PDA

View Full Version : The Watchmen discussion thread (spoilers)


Eleana
24-02-09, 17:55
Hi everyone. I did a quick search on a Watchmen discussion thread and came up with nothing, so I thought I'd create one.

Based on the graphic novel illustrated by Dave Gibbons and written by Alan Moore, Watchmen is considered a cult classic by critics over the globe. With the release of the film (UK, Friday March 6th) I thought this would be a great thread for the fans of the novel and movie to come together and share the love for this amazing story (and the source of many a heated debate after one-to-many between me and my friend)

The trailer is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4blSrZvPhU

This is the first thread I've created in a long time, so please be gentle. :o

Alive_and_Funky
24-02-09, 18:41
I've read the graphic novel, so I am hoping that the movie will turn out good. I must admit that it feels kinda weird seeing Watchmen featured on TV programmes though. :p


Go Rorschach! :D

MattTR
24-02-09, 18:43
I've never read the novel but me and my friends definitely want to see it, looks awesome, action/jammed packed! I can't wait, definitely seeing it next weekend. :tmb:

Nannonxyay
24-02-09, 18:47
It looks absolutely awesome. But me, I am far too young to see it. Damn 18 rating. I just want to mosh to MCR at the end. But the movie looks amazing. :D

Jo269976
24-02-09, 18:52
I'm seeing it on the day of release :)

Looks fantastic, but I really want to find the comic before I see the movie.

erosan
24-02-09, 19:20
I will deffinetaly see this on release day, it looks really good. every movie i have went to for the past 2 months has had this trailer before the movie. It will be popular when it comes out.

ECB
25-02-09, 03:28
I bought the book last weekend. I've barely rad any of it. Please tell me it makes sense soon. Haha.

Could anyone help me out?

the hooliganz
25-02-09, 05:12
I'm reading the novel right now, I cant wait to c d movie, looks exciting

Eleana
25-02-09, 08:46
I bought the book last weekend. I've barely rad any of it. Please tell me it makes sense soon. Haha.

Could anyone help me out?

I never bought the book, a friend loaned it to me. He told me there were 2 "unspoken" rules as to how you read it:

1/ Only read one chapter a night. This way you can digest what has happened. It isn't necessary to read the writings at the end of each chapter but if you have time you should do. They are there to provide character support not plot support - so it isn't vital to the story.

2/ DO NOT skip to the end. Don't even peek if you can help it.

When I read it the first time round I have to admit I ignored the 1st. Have fun reading it whatever you do. There is not one character in Watchmen who isn't interesting. Personally I'm in love with Rorschach. Without spoiling it for you, there will no doubt be characters you dislike, but not because they are annoying/repetitive/just stupid. Your own sense of justice will help you realise the true villian... even if it may not be the same as somebody elses opinion! I hope this helped. :) Stick with it! You'll love it!

I'm a bit gutted that they skanked up Laurie in the film. She looks great but too... X men-ish. The Watchmen know they don't posses super powers (not counting Jon) so the latex doesn't appeal to me. I think they should of kept her in her dress. :)

Alive_and_Funky
26-02-09, 19:44
2/ DO NOT skip to the end. Don't even peek if you can help it.
I looked ahead at the extra bits and got a hunch of who the villain was when I read it. :(
I loved the final page though!

spikejones
12-04-09, 06:41
watchmen for the win!!
*points to avatar*

Angel666
12-04-09, 07:31
I loved the novel and liked the movie. IMO the movie has one of the BEST incorporations of a Bob Dylan song that I have ever seen in a movie, the title sequence was amazing.

SPOILER ALERTS (kinda)



````````````````



That sex scene in the owl ship was COMPLETELY UNNESSISARY. It was what, a page in the novel? I needed a shower after that.

rowanlim
12-04-09, 10:44
I've yet to read the novel, but the movie was AWESOME. Rorschach is obviously my favorite character :tmb:

Ward Dragon
12-04-09, 11:16
I've read the novel but have not seen the movie yet. I absolutely love Rorschach and he's definitely my favorite character :D Dr. Manhattan is pretty cool too. There's a chapter in the novel which is pretty much from his point of view and his thought processes are so...different :p It was a really interesting experience reading that.

tampi
12-04-09, 12:52
I could not believe that Dr. Manhattan is so similar to the character that I made long ago and I put on a post (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=3285880&postcount=7). This character is based on a drawing mine done in year 97. :)
I did not know them or him until it appeared the Watchmen movie. :cln::D
The original: http://i42.************/2qcqviu.jpg
He appears in a Tomb Raider Legend mod that I did. On the walls.


I agree on Rorschach. He is a very hard character, but what is interesting is the humane treatment of all the characters and existential problems of all of them, sublimate by the omnipotence of Dr. Manhattan.
Again thinking anthill. Few sacrificed to save many.:rolleyes:

Ward Dragon
12-04-09, 13:05
^ Awesome drawing :D

I agree on Rorschach. He is a very hard character, but what is interesting is the humane treatment of all the characters and existential problems of all of them, sublimate by the omnipotence of Dr. Manhattan.
Again thinking anthill. Few sacrificed to save many.:rolleyes:

Yes, exactly. Dr. Manhattan was just so different and otherworldly that it really contrasted with the other characters and emphasized their humanity. And as for the ending, I totally think that *spoilers*

they should have killed Ozzie and ditched his body in New York with his victims. I get that the damage is already done and publicizing what happened might cause more harm than good right now. However there's absolutely no reason why Ozzie should get away with what he did and live long enough to do it again later. The different countries will probably get complacent without any further attacks from their "common enemy" so I bet that when that happens Ozzie is planning for another several million people to die.

spikejones
12-04-09, 15:50
you know I agree with you about the ending part Jennifer. Perhaps that is because we are Rorshach compatriots :D

Catapharact
12-04-09, 16:14
Well I am gonna go on a different route with the Rorshach crowd and go with Adrian instead (from the movie anyway.) The reason why I personally like him is because unlike the rest of the crowd (even Dr. "Blue Man" Manhattan) Adrian ended up uniting a world plauged by diverting its instictive fear driven mentality towards something that can't be destroyed.

His adoration of Alexander the Great is totally personified in his character's costume and his demenor.

I liked the movie quite a bit. It had som many baseline themes going at the same time; The Hypocracy of societial acceptence, the concept of divinity and man's relation to it, Is the concept of Utalitarianism viable? Etc. etc.

spikejones
12-04-09, 16:34
I understand that what Ozymandious did was supposedly for the better of the world, but it was wrong. It was said that his actions united mankind against a common threat - but who is to say that eventually they will not go back to the way that things were before it all happened? Once everyone realizes that the common threat is no longer a threat, they will inevitably return to bickering and fighting amongst themselves. Reason being.. as said by Dr. Manhattan "... cannot change humanity..." Ozymandious' fix was only temporary. It isn't discussed as such in the movie or graphic novel, however in reality that is what it would be.

Catapharact
12-04-09, 16:43
I understand that what Ozymandious did was supposedly for the better of the world, but it was wrong.

The relivitisim of wrong and right is what the main theme of the novel is. Given the attocities people commit on a day to day basis, I would rather take Ozzy's approach of compliance rather then bickering gimps and corrupt politicians. He finally used fear for something constructive rather then having it played in by the hands of politicians and twits.

It was said that his actions united mankind against a common threat - but who is to say that eventually they will not go back to the way that things were before it all happened? Once everyone realizes that the common threat is no longer a threat, they will inevitably return to bickering and fighting amongst themselves.

Whose to say they will? Dr. Manhattan by the end of the story has this almost divine presence. If that presence needs to be re-enforced from time to time, then so be it.

Reason being.. as said by Dr. Manhattan "... cannot change humanity..." Ozymandious' fix was only temporary. It isn't discussed as such in the movie or graphic novel, however in reality that is what it would be.

Its a good starting point. The only way humanity can grasp its own potential is when its given the opportunity to work togather for common interest. That idea might need re-enforcements from time to time, but hey... I rather have that idea re-enforced then mindless dribble of plandering corrupt beings.

Encore
12-04-09, 17:42
Ozymandious' fix was only temporary. It isn't discussed as such in the movie or graphic novel, however in reality that is what it would be.

That's where the book's (and movie's) permise is excessively simplistic, in that strange "happy" ending. Ozymandias' idea was no diferent than that of other megalomaniac leaders like Alexander himself, who assume their goals are so grand and commendable that they justify all means, and this would be true - IF those goals could actually be achieved. What happened to Alexander's empire after his death is the perfect illustration of what reality is. I'm pretty sure Ozy's plan would only work temporarily, therefore making the enormous sacrifice not worth it.


(however, Ozy's my favourite character too ;) )

Catapharact
12-04-09, 17:48
What happened to Alexander's empire after his death is the perfect illustration of what reality is.

Difference: Alexander did not have a walking immortal almost divine being looking over things to make sure they all stay put ;).

Ozzy's little plan just might work.

Alive_and_Funky
12-04-09, 17:51
It was said that his actions united mankind against a common threat - but who is to say that eventually they will not go back to the way that things were before it all happened?
Doesn't the final page show that Ozymandias's plan was all for nothing, as isn't that magazine or whatever about to print Rorschach's journal?

spikejones
12-04-09, 17:54
The relivitisim of wrong and right is what the main theme of the novel is. Given the atrocities people commit on a day to day basis, I would rather take Ozzy's approach of compliance rather than bickering gimps and corrupt politicians. He finally used fear for something constructive rather then having it played in by the hands of politicians and twits.

ozzy's approach of compliance... to what exactly? His/your own idealistic views of life?
politics in its conception is corrupt in my opinion, so yeah..
bickering gimps... not sure where you are going with that part. what are the bickering gimps you speak of?

Undoubtedly, the ending events would only ally the nations with each other instead of fighting amongst themselves. But it doesn't have effect to the atrocities committed by the common man against the common man. Even in today's society where the nation has its enemies in the form of other nations etc.. the common man is constantly bickering with other of the common man. I see not how ozzy's plot could have any effect on that whatsoever. All it was was to "make war obsolete". I see you raised the argument "who's to say they will".. I rebut with "who's to say they won't" -- history and human nature is to say they will.

I see some points in your rebuttal, but it seems almost hypocritical to condone the maniacal dribble of one man who will from time to time kill off a few thousand or million people if he sees that society is going back to its old - natural ways. Not a real valid argument IMO. Eventually the death toll exacted in this manner can overcome that of a war. ozzy, despite his "good intentions" is a terrorist to the extreme.

We can relate him to Theodore Kaczynski (aka the "unabomber") who started a bombing campaign in response to seeing the wilderness around him being destroyed by development. He argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization. [source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski)] Noble his cause may have been, but he was naught but a terrorist. People who exact their will against others in such a manner are scum. they have no right to do such. If you want to call politics corrupt (and to which I concur) .. all one must do is realize that these terrorist are making political statements themselves - ergo corrupt. One may even argue that in enacting their plots, one is placing themselves in a position of more power than others, either envisioning themself as a god or dictator. so no... I don't think ozzy is the best one to look up to.

Catapharact
12-04-09, 17:54
Doesn't the final page show that Ozymandias's plan was all for nothing, as isn't that magazine or whatever about to print Rorschach's journal?

That is where the iffy part comes in basically. Does the power of the press ends up trumping a solidified plan and the union of the Sovients and the U.S.? Well, that's for us to decide ;).

Catapharact
12-04-09, 18:09
Undoubtedly, the ending events would only ally the nations with each other instead of fighting amongst themselves. But it doesn't have effect to the atrocities committed by the common man against the common man. Even in today's society where the nation has its enemies in the form of other nations etc.. the common man is constantly bickering with other of the common man. I see not how ozzy's plot could have any effect on that whatsoever. All it was was to "make war obsolete". I see you raised the argument "who's to say they will".. I rebut with "who's to say they won't" -- history and human nature is to say they will.

Ozzy's plan took everything you have just said into consideration and just bloomed it up to the bigger view. He did not make war obsolete at all; Just directed its attention towards a being who ultimately cannot be defeated... IN ANYWAY. Nor does this given being care to meddle with petty disposition of survival or, basic instincts. Nor is he effected (now anyway) by anything remotely emotional in nature. The world populaton hasn't forgotten about its basic instincts... Fear, survival, out for personal gain, etc. They have just re-directed it all towards an enemy who just can't be killed.

Who is to say they won't? Their own instincts say they won't. Why fight amoungts yourselves when there is a possible looming threat of a being who can erradicate you and your entire nation at a wave of his hand?

I see some points in your rebuttal, but it seems almost hypocritical to condone the maniacal dribble of one man who will from time to time kill off a few thousand or million people if he sees that society is going back to its old - natural ways. Not a real valid argument IMO. Eventually the death toll exacted in this manner can overcome that of a war. ozzy, despite his "good intentions" is a terrorist to the extreme.

The only difference being: His plan ended up working.

We can relate him to Theodore Kaczynski (aka the "unabomber") who started a bombing campaign in response to seeing the wilderness around him being destroyed by development. He argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization. [source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski)] Noble his cause may have been, but he was naught but a terrorist. People who exact their will against others in such a manner are scum. they have no right to do such. If you want to call politics corrupt (and to which I concur) .. all one must do is realize that these terrorist are making political statements themselves - ergo corrupt. One may even argue that in enacting their plots, one is placing themselves in a position of more power than others, either envisioning themself as a god or dictator. so no... I don't think ozzy is the best one to look up to.

The difference between Theodore Kac, and Adrain is the fact that Adrian sort to forge order instead of chaos; Developement instead of degradation. I have my own view on enviromentalists which I personally will not share since its unrealted to the topic (and will certainly arouse more weeping and yelling.) The looming threat of the Sovient invasion and the U.S. counterstrike was way too much too risk. Would you have rather seen an all out battle of nukes in this alternative universe? Who to say that in this given senerio the Sovient Union did not fall? We can obviously poo poo it all off since history as we know it fell in favour of the U.S. and the world due to the collapse of the Sovient Union. But would you as a person who have the power to stop a looming nuclear war at the price of millions (which inturn would save billions) would take that given action?

A hard act to follow thorough but it still has merit doesn't it?

Take the circumstances into account.

spikejones
12-04-09, 18:38
Ozzy's plan took everything you have just said into consideration and just bloomed it up to the bigger view. He did not make war obsolete at all; Just directed its attention towards a being who ultimately cannot be defeated... IN ANYWAY. Nor does this given being care to meddle with petty disposition of survival or, basic instincts. Nor is he effected (now anyway) by anything remotely emotional in nature. The world populaton hasn't forgotten about its basic instincts... Fear, survival, out for personal gain, etc. They have just re-directed it all towards an enemy who just can't be killed.

an enemy that doesn't exist though. considering the book and the movie are different at the endings, and I have not read the book, I will discuss the movie. In the movie, the enemy created was Dr. Manhattan himself - by no means a brother in arms with ozzy. He isn't "looking over ozzys shoulder to keep things in check" as you stated earlier. Perhaps that is your view. Dr. Manhattan neither condones nor condemns the course of action that was taken as he sees the point to it, however terribly wrong it was of ozzy to have done so. The true enemy is not the perceived one that the world has "allied itself against", but is rather Adrian himself.

Who is to say they won't? Their own instincts say they won't. Why fight amoungts yourselves when there is a possible looming threat of a being who can erradicate you and your entire nation at a wave of his hand?

once again, it is a perceived notion of a common threat - but given time,
when the world does not see Dr. Manhattan anymore since he has left the planet (galaxy even? I forget) the world will once again return to its nefarious ways of fighting amongst themselves. Generations from now, Dr. Manhattan will be nothing more than a myth. Look at the God of reality for example, some believe in him, some don't, some fear him, some don't. But all people live their lives in sin regardless of whether they believe in a cruel and punishing god (note that this is not my own personal view on god, but a view shared by many people and draws parallel with your arguement). Given this reality, your given argument seems flimsy at best. People will always be greedy, selfish, self centered, egotistical, etc.. all character defects leading to conflict.

The only difference being: His plan ended up working.

well only because it was written that way :p

The difference between Theodore Kac, and Adrain is the fact that Adrian sort to forge order instead of chaos; Developement instead of degradation. I have my own view on enviromentalists which I personally will not share since its unrealted to the topic (and will certainly arouse more weeping and yelling.) The looming threat of the Sovient invasion and the U.S. counterstrike was way too much too risk. Would you have rather seen an all out battle of nukes in this alternative universe? Who to say that in this given senerio the Sovient Union did not fall? We can obviously poo poo it all off since history as we know it fell in favour of the U.S. and the world due to the collapse of the Sovient Union. But would you as a person who have the power to stop a looming nuclear war at the price of millions (which inturn would save billions) would take that given action?

A hard act to follow thorough but it still has merit doesn't it?

Take the circumstances into account.
so I take it you merely look at the circumstances rather than the morality of it? A better plan would have been to say "Dr. Manhattan, go destroy each armies weapons stocks" and this could have been enacted long before the story even began. But then we wouldn't have the story as it is. There's many more less evil ways to prevent the war by "using" Dr. Manhattan.

Catapharact
12-04-09, 18:58
an enemy that doesn't exist though. considering the book and the movie are different at the endings, and I have not read the book, I will discuss the movie. In the movie, the enemy created was Dr. Manhattan himself - by no means a brother in arms with ozzy. He isn't "looking over ozzys shoulder to keep things in check" as you stated earlier. Perhaps that is your view. Dr. Manhattan neither condones nor condemns the course of action that was taken as he sees the point to it, however terribly wrong it was of ozzy to have done so. The true enemy is not the perceived one that the world has "allied itself against", but is rather Adrian himself.

But Dr. Manhatten's presence isn't needed in this given case. Only a precieved notion of his existance is needed. Hence why Adrian made sure that he had a way to mimick Dr. Manhatten's powers. The looming threat can always be placed upon again by firing another given round somewhere afar (not necessarily in a densly populated area.)

But now we are extrapolating things quite too much.

once again, it is a perceived notion of a common threat - but given time,
when the world does not see Dr. Manhattan anymore since he has left the planet (galaxy even? I forget) the world will once again return to its nefarious ways of fighting amongst themselves. Generations from now, Dr. Manhattan will be nothing more than a myth. Look at the God of reality for example, some believe in him, some don't, some fear him, some don't. But all people live their lives in sin regardless of whether they believe in a cruel and punishing god (note that this is not my own personal view on god, but a view shared by many people and draws parallel with your arguement). Given this reality, your given argument seems flimsy at best. People will always be greedy, selfish, self centered, egotistical, etc.. all character defects leading to conflict.

But yet again Adrian has the means to re-enforce Dr. Manhattan's presence even without the presence of Dr. Manhattan himself. Could the Novel be personifying God's demenor and presence with the use of Dr. Manhatten as an archetype? That's another given discussion. However, God is benevolent enough to give us all free will and reason to counteract our basic instincts and he is benevolent enough to keep his distance and let us all do things on our own. Is it wrong to re-enforce the ultimate mode of morality that all religions as a whole are in favour of (i.e. Ultalitarianism, Co-operation, peace and tolerence towards your fellow man) at the price of a huge loss?

Its debatable and it totally depends upon the circumstances. Fictional idea of Genetically enhanced Soldiers needed to fight an overwhelmingly strong enemy is a good example of that.

so I take it you merely look at the circumstances rather than the morality of it? A better plan would have been to say "Dr. Manhattan, go destroy each armies weapons stocks" and this could have been enacted long before the story even began. But then we wouldn't have the story as it is. There's many more less evil ways to prevent the war by "using" Dr. Manhattan.

But you have to make em believe that it wasn't all a master plan of a given human ;); But rather a divine being who bows down to no one and has no precievable weakness. Hence it had to be presented as an act of Dr. Manhatten alone.

Besides, the conflicting views of the other team members would not have allowed it to happen. Remember... Whose Watching the Watchmen? Well its the Watchmen themselves ;).

Ward Dragon
13-04-09, 01:48
Darn, I missed an awesome discussion. I'll just say I agree with Spike :D I think Ozzie's actions were totally wrong and merely a temporary fix.

If he really wants to keep the nations terrified into joining together against a common enemy, he'll have to kill another few million people every time things start to settle back down into the normal state of things. Even if he gets away with doing that, what happens after he dies? Who would take over? I doubt he'd be willing to trust anyone enough to explain the whole thing to them and even if he was, who's to say that person would be "responsible" enough to only commit mass murder when it's "needed" for world peace? Sooner or later that power would be lost or else used by someone totally deranged who would abuse it to explicitly take over the world. Then the world would unite against him and he'd eventually die.

Either way, the world would no longer fear the common enemy Ozzie created. Then everything would be back to how it was before his whole plan and millions of people would have died for nothing.

Anyway, I think Rorschach really won in the end. When his story gets aired, it ought to catch people's attention. The general public will learn that Ozzie was responsible and then he will have to face justice instead of getting to secretly rule the world (and make billions of dollars for his company) like he had originally planned. Seriously, the jerk is about to murder millions of people and he's busy making stock trades so that his company will come out ahead. He's seriously deluded into thinking that what's best for him is best for the world when really it's not.

spikejones
13-04-09, 02:04
^High Five Buddy :jmp:

Ward Dragon
13-04-09, 02:15
^High Five Buddy :jmp:

*high five* :jmp:

I can see how Ozzie fell down that path and developed the line of reasoning that led him to do what he did. However I still think he's wrong and that his logic was tainted by desire for personal gain. He wanted to be the next Alexander or Ramses II, he wanted to be in control of everything, he wanted his company to survive and prosper while millions died, etc. In short his motives were not pure. He even realizes this which is why he tries to get reassurance from Dr. Manhattan that he has done the right thing. If his judgment had not been clouded by what he stood to gain from his plan, then I think he could have developed an alternative plan which would not have required murdering anybody.

Larapink
13-04-09, 14:52
I still haven't seen this film.:hea:

:vlol:

Encore
13-04-09, 15:04
I still haven't seen this film.:hea:

:vlol:

lol A lot of people haven't aparently. It's not even in theaters anymore, over here. It was kind of a failure, box office wise.

M.A.
13-04-09, 16:22
Can somebody explain something? I haven't read the graphic novel, But from what I understand from the movie, besides Dr. Manhattan, non of the other character have superpower. From what I digested from the flashback scene, they are plain Joes and Janes who wear costume to fight crime. Then how come they all seems to have super strength, especially in the opening scene?

Larapink
13-04-09, 16:59
lol A lot of people haven't aparently. It's not even in theaters anymore, over here. It was kind of a failure, box office wise.
I thought it would be, some good friends have told me it wasn't as good as it was rated. So I never got around to seeing it. It's still in Cinema's here, but it's overrated.

Encore
13-04-09, 17:18
^ I didn't mean to say that it's ok not to watch it. :p The movie is very good, and shouldn't be judged just because it wasn't a smash hit.

Can somebody explain something? I haven't read the graphic novel, But from what I understand from the movie, besides Dr. Manhattan, non of the other character have superpower. From what I digested from the flashback scene, they are plain Joes and Janes who wear costume to fight crime. Then how come they all seems to have super strength, especially in the opening scene?

I don't see super strength, I just think they're all highly trained in martial arts, nothing more... According to the book Adrian seems to have had special training when he was travelling in Asia, which is why he seems able to do "impossible" things. And Night Owl has those gadgets that help him around, kinda like Batman. But that's about it.
In the book they actually mentioned with a bigger focus that Dr. Manhattan, because he has super powers, turned the old school heroes obsolete since these were just ordinary guys with a costume...

Larapink
13-04-09, 17:19
^ I didn't mean to say that it's ok not to watch it. :p The movie is very good, and shouldn't be judged just because it wasn't a smash hit.
I should go see it, but I think now I will just wait for the DVD. :p

spikejones
13-04-09, 18:17
Can somebody explain something? I haven't read the graphic novel, But from what I understand from the movie, besides Dr. Manhattan, non of the other character have superpower. From what I digested from the flashback scene, they are plain Joes and Janes who wear costume to fight crime. Then how come they all seems to have super strength, especially in the opening scene?
Yeah... Dr. Manhattan is the only one with "super powers", the others are just ordinary human beings. If you read some of the back story on the characters, like on the website (http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/), you will see that Adrian has trained his body to "athletic perfection" in the martial arts.
I thought it would be, some good friends have told me it wasn't as good as it was rated. So I never got around to seeing it. It's still in Cinema's here, but it's overrated.
I think the reason some people didn't like it as well as it was hyped was that it wasn't like your run of the mill comic turned movie. if they expected something like X-Men or Fantastic Four, then of course they would be upset. ;)

Encore
13-04-09, 18:57
I think the reason some people didn't like it as well as it was hyped was that it wasn't like your run of the mill comic turned movie. if they expected something like X-Men or Fantastic Four, then of course they would be upset. ;)

Certainly not Fantastic Four, most people hated that movie. But I do believe people were expecting something along the lines of The Dark Knight. But of course TDK had a LOT more action.

Larapink
13-04-09, 21:17
I think the reason some people didn't like it as well as it was hyped was that it wasn't like your run of the mill comic turned movie. if they expected something like X-Men or Fantastic Four, then of course they would be upset. ;)
See that's what I thought about it as well, I thought it might be like Sin City.
Is this film like Sin City? :confused:

Angel666
14-04-09, 03:33
I don't really think it's like Sin City. I wouldn't really have thought to compare the two in the first place. It's been a while since I've seen Sin City though.

Encore
14-07-09, 15:07
I'm sorry if it's wrong to revive this thread. I just found out this new clip of one of the deleted scenes that will appear in the Director's Cut DVD (OMG I so can't wait!!!).

It's a great scene! :eek:

http://www.movieweb.com/video/VIc4ajgkkZIFfg

Lara Croft!
14-07-09, 17:29
Watchmen is a great movie! It's the sophisticated version of films based on comics. I really liked the characters and the social messages the creators wanted to convey.

Ward Dragon
14-07-09, 17:44
I'm sorry if it's wrong to revive this thread.

We've relaxed the bumping rule so it's no longer wrong to post in an older thread as long as you have something relevant to add :)

I still haven't seen the movie yet :o I missed it in the theaters and figured I'd just catch it on DVD. Now I'll have to make sure I see the Director's Cut :D