Let me get this out of the way up front so you can crucify me and get it over with. I've never read the graphic novel. I do live in a world of SF/F geekdom, so I know a fair amount of the story anyway. (Yes, I know about the squid.) But my thoughts here are based on the movie alone.
Let's get this nitpick out of the way first. Why would the smartest man in the world password-protect his computer with the title of a book sitting in plain sight from his terminal? RamsesII, wasn't it? Seriously? That's the best our genius can come up with?
Overall, I like a lot of what the story tries to do. I spent a lot of time thinking about the movie, and that's always a good sign. I like the questions it asks. What would the superhero lifestyle actually do to you over time, psychologically? How can the black-and-white morality of the superhero survive in a world of murky gray areas? Is it possible to have true superpowers and still call yourself human?
But in the end, I don't think the movie worked for me. For one thing, any time you write a story without likeable characters, it's harder to draw your audience in, and I just didn't like any of them. Rorschach came closest, and Nite Owl and Silk Spectre weren't too bad, but I didn't actually like any of them. Which may have been a deliberate storytelling choice, and certainly doesn't mean it's a bad movie, but it was a point against it.
And then the bad guy goes and wins in the end. Sure, part of the point is that the absolutes of good and bad are arbitrary and don't really work, and didn't Dr. Manhattan himself point out that our supervillain was right? That he really had sacrificed millions to save billions, and had accomplished exactly what he had set out to do?
Er ... no. He had killed fifteen million people to achieve a brief period of goodwill. Kind of like the one we saw after 9/11. It's certainly possible to create worldwide goodwill, but it's not permanent. A few months, a few years of people being people and governments being governments, and we're right back where we started. How long is our supervillain dictator really going to be able to maintain and enforce the peace? I just didn't buy it.
On a more personal level, my taste runs to a little more fun and a little less over-the-top violence. I'm not saying there shouldn't have been any; I think it's a good idea to show that vigilante superhero-style justice is going to be a lot darker and messier than we usually think. And it didn't feel anywhere near as gratuitous as in some films, but still.... The "superhuman" strength and fighting skill of our "heroes" probably added to this effect. If part of the point is to make our superheroes into actual humans, then they shouldn't be tossing bad guys around like they're made of styrofoam.
I don't know. I do prefer a story that aims high and doesn't always succeed to one that aims low and hits the target, and in that respect I'm glad I saw the movie. My gut sense is that I'd get more out of the graphic novel. It did leave me thinking, which is a good thing ... and ironically, it touches some of the same themes as
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
snurri's book Superpowers, which I had just finished reading. (More on that later.)I'd be curious to hear what others thought. And I'll close with a poll to answer the truly important question raised by Watchmen:
Poll #1367044
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 72
Which was really more distracting?
View Answers
Nixon's Pinocchio-like nose?
51 (70.8%)
Dr. Manhattan's cerulean protuberance? 21 (29.2%)
Page Summary
- barbhendee : (no subject) [+4]
- stargatedragon : (no subject) [+5]
- lkrobinson : (no subject) [+1]
- sekari : (no subject) [+5]
- rsmit212 : (no subject) [+1]
- shsilver : (no subject) [+2]
- swan_tower : (no subject) [+14]
- newguydave : (no subject) [+1]
- jimvanpelt : (no subject) [+0]
- dbara : (no subject) [+1]
- laughingfalcon : Watchmen Retrospective [+8]
- unwoman : (no subject) [+2]
- corvidophile : (no subject) [+13]
- jimvanpelt : (no subject) [+0]
- will_couvillier : (no subject) [+0]
- wolfsilveroak : (no subject) [+0]
- ginasketch : (no subject) [+5]
- tsubaki_ny : (no subject) [+1]
- bodlon : (no subject) [+1]
- shekkara : (no subject) [+0]
- tabaquis : (no subject) [+1]
- shartyrant : (no subject) [+0]
- madkestrel : (no subject) [+2]
- mela_lyn : (no subject) [+0]
Comments
I haven't seen the film--but I've already heard many of the things you mention above, and the people who know me have said, "You won't like it."
Last year, even DARK KNIGHT was a little too "dark" for my tastes, so I decided not to see this one.
Edited at 2009-03-17 06:05 pm (UTC)
get the book. Forget the movie.
I think you'll change your mind...
:)
One of the keys to this film, and the book as well, is that the main characters are NOT likable. They are flawed, arrogant, depressed human beings bitter at the world. It then goes back in their history and shows you why they are the way they are. It is definitely a story to challenge people.
My guess is that the password and the character backstories might both be areas where the book was more successful than the movie. And the more I talk about it, the more I realize I'm going to have to pick up a copy soon :-)
But like I said, a lot of that could be personal taste.
What about the music? Didn't it add a heaping helping of wonderfulness to the love-making scene?
For me, besides the excessive gore, unnecessary flashbacks, and the distracting music, the movie was only half bad.
In a lot of ways, the story reminded me of what Carrie Vaughn did in a short story in Realms of Fantasy a couple of years ago, which was to tell the story of a high-fantasy hero's life after the wars he fought where he earned his heroism. He's wracked with post traumatic syndrome and survivor's guilt. His wife has to deal with his nightmares and bouts of depression.
All of Watchman is like that. The characters have to live with the violence of their past. The key (for me) in the story is that they are all humans who have witnessed and/or committed horrorific deeds. They are raised up as heroes by their society, but they know the inside story of what happened. They have to live with who they were and who they became. Each character copes differently, and that's the story.
I thought Dr. Manhattan's solution at the end reflects a current view that we may not be able to save ourselves in our current form, that we have no good future. Either solvation comes from space (The Day the Earth Stood Still), or it comes from sentient robots obeying the three laws (I Robot), or it comes from a blue, glowing superhero who takes on godhood.
It's a dark, dark story, and I thought it was done well. It's the first movie I've seen in a long time that made we want to pay full movie price to see again.
Oh, the password thing bugged me too. That's a plot device I see too often. If you watch 24, Chuck, Alias, Veronica Mars, Buffy, etc., you would be convinced that all computer security is tissue paper.
Also, I said that I hadn't read the book. I did pick it up at the bookstore and looked at the first 1/3 or so. The movie exactly imitated the book during that space. I may have missed subtleties, but the adaptation looks faithful.
Edited at 2009-03-17 06:50 pm (UTC)
And both Nixon's nose and Dr. Long Blue Glowing Schlong were distracting. I just have one question; when Dr. LBGS split into three parts, and one was having sex, and the other two were doing science work, did all three of them have wood, or just the one doing the sexing? Or none of them? Of course they didn't show us that...
db
And they did capture the characters quite well. But I couldn't figure out why Silk Spectre was just messing around in Nite Owl's ship. That isn't normal girl behavior nor really in her character's nature. But apparently in the book she was LOOKING FOR A LIGHTER@ :D And that made a world of sense! But since we are avoiding making smoking glamorous it fell rather flat.
And as for Mr. Manhattan and "Lower Manhattan" as the gang is calling the phenomenon, I was glad that they didn't alter the character. He is that way in the comic, and it is important to how divorced from humanity he is.
But aside from that...I have a personal crusade for "equal rights"on screen one way or the other-why do I have to put up with clothed men and naked women? I still haven't recovered from Ninth Gate's ending where I was really glad I knew the friend I was with pretty well because it was horribly embarrassed by the HUGE tracts of land on the screen. Then there are things like Ghost in the Shell 1 "Oh, she's naked because she's an android" or another flick "Oh, she has to be naked to run the bio-ship"-Um the guys are running the same ships but they aren't. So it was nice to have the GUYS see how it feels a bit. I rate it worth 1 1/2 of any other movies that have the girls unclothed and the guys clothed. Guys don't even think about this issue anymore but honestly, some of us girls do. It's nice to have an 800 lb gorilla in the room for the guys to contend with. ;) But that's my own thoughts on it and may not reflect that of others.
Lower Manhattan. Heh ... I hadn't heard that before. But you're preaching to the choir a little bit here. I put up that poll because personally, I found Nixon's nose far more distracting and annoying. Dr. Manhattan? That just seemed right for his character.
I did mind the music choices. Sooo distracting.
Also, I totally agree about the ending, and it was slightly different in the book but similarly flawed -- OK, yes, if we were *really* on the verge of nuclear war, I guess it makes sense to create a disaster like that, but like you say with 9/11, it's temporary and doesn't actually lead to us all banding together. And it's harder in 2009 than in 1985 to get into the doomsday mindset.
the whole party package hanging out can be explained by the whole "losing touch with humanity and gradually not caring"... but personally i found it disrupting to see more 3' package hanging out in duplicate than i saw boobs. in a guy flick, that is just weird. even as a chick who likes guy flicks, i don't want to see 3' long duplicate packages glowing blue repetitively on my screen.
i did like Rorschach because he just went out and kicked ass in a tough lil irish guy way.
but. i found the lack of real mutant powers disappointing (but not unexpected due to the DC comic way).
It's disrupting because you never see that in film. Naked women, sure, everywhere you look, until we're all conditioned to accept that as The Way Things Are, but naked guys? NOT OKAY. Which points at a whole host of sexism issues I'd rather see killed and buried.
In other words, yes, I found it distracting, because I was glad of it: this is the only film I think I've ever seen where there was more guy-flesh on display than girl-flesh. It made a refreshing change.
When the peace breaks, and the new threat to humanity arises, a new set of heroes will fight to save us. There are no permanent solutions, and we can't be saved, ultimately, but we battle on.
Soooo.... if you didn't like the movie too much, chances are, you won't like the book.}:P
SONG RUINED FOREVER
AW! Is your icon really an ADORABLE CHIBI RORSCHACH?
I watched several scenes with my eyes shut. Or, uh, didn't watch. But I knew they were coming, and I already knew my feelings toward the graphic novel (not the most affectionate), so I wasn't disappointed.
And I will not, I cannot forgive the dangled modifiers. Because I'm strange like that. "By 17, both my parents had died." Really? Seriously? Were you born to ghosts, sir?
I hadn't even thought about that, but yes!
Even Rorschach, who's absolutely the most satisfying from an ass-kicking standpoint (and iconic to boot) is gut-turningly sociopathic. It's a bit of an experience to read/see something that says, "If you identify with anyone onscreen, seek therapy."
re: the unlikable characters, yes, it's deliberate. Of course, I like them anyway, for the most part, and did in the book, but the point was that they aren't supposed to be heroic and perfect, the way comic-book heroes up to that point had been portrayed. Big Blue Boy Scout, anyone?
It's important to remember when this book was written and keep it in context: 2009 is not that context. Watchmen went a long way toward putting dark, gritty comics with flawed, angry, anti-hero "heroes" where they are today.
re: the characters being way too superpowered, yes. It was very very annoying. They're just supposed to be PEOPLE. People in absolute top possibly physical shape in the case of Comedian and Ozy - and Ozy's peak was higher than everyone else's because he was essentially the Perfect Man. But yes, the extended overpowered fighting was REALLY bothersome.
re: world unity at the end? The point isn't that Dr. M (or the giant squid in the book) become the dictator and force peace on earth. The earth bands together in an attempt to protect themselves from the alien baddy (and, one supposed, Dr. M) - think Starship Troopers or Ender's Game. It's not supposed to be a 9/11 shock and awe and let's-all-band-together-in-the-face-of-t
re: Nixon's nose... the whole face bugged me. A lot. Could not take it seriously. I've seen SNL sketches that did a better job of faking Nixon, sheesh!
I thought the comic was over-hyped when it came out in graphic novel format. I prefer The Killing Joke by Alan Moore over this or his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vol. 1.
To be honest, if you didn't like the movie, you will probably not like the comic. Especially if you didn't care for the characters. They actually come off worse in the comic at times. This is not what you call a feel good or humans are made of awesome type story. Quite the opposite. It shows pretty much humanity's flaws and weaknesses. Shoves it in your face really. And it shows how even those who are expected to "save us" screw up more easily than individuals. It could be read as a warning I guess. Never take anything at face value.
The comic has more backstory on some of the characters and a whole sub-story going on with supporting characters that later tie into the original "big baddie" that was to scare the human race. If you want to know more about the other characters or just curious to see how it compares, I would recommend borrowing it from the library. Otherwise, skip it.
I am still not buying the reason why Dr. Manhattan comes back to Earth for the reason stated in the movie or comic. That was one of my pet peeves when I read it and watched it. Everyone else focuses on the penis and I get stuck on why the hell would he want to save any of these humans after everything else happened. I am more interested in seeing what happens with Dr. Manhattan AFTER the movie than the events that lead up to it. Weird.
I thought exactly the same thing. Seriously, ordinary people with nothing all that important on their machines still come up with passwords harder than that.
With that said, I enjoyed the movie, mostly because I really, really liked Rorshach. I've always been one for the emotionally broken characters, so I was doomed as soon as he showed up the first time.
And while I voted "nose" in the poll... when Dr Manhattan was striding toward Ozymandias in the secret lair, I couldn't help noticing the effects folks had made certain to give his protruberance a lifelike jiggle. I'm 46, and I still giggled like a middle-schooler.
http://mela-lyn.livejournal.com/146
But where I liked alot of the questions asked, I didn't find the answers believable. I think they did a better job in Disney's The Incredibles where a couple of the same questions were asked... but I agree with the majority of your observations. I didn't get emotionally involved with any of them... except Rorshak (I can't spell).
And what really annoyed me, is if these are supposed to be regular people becoming heros, then how did they get some of their almost superhero strength? With all the backstory scenes, they never explained that my satisfaction.