I've never heard of Watchmen before but my work buddy showed me this. Looks interesting.

http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/

Stabs eyes with forks. Forks basted in poison. Poison mixed with stronger poison. Forks made of sodium, so they explode on contact with the water in my eyes.

I saw the trailer when I went to see Batman last weekend, and had no idea there was a Watchmen movie in the works. As soon as I saw Owl's ship rise up out of the water, I thought, "hey, that looks like... oh wow. Flashback."

That's an old one to go digging up. I hope they don't make it a big bag of suck.

It's only the greatest graphic novel of all time!!! A movie has been in the works forever, at one point Terry Gilliam was supposed to direct, but that fell through. I didn't know it was finally off the ground until I saw the trailer with Dark Knight. I am kinda excited, kinda fearful. Not sure if they can to the story and characters justice in a movie. But still, it's worth a shot!

I love the book so, so much.
The trailer made me need new pants. I think it's going to rule.

I dig it. It's such a shame that the Heroes TV show already stole the plot.

I don't know anything about the comic book but I really loved the classic comic book look of the costumes. Looking forward to it!

Yea ok, so it’s an old thread but I am curious that now it has been out what you all think.
Personally, I think whether you liked it or not you have to give Warner Brothers a ton of credit for having the balls to make this movie.

I read the novel in the 80s and still have it on my shelf today. The movie is damn close to the source with variations that seem to update it to today's standards; overall, I thought it was a good faithful adaptation.

I agree Widget. I really enjoyed the movie. I didn't read the GN until probably 2 years ago for the first time, but re-read it about 6-8 months ago when I heard they were doing the movie. I think they did a great job of holding to the original material, in as much as they could. The couple of divergences I felt were done really well and kept with the spirit of the story.

And yeah, it took someone with very large testicles to take something that is held sacred by so many and make an adaptation. Gratz to WB on that one.

I don't really plan on seeing the movie just yet. Instead I bought the graphic novel and I'm reading it slowly (I usually skim through comics). When I'm done with the comic I might consider seeing the movie.
Twist has already seen it. I think he liked it but he wasn't raving about it.

I went with Twist and others to see this and I agree with Widget's pie chart....


BIG BLUE DONG

Heh.

It's almost as much reaction as naked tits. Society is neat.

I really enjoyed the storyline. Too much blood for my taste and the sex could have been downplayed.

I'm thinking about buying the complete book--old school graphic novel.

I liked this movie, I was glad they took the time to reveal everything instead of just "rush, rush, rush, boom, bang, sex, end" which tends to happen with most adaptations...

I have to say, though, the "big blue dong" was a bit of a distraction, I mean really there were so many places where the camera had no actual need to pan down the extra 10 inches.

This introduced something that I hate in movies, when the director/cinematographer/writer/whatever decides to put a gratuitous amount of an inside joke into the movie that really doesn't add anything to viewers. In fact, something like that could potentially affect the box office numbers as well, something that a movie that cost this much really can't afford.

Oh, and as for what we were talking about when we left, it was the level of violence. Which, by the way, I totally approved of. I hate these awesome comic movies that are rated down so you can get the kiddies in the theater... I mean come on, Wolverine would kick so much more ass in a Rated-R movie, wouldn't he?

The distraction of the big blue dong says more about the viewer than the movie. Besides, it didn't even look like a real dong. I wasn't really distracted by the penis, I mean half of the world has one and I see at least one every day. Sometimes more.

In the comic it illustrated his growing distraction from humanity. As time went on he wore less and less clothes and became more and more detached from humanity.

No one would react to the same screen time of boobs the same way. Although, there were a lot of boobs in that movie too. I honestly can say I think the penis was more important to the storyline than the boobs. Still prefer boobs though.

In the comic it illustrated his growing distraction from humanity. As time went on he wore less and less clothes and became more and more detached from humanity.

But, see this, would have illustrated the point. The way it is placed is just "BAM" and not an obvious illustration of him losing touch. Now everything else he did in the movie showed that he was losing touch, but there was no "evolution to nudity."

Lots of movies have boobs, a few movies have peni, but when the peni are shown in order to show peni, and not effectively used to illustrate a point (losing touch with reality in this case) then its just a distraction to the film.

If it had been a normal colored penis, it would probably not have been a distraction to me, BUT IT WAS BLUE!

I think it was illustrated alright in the movie if you knew you were looking for it, but then again you have a lot more time to mentally analyze a GN than you do a movie.

Even still, I think movies need more penis in them for the womenfolk. It is only fair.

Part 2 is it made things kind of uncomfortable which is part of the effect that the GN had too, but the penis was a lot less drastic. It was more of a hint of a penis. It was a great book, but it had you feeling vaguely uncomfortable about everything and kind of off balance.

Personally I think Rorschach was too soft to be a true Randian moral absolutist. He was pretty whiny, too.

Finally saw it last night. I really liked it, and even though I always love the ending in the GN, I didn't mind the changes. (I don't think that's enough to require a SPOILER warning.) I didn't find the big blue dong that distracting. But then again, I didn't see it in IMAX!

Personally I think Rorschach was too soft to be a true Randian moral absolutist. He was pretty whiny, too.

And he sounded exactly like Batman for some reason.

Never read the books/comics. Did not care for any of the characters so I could not invest in the movie. I appreciated what they tried to do, but making some big epic Lord of the Rings type movie out of such a small market brand seemed out of place.

Well I included that chart because pretty much every review I read centered around the smurf dingus. (I agree Styg in that it was the directors way of showing how much by the end of the movie, Dr Manhattan just stoped even trying to fit in to normal conventions.) Which is a damn shame becasue this movie has so much depth and the actors took huge risks with thier careers to pull off some of the best acting Ive seen.

Of the reviews I have seen or read I found The Escapist's review the best: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-presents/622-MovieBob-Reviews-Watchmen

Brendar I gotta take you to task for the whiney comment. I felt that Rorschach was dead on. Rand's self-declared purpose in writing fiction was to project an "ideal man"—a man whose ability and independence leads to conflict with others, but who perseveres nevertheless to achieve his values. You can't tell me that he diddn't fit that bill.

Yes it was violent, the source material was shocking by 80's standards, they had to ramp it up to have that same shock value. I couldn't imagine Saw in the 80's or hell compare the 1989 Batman movie to Dark Knight. Personally I laughed when the Joker impaled that dude's head with a pencil and thought, wow haven't seen that before, cool. No way Jack Nicholson would have done that.

Gah I seem to be ranting. Anyway, thanks for the replies.

Brendar I gotta take you to task for the whiney comment. I felt that Rorschach was dead on. Rand's self-declared purpose in writing fiction was to project an "ideal man"—a man whose ability and independence leads to conflict with others, but who perseveres nevertheless to achieve his values. You can't tell me that he diddn't fit that bill.


You got me. I haven't even seen the movie.

lol Bren

I don't know if this has been posted before, but check it out

wow.
lame.