Watchmen

[bassman]

is it because he looks like sylar? *quickly scans through nerd memory sector of brain* Nope....don't know who that is...

[AcesandEights]

*quickly scans through nerd memory sector of brain* Nope....don't know who that is... It's a shame, because you could have countered by saying: "No, because Snyder is to other people's material, what Sylar is to other people's superpowers." Or something along those lines. Get MZ in here and I'm sure he'll be able to punch up this possible anti-ZS comment with some of his trade mark 'Ba-zing'.

[DubiousComforts]

you owe it to yourself to go and read this right now, drop whatever you are doing and read one of the greatest graphic novels of all time. but considering the fact that Watchmen is regarded as one of the greatest graphic novels ever written and literally changed how comics are approached, I think you would be in the minority with this opinion. So I take this to mean that neither of you has ever read Fail Safe or watched/heard of The Outer Limits episode Architects of Fear? How about Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove? Unless the graphic novel is radically different than the film, Watchmen is the same cheeseball Cold War-era story except with "superheroes." In 1963, this story would have been one thing, but even by the mid-80s, the topic was quickly becoming irrelevant. And people complain about the commentary in George Romero films... By the way, I just have to ask since y'all seem to be Watchmen disciples:   What was the point of Rorschach being killed? Aren't we led to believe that nobody would ever take what this guy has to say seriously? Why didn't Dr. Manhattan just send him off to Mars or something?

[Danny]

:facepalm: if you dont get why rorschach had to die in terms of subtext but call watchmen a rip-off i can safely say its not for you.

[DubiousComforts]

:facepalm: if you dont get why rorschach had to die in terms of subtext but call watchmen a rip-off i can safely say its not for you. Even though that's not the only problem with the story, help me to "get it." Or is this some type of "secret club" thing that only certain people are supposed to understand, like D&D? Btw, I never said "rip-off," I said "derivative." Don't blame me that the same story has been told before 'cause I didn't write it.

[Danny]

its easier just to say yes its a secret club thing then.

[DubiousComforts]

its easier just to say yes its a secret club thing then. Now I get it: 'complicated' means that it's 'good.' Okie dokie. Is the big revelation that   Adrian Veidt murdered The Comedian supposed to be a "secret club" thing, too? 'Cause as soon as I saw Veidt about 15 minutes into the film, I thought "oh, there's the bad guy." You'd really have to be not paying any attention if you don't realize this by the time he takes out his would-be assassin in super slo-mo. Maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order.

[clanglee]

Even though that's not the only problem with the story, help me to "get it." Or is this some type of "secret club" thing that only certain people are supposed to understand, like D&D? Btw, I never said "rip-off," I said "derivative." Don't blame me that the same story has been told before 'cause I didn't write it. Everything is derivative. Nothing new under the sun. But the combination of elements in the Watchmen was quite original. As for Rorsh. . It was much easier to follow in the original plotline of the GN, but he had to die, because he would have told the world the truth. Matter of fact, he already did so it didn't matter that they killed him. .maybe. The journal he mailed? Now I get it: 'complicated' means that it's 'good.' Okie dokie. Is the big revelation that   Adrian Veidt murdered The Comedian supposed to be a "secret club" thing, too? 'Cause as soon as I saw Veidt about 15 minutes into the film, I thought "oh, there's the bad guy." You'd really have to be not paying any attention if you don't realize this by the time he takes out his would-be assassin in super slo-mo. Maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order. Yeah, but is he really the "bad" guy?

[MoonSylver]

Saw this film about two weeks ago and it is just awful, yet I can't really blame Zack Snyder. I've never read anything by Moore and realize that he doesn't have anything to do with film adaptations of his work, but I can only assume that the source material is responsible for such a poor, derivative story with hopelessly-dated political commentary. I mean, come on... hasn't anyone ever seen the original Outer Limits' Architects of Fear or read Fail Safe? God, I must be really old if I'm the only one that can remember this stuff. Moore has admitted that he was inspired by the Architects of Fear. It's even playing in the background on one of the characters TV's in the GN. There are a LOT of cultural references & symbolism woven into the GN, some overt, some covert. As for the dated political commentary, it is now, but it wasn't when the GN was written in the 80's. , hence the decision to keep it set in the 80's. It really is a period piece & the era is pretty integral to the story.

[Danny]

Now I get it: 'complicated' means that it's 'good.' Okie dokie. Is the big revelation that   Adrian Veidt murdered The Comedian supposed to be a "secret club" thing, too? 'Cause as soon as I saw Veidt about 15 minutes into the film, I thought "oh, there's the bad guy." You'd really have to be not paying any attention if you don't realize this by the time he takes out his would-be assassin in super slo-mo. Maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order. no, not complicated, but your forgetting youve seen a movie which altered the plot, theres way more stuff in there than just the squid ending that snyder felt he could drop out. and i just cant be arsed to type it all out, trust me, read the book, the story will make sense and its much better than the movie, though i love the movie too.

[MoonSylver]

Now I get it: 'complicated' means that it's 'good.' Okie dokie. Is the big revelation that   Adrian Veidt murdered The Comedian supposed to be a "secret club" thing, too? 'Cause as soon as I saw Veidt about 15 minutes into the film, I thought "oh, there's the bad guy." You'd really have to be not paying any attention if you don't realize this by the time he takes out his would-be assassin in super slo-mo. Maybe I've just watched too many episodes of Law & Order. As someone who had read the GN, it was hard for me to judge this. Everyone I asked said they didn't see it coming, but I thought they telegraphed it. Now the 1st time I read the GN...never even remotely saw it coming.

[DubiousComforts]

Everything is derivative. This is no excuse for poor writing. Unless they completely botched the source material, 60s cold war/threat of nuclear war fiction is to the film Watchmen as the novel 1984 is to a movie like Brazil. Yet one can still be entertained by Brazil without having read Orwell's novel for explanation and its commentary is still entirely relevant today. Perhaps Watchmen really needed to be directed by someone like Terry Gilliam. Is the film's overt Outer Limits reference also in the graphic novel? As for Rorsh. . It was much easier to follow in the original plotline of the GN, but he had to die, because he would have told the world the truth. Shouldn't we be using spoilers here? Anyway, who exactly would Rorschach have told? Who would have listened? He certainly isn't portrayed to be a very media savvy character like Veidt. What would have been his proof -- the 'blue guy' didn't do it? Isn't he technically a wanted fugitive at the end of the story? Matter of fact, he already did so it didn't matter that they killed him. .maybe. The journal he mailed? Yes, I understood that much. His journal floating around out there means another conspiracy theory is born. It's called 'irony.' Yeah, but is he really the "bad" guy? I got that, too. It's called "ambiguity." The blue guy really is responsible, he just doesn't realize it. The problem here is that for this concept to work, you need to buy the idea that the threat of nuclear war is imminent and the peace that follows is genuine, yet it was completely hokey in the film and I didn't buy any of it. Even Architects of Fear is more realistic in that the plan is hatched knowing that perhaps nobody will fall for it. Maybe this a fault with Watchmen the film more than Watchmen the graphic novel? Moore has admitted that he was inspired by the Architects of Fear. It's even playing in the background on one of the characters TV's in the GN. That answers one of my questions, thanks. I was wondering who among modern audiences or even fans of graphic novels would understand reference to a 45-year old television series in the film. As someone who had read the GN, it was hard for me to judge this. Everyone I asked said they didn't see it coming, but I thought they telegraphed it. Now the 1st time I read the GN...never even remotely saw it coming. I entirely agree that it's telegraphed and should come as no great shock in the film. Veidt seems to be one step removed from Hitler youth in his superior attitude and arrogance. If that wasn't intentional, then then filmmakers are dummies for not realizing it.

[MinionZombie]

Bassman: The only problem is I've never liked Snyder's face or voice, so I want to punch him everytime I see him. He does have some interesting stuff to talk about, though. I feel the exact same way - every time I've seen his face, or heard his voice, I just want to grab him by the neck and jiggle his big-grinny-gobbed face into a muddy puddle until he stops taking other people's hard work and pooping out utter gash/meh versions. Aces: Get MZ in here and I'm sure he'll be able to punch up this possible anti-ZS comment with some of his trade mark 'Ba-zing'. Snyder is to filmmaking, what herpes are to a person - really annoying, a real turn-off to an otherwise sexy situation, and they never go away. Plus, the advertising department who labelled Snyder as a "visionary" are just plain factually wrong - epic fail - Snyder is as far from being a visionary as I am from flying under my own arm-flapping power.

[axlish]

Snyder is every bit as "visionary" as Robert Rodriguez. I'm guessing (by guessing, I mean 100% sure) that all this Snyder nonsense is based around the Dawn remake? Move along folks, it was old in 2004 the second the sentiment was realized.

[AcesandEights]

:facepalm: if you dont get why rorschach had to die in terms of subtext but call watchmen a rip-off i can safely say its not for you. Just tell him you gave at the office and leave it at that, Hells