Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 5:29 AM   
 By:   Stefancos   (Member)



Until then, I'll continue to enjoy the Watchmen film - especially the Rorschach elements - on its own merits. If others don't enjoy it, I'm sure there's plenty that they do like to illuminate their lives.

TG


To me Rorschach plays like a warts and all version of the Clint Eastwood/Charles Bronson vigilante killer. Taken to it's logical extremes.

Rorschach's bitter scowl and low grumbly voice basically recall a ginger Clint Eastwood to me.

 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 5:51 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

On the one hand I've heard them complain that the film is far too similar to the comic in story and structure, that it really is not it's own entity. (are these the same people who bashed V for Vendetta, League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen etc for not being faithful enough to the comics???) On the other hand people bash the few changes that Snyder apparently did make.

V For Vendetta was terrible because they took a story specifically about Thatcherism and early 80s English rule and made it about George W Bush's America. Its no longer a reaction to homosexuals being rounded-up into ghettos, its about appealing to fans of Green Day and their misconception of rebellion.

League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a deceptively literary "joke" - if you read the comic, there is more asides and nods and throw-away references to all sorts of famous stories - bashed into a shit-steam heat film that made Sean Connery quit acting.

Watchmen is terrible for similar and specific reasons. Moore called Watchmen "inherently unfilmable", which is not too far from the truth in some aspects and doubly so when you realize its been butchered and boxed from a four hundred and sixteen page story to a one hundred and sixty-three minute film. Moreover, and at the risk of sounding glib, the comic is drawn in a way to mimic movement, depth and scale in the way a film camera does. However, translating that to an actual camera and actual live-action characters ruins the depth, scale and intent that Moore and artist Dave Gibbons created. Its not suppose to be a movie-on-page nor is it suppose to be made literal with live actors (or any actors, arguably), its suppose to be an experience-made-larger. This is a very subtle but important part of why the movie is a failure from the beginning - the intent of the film is inherently not the intent of the story at all.

It could be said that the Watchmen movie came at the best possible time - while we were still in the fallout of The Dark Knight. I won't go into why I think that specific movie was the biggest pile of shit-shoveled pseudo-intellectual garbage any group of humans has ever defecated into existence - but the fact is that the two films deserve each other. The Dark Knight with its smarmy exposition rants and college freshmen discussion on chaos with Snyder's misconception of the political agenda behind Watchmen's statement of "If there's a God, he must be American" goes together in a bad "smart for stupids" intellectual misunderstanding. Two sides of the same coin, both bring out the blather from the rabble.

Making Watchmen was a fools errand. Terry Gilliam gave up twice. Alan Moore had his name removed from the film's credits and refused all connected royalties, calling it blood money. And who can blame him? The end of it is this: If the author of your favorite novel said that the movie adaptation was against his wishes, that it was wrong for it to exist at all, that it had nothing to do with him or her and that they wish it never existed - who would you side with? The writer? Or the studio system and its hack director?

The movie is awful and people should feel awful for enjoying it.

 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 6:02 AM   
 By:   Stefancos   (Member)


The movie is awful and people should feel awful for enjoying it.


I see no reason to keep discussing a film with a person who has this mindset.

 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 6:05 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

I think thats a fair statement.

Just keep in mind one thing: anything anyone says (myself included, on either side of that) is fair game to any level of discourse. I won't speak for anyone else here, but I don't post just to agree with a topic per se.

 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 6:14 AM   
 By:   Stefancos   (Member)

I'm not asking you to agree. But wanting me to feel awful because I hold an opposite opinion of you?

Just screams time waster IMO.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 7:04 AM   
 By:   facehugger   (Member)

Watchmen was terrifically awful for a simple reason: Snyder didn't understand the source material at all. The hilarious part is that you acknowledge readily not reading the source material either. So, we're two for two here.

I enjoy and appreciate the film on it's own terms.

Is it required for a viewer to have a deep knowledge of the source of a film? I don't think so.


Thanks for the long reply.

Of course you can (and should) judge a film on its own terms. --And in that sense, Watchmen is a competently made "superhero film".

But in light of the fantastically deep source material (NOT a simple "superhero comic"), it's a shame that the film fails on so many levels to reach the similar deep meanings, especially when the director vowed to stay faithful to the source material. In that sense he failed, hard, and became laughable in the end.

Look, I can respect Starship Troopers the film making fun of the book. At least that film is as smart as the book and I learnt something from the film.

And I can also respect V for Vendetta the film for similar reasons.

But Watchmen is a different beast. It is just too shallow.

I have a suggestion: since you clearly love the film, why don't you check the original comic? I guarantee you'll love the comic even more than the film after you read it.

 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 7:07 AM   
 By:   jedizim   (Member)


The movie is awful and people should feel awful for enjoying it.



 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 7:09 AM   
 By:   jedizim   (Member)


I have a suggestion: since you clearly love the film, why don't you check the original comic? I guarantee you'll love the comic even more than the film after you read it.


Not always the case. I felt the comic was OK. Enjoyed the movie more than the comic.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 7:27 AM   
 By:   facehugger   (Member)


I have a suggestion: since you clearly love the film, why don't you check the original comic? I guarantee you'll love the comic even more than the film after you read it.


Not always the case. I felt the comic was OK. Enjoyed the movie more than the comic.


So what do you think of Chapter 4 and 9 of the comic? You know, the two long segment of Dr. Manhattan ranting about existence and the universe? --The two chapters Snyder almost entirely left out of the film.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 8:07 AM   
 By:   MikeP   (Member)

Watchmen was terrifically awful for a simple reason: Snyder didn't understand the source material at all. The hilarious part is that you acknowledge readily not reading the source material either. So, we're two for two here.

I enjoy and appreciate the film on it's own terms.

Is it required for a viewer to have a deep knowledge of the source of a film? I don't think so.


No. In fact, I can almost guarantee that most of the haters of the film have a long history with the comic that inspired the film...and any deviation from the holy scripture that was put into comic form years before is considered blasphemy. No matter what...unless the movie was filmed frame per frame based on the comic...would they be happy. I saw the movie before I had read the comic...I loved the movie (and still enjoy it a lot), and thought the comic was a little dated but enjoyable.



I'd read the comic years before the movie, enjoyed it a great deal, but found it wasn't the perfect "holy scripture" many do find it to be. Condensing it into a feature was a bad idea to begin with, a 6 hour mini series, maybe.

The movie was OK, nothing really worked me into a lather since the comic isn't an untouchable masterpiece . Can't remember the score at all though - just to be on topic big grin

 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 4:50 PM   
 By:   Stefancos   (Member)



I have a suggestion: since you clearly love the film, why don't you check the original comic? I guarantee you'll love the comic even more than the film after you read it.


I've actually tried reading it and could not get into it. The art actually doesnt look appealing to me at all. Snyder's film thankfully looks a lot better.

Anyway, I'm not a comic book fan anyway.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 29, 2013 - 6:19 PM   
 By:   facehugger   (Member)



I have a suggestion: since you clearly love the film, why don't you check the original comic? I guarantee you'll love the comic even more than the film after you read it.


I've actually tried reading it and could not get into it. The art actually doesnt look appealing to me at all. Snyder's film thankfully looks a lot better.

Anyway, I'm not a comic book fan anyway.


I'm not a comic book reader either and I hate the art as well. But the dialogues are so well written. English is not my first language but the dialogues are at Shakespeare level to me.

Which is why I recommend this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLdqKIj3-A0

The Watchmen Motion Comic, narrated by the amazing Tom Stechschulte. It's a better "movie" adaptation than the actual movie.

 
 Posted:   Aug 31, 2013 - 7:14 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

The movie is awful and people should feel awful for enjoying it.

Ah, LeHah, who has a very nice way with words no doubt but hardly ever a positive thing to say. You're losing us here with such vitriol directed at people who find enjoyment in something you don't. Your own shit doesn't always smell so nice.

The responses you received in relation to the question "WHY like Watchmen the film?" were all very intelligent, thoughtful, and subjectively truthful. Take the discourse on that level. I myself have very positive things to recount why I would like such a film, and also inherently negative things to say about a film which you may like -- something like Solomon Kane, something so intoxicatingly bland and energy-draining that I think your only attachment to it must be your enthusiasm for Robert E. Howard's writings of the character (Howard material I have admittedly not read myself).

 
 Posted:   Aug 31, 2013 - 7:49 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

It's a wonder I don't talk to myself just to get an intelligent conversation anymore.

 
 Posted:   Sep 1, 2013 - 7:58 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

It's a wonder I don't talk to myself just to get an intelligent conversation anymore.

It just might be your preferred method if FSM talkers are not stoking your intellectual glands.

Just don't be seen doing it in public! eek

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.