it consistently because it doesn't suit their agenda then they might as well give up on fiction altogether.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  1 Jun  2020, 05:28
In the final analysis, perhaps the REAL problem with the film is that it was made about ten years too soon.

I admire how Snyder was walking his walk of gorgeous visuals, heavy themes and attention to detail even if that mix wasn't fully appreciated at the time. When I first saw Watchmen a decade ago I had limited interest in the Watchmen universe. Now my knowledge is far greater, and I do appreciate its depth and Snyder's input. He made brave but sensible decisions that stay true to the comic's themes. Or in my opinion, enhance the themes. I love Burton (mainly his older work), however I see Snyder an elevated version of him.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 11 Oct  2017, 01:05
300 is a fun movie. If the weak can't stomach that level of awesome, that's a shame. It's a slideshow of great visuals, dark humor and visceral action. I recommend a rewatch. The sequel did have Eva Green, but apart from that, it didn't stack up to the original. But the real star of his resume is Watchmen. I think it's his best film overall these days. I dismissed it years ago for whatever reason, but I was wrong to do so. Love it.

In this instance I prefer the film ending rather than the comic version. The squid ultimately serves the same function, but it feels more like a random McGuffin in comparison. I think it's better and cleaner to make use of an existing character that should and would be feared, much like Snyder's later use of Superman in Dawn of Justice. It makes sense that Doctor Manhattan, who is the most coldly logical man in existence, would see the reasoning in this endgame, and go along with it. The comic has Manhattan leaving Earth, which in my opinion is only given added meaning in the film version when he does the same thing.

FLASHBACK 1996:

Wizard Magazine casts Watchmen

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUxwjZDUcAAW-bG?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUxwj2wUEAAAV1I?format=jpg&name=large)

Not a bad cast! I love Heston as Mason! But I've got some reservations about Redford as Veidt. He's basically got the look right. But the issue is Redford is so all-American and Veidt should have a distinctly European aristocrat flavor. Basically, Matthew Goode by other means.

Otherwise, that's a solid cast. Esp Roddy McDowell as Moloch, which is absolutely inspired.

I would love to see a Watchmen movie with this cast.

(Not sure about Caruso as Rorschach tho.)

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  9 Jun  2022, 05:28

FLASHBACK 1996:

Wizard Magazine casts Watchmen

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUxwjZDUcAAW-bG?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUxwj2wUEAAAV1I?format=jpg&name=large)

I'm impressed, this casting call is way better than the one they did for The Dark Knight Returns. William Hurt as Dan Dreiberg would've been great, he certainly had that everyman charm. Dennis Farina always had that cynical edge that would've suited him as the Comedian.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  9 Jun  2022, 12:48
(Not sure about Caruso as Rorschach tho.)

Yeah, I agree with you there. David Caruso never came across as somebody with great acting range. Jackie Earle Haley, on the other hand, nailed it. I was always impressed by how he could emote, in and out of that mask.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  9 Jun  2022, 05:28

FLASHBACK 1996:

Wizard Magazine casts Watchmen

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUxwjZDUcAAW-bG?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUxwj2wUEAAAV1I?format=jpg&name=large)

Ha! William Hurt was our top pick for Dreiberg when we discussed this subject last year, J. There seems to be a pretty strong consensus on the casting of that particular character.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  9 Jun  2022, 12:48
Not a bad cast! I love Heston as Mason! But I've got some reservations about Redford as Veidt. He's basically got the look right. But the issue is Redford is so all-American and Veidt should have a distinctly European aristocrat flavor. Basically, Matthew Goode by other means.

I always thought Rutger Hauer would have been great as Veidt. He had the right Aryan features and athletic physicality, and he exuded an air of quiet intelligence that would have been perfect for Ozymandias.

Hauer as Veidt basically addresses all my concerns. Part of me is tempted to counter with Dolph Lundgren... except the guy is MASSIVE. Yes, Veidt is supposed to be in top shape. But something about Lundgren still seems physically off to me. So, Hauer fits the bill.

Also, I want to take a moment to call shenanigans on Dennis Farina as The Comedian. Seriously? The Wizard staff was fancasting a Watchmen movie made in the Nineties and it somehow never occurred to anybody to cast Tom Berenger as The Comedian?

Nothing against Farina. But if it's the Nineties and you need to cast an American gun-toting soldier comic book character and you ignore Tom Berenger, I have to question if you even know what your job is.

Anyway, not trying to rant or anything here, just saying...

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  1 Jun  2020, 10:07
In this instance I prefer the film ending rather than the comic version. The squid ultimately serves the same function, but it feels more like a random McGuffin in comparison. I think it's better and cleaner to make use of an existing character that should and would be feared, much like Snyder's later use of Superman in Dawn of Justice. It makes sense that Doctor Manhattan, who is the most coldly logical man in existence, would see the reasoning in this endgame, and go along with it. The comic has Manhattan leaving Earth, which in my opinion is only given added meaning in the film version when he does the same thing.

Revisiting this a couple of years later and I think a little differently about it now.

I like the movie ending for what it is and can see why it was done. Manhattan is already a scary, life threatening character that makes anyone bow in fear. So I see the logic in utilizing him. But if I really had to choose I'm going with the squid. It allows the threat to be seperate from humanity and not originating from America. Yes, the strike only targets New York and not various other locations around the world - which is a positive from the movie. But there's a degree of realism to the New York only hit which I like. The special effects team on the island have a huge task in making the squid, both in terms of resources and time. Veidt is wealthy, but even he would have his limits. One big strike is what he can muster, with humanity walking on eggshells in anticipation of more which could happen anywhere. Which will never happen, but they don't know that.

A big factor for me is how the disappearance of the author ties in with the Black Freighter story that's narrated throughout the book. It gives that tale more reason for existing other than just being a morality lesson. It all serves as a prologue to the conclusion. He's someone well known and wrote a story in which nearly everyone in it dies - and he himself dies after unwittingly assisting in the squid project. It also allows Veidt more ruthlessness when he destroys the boat. As a piece of literature I think this ties together nicely.

The Black Freighter wasn't intended to be inserted into the film, thus the author component has much less meaning, and therefore little reason for being there. Which is why I'm in the Director's Cut camp.