Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know it's been talked about occassionally on here before, but I couldn't find an official thread for it; so I made one.

Anyway, I'm about 2/3 done with it right now and I like it a lot so far.

What do you guys think?

It's great.

I have the entire thing uploaded, shame I can't post it because the Mod's are scan nazis nowadays .

But yes, Moore rocked my socks with this damned series.

My favourite Moore work, just behind Lost Girls

It's a great book, although I don't think new readers appreciate it as much considering its mostly remembered for being the comic the revolutionized the industry and proved comics are more than superheroes fighting villains and whatnot

It was very good

I thought it was great. Although I'm a big fan of the whole villain getting their comeuppance so I wasn't too comfortable with the ending.....Although I suppose that depends on if Ozymandias could be considered a villain

I also loved trying to work out who was behind it all.

Originally posted by willRules
I thought it was great. Although I'm a big fan of the whole villain getting their comeuppance so I wasn't too comfortable with the ending.....Although I suppose that depends on if Ozymandias could be considered a villain

I also loved trying to work out who was behind it all.

There's a part of me that says, Ozymandias has all that blood on his hands = He's a villian! He murdered all those people!

There's also another part that says "What would you have done?" and then I realise; exactly the same thing.

I'd still of killed him though, why should he get to live?

Yeah, I was kinda the same, although I don't think I would have killed all those people. It just seemed too wrong for me at the end Although that's part of what made the story interesting I suppose

Originally posted by willRules
Yeah, I was kinda the same, although I don't think I would have killed all those people. It just seemed too wrong for me at the end Although that's part of what made the story interesting I suppose

Well it was either kill those people or the entire planet dies, it's an easy choice for me. But I'm alot older and cynical than you are.

But probably the coolest guy ever came out of this series; Rorschach, he owned!

one of the best comic books ever

Quite Good. I remember reading that when I was in 8th grade and was just baffled by how good it was. Been my favorite since...

Originally posted by CasanoVa
Well it was either kill those people or the entire planet dies, it's an easy choice for me. But I'm alot older and cynical than you are.

But probably the coolest guy ever came out of this series; Rorschach, he owned!

fair enough

Just finished it.

Wow, that was great. I hope the movie does it justice.

I think the most intriguing thing about the series was deciding whether or not you considered these heroes to be true heroes

I mean, lets look at some examples:

The Comedian was a soldier who fought for his country and was right about a lot of things, but he also raped a woman and killed the mother of his unborn child. I don't really consider him to be a hero, although part of me wants to.

Dr. Manhattan wasn't a bad guy, but he started to lose his humanity because of his power. He became a living breathing tool who became devoid of compassion and emotion. I can't really consider him to be a true hero, but thats just me.

Ozymundis, is the most difficult to consider. He had good intentions, but his belief that the end justifies the means, really shows me, that he isn't a hero.

And of course, Rorschach. No question here, this guy is 100% kickass

its a tough read, but its brillaint.


n00bz may not like it cause it can get wordy and theres alotta politics and back story, but its a masterpiece

It's a book for intelligent people - let the noobz drool and argue over lesser fare if it pleases them.

It's not for intelligent people, it's for people who think "This book is for intelligent people, so I will force this tripe down my throat and make myself like it...even though it ****ing sucks hard ass.".

It's almost as overrated as Sandman, but at least Sandman was semi-good.

Those damn limey writers always seem to get high praise for doing jack shit. Ennis (yeah, I can make a character say "****" 100 times too, so where's my big check?), Morrison(Look at me, I'm Morrison and I'm holier than you cuz I don't eat meat!), Gaiman(Reading his books are worse than reading the bible, but at least the bible has SOME semblance of beginning, middle and end.)....way overrated.

Originally posted by long pig
It's not for intelligent people, it's for people who think "This book is for intelligent people, so I will force this tripe down my throat and make myself like it...even though it ****ing sucks hard ass.".

It's almost as overrated as Sandman, but at least Sandman was semi-good.

Those damn limey writers always seem to get high praise for doing jack shit. Ennis (yeah, I can make a character say "****" 100 times too, so where's my big check?), Morrison(Look at me, I'm Morrison and I'm holier than you cuz I don't eat meat!), Gaiman(Reading his books are worse than reading the bible, but at least the bible has SOME semblance of beginning, middle and end.)....way overrated. Yeah, those damn overrated writers walking home with the Eisner awards every year. Then having the nerve to write best-selling novels on the side. **** them.

Watchmen was the only graphic novel to win a spot on Time Magazine's 100 Best English-Language Novels of the 20th Century.
It's also the only graphic novel to win the Hugo for Science Fiction, I believe.

LP has no taste.

Watchmen rocks.

Sandman, jeez I have the entire run and I haven't ever finished the first issue; just because I find it a chore to read it.

Perhaps the greatest Comic book story of all time. IMO.

Watchmen is so good, I can hardly perceive it as a Comic.

More like a stunning Novel with illustrations as a bonus.

The art is not all that, but very descriptive in defining what you're reading.

It will never match the Olympus Arc in Miracleman, it is the second greatest comic book story of all time.

Buckeroo Banzai was an AWESOME movie.

Okay, so I've recently read an interview with Zach Snyder Concerning Watchmen in Wizard and it got to debating (in my head, as I often do) what actors I would like to see play in The Watchmen.

So, armed with Photoshop, I've decided to make my picks here. I've only come up with four so far:





























































The Comedian = Mickey Rourke

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/The_Olympian/TheComedian.jpg

Rorschach = Simon Pegg (Who Coincidentally was up for the role a couple of years back)

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/The_Olympian/Rorschach.jpg

Ozymandias = Neal McDonough

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/The_Olympian/Ozymandias.jpg

And I don't know how you can argue because - for me:

Doc Manhatten ALWAYS = Billy Zane

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g81/The_Olympian/DocManhatten.jpg

So? What does everyone think?

Originally posted by long pig
(Reading his books are worse than reading the bible, but at least the bible has SOME semblance of beginning, middle and end.)....way overrated.

Hey c'mon the Bible rocks my socks. 66 books written by different authors and the fact that anyone can easily find a semblance of consistency and coherence suggests it has truth in it.

But anyway you can knock watchmen (Although I loved reading it, the doomsday clock addition was excellent IMO) You can knock some writers (Some mentioned are controversial but have had some good stuff IMO) but don't bring faith into this kind sir or I will be an unhappy chappy

Originally posted by willRules
Hey c'mon the Bible rocks my socks. 66 books written by different authors and the fact that anyone can easily find a semblance of consistency and coherence suggests it has truth in it.

But anyway you can knock watchmen (Although I loved reading it, the doomsday clock addition was excellent IMO) You can knock some writers (Some mentioned are controversial but have had some good stuff IMO) but don't bring faith into this kind sir or I will be an unhappy chappy

Um.... not to mention.... no semblance of Beginning, Middle, and end?

Funny how IN THE BEGINNING the Comedian Has died.... IN THE MIDDLE you have Rorschach in Prison... and IN THE END you have a conspiracy possibly put to light....

Put in a bunch of Meaningful Flashbacks that have all relevance to the story at hand and you have a beautifully written book called "The Watchmen". I guess if you consider Jumping into Flashbacks "non-consistant" then maybe you should.... god... I don't even KNOW what you should do.... stop reading altogether? Maybe enjoy a good flick like xXx or National Treasure.

Ehhh.....Like Kingdomcome,slightly overhyped.

Who overhyped it for you?

Look at the ass-kissin of it in this thread,and the ass kissing in the kingdom come one.

They're good,but not to the degree people say they are.

So annoying...





Okay, first of all.... "all the ass kissing in the thread"? It's a two freaking page thread... Wolverine has 100's of MULTIPLE threads with Thousands of posts in favor and out of favor. I can tell you right now that Spiderman/superman/batman/wonderwoman/flash/nightwing/300/TONS OF OTHERS ALL have more talkback than The Watchmen does. I agree, FAR too much ass kissing

But lets take a look at what people said about it:

CasanoVa:
It's great

This was a true statement... it IS a great book... I see no ass kissing here. Next!

Grimm22: "It's a great book, although I don't think new readers appreciate it as much considering its mostly remembered for being the comic the revolutionized the industry and proved comics are more than superheroes fighting villains and whatnot"

This is ALSO true..... weird.. so it's now hype that it actually took something that so many people considered "kids stuff" and proved that comics can also be considered literature.... Very asskissing with this whole Truth then, eh?

Endless Mike: "It was very good"

So if tons of people say "I like Spiderman" does that not mean they are also kissing the ass of that as well?

Will Rules: "I thought it was great"

I wonder why he would say that?

Then there is another quote by CasanoVa talking about the intricacies of Villainy portrayed within the book... And a Conversation ensues.

Loot: "one of the best comic books ever"

Seeing as I believe it IS one of the best comics ever... I don't really consider it asskissery. What do YOU believe is one of the best comics ever, since apparently this one ISN'T it.

SnakeEyes: Just finished it. Wow, that was great. I hope the movie does it justice.

Nothing wrong with a first impression.

Then we have Long Pigs Opinion.... We all know what he said... which was by far the opposite of ass kissing...

How is it overhyped again?

I'm so sorry,I was under the impression that this was a thread where we were to post our thoughts on the subject,but i guess we are supposed to blindly agree in it's brilliance.

next time i'll just keep it to myself so i don't offend those who can't comprehend that peoples opinions and tastes differ.

I completely Understand a difference in opinion. But the reasoning behind your opinion was called into question by none other than... well, me.

But if you don't want to have a small debate about whether or not something is good, by all means, blame me for stating my own opinion ABOUT your opinion

Seriously, no offense was intended I just fail to see how we are "asskissing" in this thread.

Not just this thread,but skattered through out all the forum you see people praising it and going off about when it's brilliance is called into question.

Why is it called into question?

Originally posted by Martian_mind
Not just this thread,but skattered through out all the forum you see people praising it and going off about when it's brilliance is called into question.

I thought it was great but I don't "asskiss" it. In fact there are a fair few graphic novels I prefer to Watchmen, which others would say "No way watchmen is waaayyy better than that." I wouldn't say it's "asskissing" though, just a deep and disturbing love for a well written graphic novel

The cool thing with Watchmen is, the (amazing) storyline is full of little details you only notice when you reread it.

Yeah like the smilie face

Originally posted by long pig
It's not for intelligent people, it's for people who think "This book is for intelligent people, so I will force this tripe down my throat and make myself like it...even though it ****ing sucks hard ass.".

It's almost as overrated as Sandman, but at least Sandman was semi-good.

Those damn limey writers always seem to get high praise for doing jack shit. Ennis (yeah, I can make a character say "****" 100 times too, so where's my big check?), Morrison(Look at me, I'm Morrison and I'm holier than you cuz I don't eat meat!), Gaiman(Reading his books are worse than reading the bible, but at least the bible has SOME semblance of beginning, middle and end.)....way overrated.

Actually, dude's kinda got a point. I liked Watchmen so don't get me wrong, but it was far from a "favorite", but because it's a lot more literary and deals with varying themes that you don't normally see in comics, we sort of decide to like it despite our instincts.

I'll disagree with Sandman. Fragging love every minute of it. But it's the same thing with, say, The Godfather movies. I can watch them and say "Yeah, these are great films." But I don't particularly love them on a personal level....hell, I'd rather watch Spider-Man 3 again or something, even though it's obviously not the same level of "quality".

As for the rest of the rant, we all have problems with certain writers. I like very few writers completely (Warren Ellis, Gaiman, maybe 1-2 others) but it's more on a story-to-story basis, since all writers are capable of some utter crap.

Originally posted by long pig
It's not for intelligent people, it's for people who think "This book is for intelligent people, so I will force this tripe down my throat and make myself like it...even though it ****ing sucks hard ass.".

It's almost as overrated as Sandman, but at least Sandman was semi-good.

Those damn limey writers always seem to get high praise for doing jack shit. Ennis (yeah, I can make a character say "****" 100 times too, so where's my big check?), Morrison(Look at me, I'm Morrison and I'm holier than you cuz I don't eat meat!), Gaiman(Reading his books are worse than reading the bible, but at least the bible has SOME semblance of beginning, middle and end.)....way overrated.

Just cause it isn't "Drunk chicks over 60" or "The young and the naked" doesn't mean it isn't good. You should expand your horizons beyond illegal and unnatural erotica.

Originally posted by long pig
It's not for intelligent people, it's for people who think "This book is for intelligent people, so I will force this tripe down my throat and make myself like it...even though it ****ing sucks hard ass.".

It's almost as overrated as Sandman, but at least Sandman was semi-good.

Those damn limey writers always seem to get high praise for doing jack shit. Ennis (yeah, I can make a character say "****" 100 times too, so where's my big check?), Morrison(Look at me, I'm Morrison and I'm holier than you cuz I don't eat meat!), Gaiman(Reading his books are worse than reading the bible, but at least the bible has SOME semblance of beginning, middle and end.)....way overrated.

This is pretty rich coming from a guy whose favourite character is Doctor Strange.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Actually, dude's kinda got a point. I liked Watchmen so don't get me wrong, but it was far from a "favorite", but because it's a lot more literary and deals with varying themes that you don't normally see in comics, we sort of decide to like it despite our instincts.

I'll disagree with Sandman. Fragging love every minute of it. But it's the same thing with, say, The Godfather movies. I can watch them and say "Yeah, these are great films." But I don't particularly love them on a personal level....hell, I'd rather watch Spider-Man 3 again or something, even though it's obviously not the same level of "quality".

As for the rest of the rant, we all have problems with certain writers. I like very few writers completely (Warren Ellis, Gaiman, maybe 1-2 others) but it's more on a story-to-story basis, since all writers are capable of some utter crap.

Yeah I see what you're saying but I think even if someone preferred a poor plot lined comic with great action scenes over a great, beautifully constructed yet possibly boring piece of literature, I'd still have some respect for it.

For example I just read one of Jane Austin's books; Emma. Being a typical bloke I thought it was a boring romantic novel which is all about sensitivity and dreary emotional issues. I'd much rather read the latest issue of Daredevil which I'm buying on Tuesday. However I have great respect for Austin's literacy skills and her genius at crafting and weaving together intricate plot lines.

well, i just read it and i liked it. maybe it's because i like stories that give you those little details. shrug

IMO, Watchmen is the best graphic novel - bar none. Nothing "ass-kissing" in this statement, either. I just reread it. If anything, it's even better than I remembered. The quality of the story, characterization, themes, symbolic density, and attention to detail are staggering. I don't understand how anyone could fail to be blown away when reading it - unless the only thing you go for in comic books is pure spectacle.

The Watchmen is definitly one of my favorite STORIES of all time, although I personally didn't like the art that much, the story more than makes up for it.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
. I don't understand how anyone could fail to be blown away when reading it - unless the only thing you go for in comic books is pure spectacle.

My point is made...

Originally posted by Martian_mind
My point is made...

Not really. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but so is everyone else that disagrees with you (which I venture to say is a large majority of those who've read The Watchmen). I mean if you posted on a Russian novel forum and said that Crime and Punishment was overrated, you'd probably get hammered too. If you post something controversial, don't get pissy when people challenge you.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Not really. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but so is everyone else that disagrees with you (which I venture to say is a large majority of those who've read The Watchmen). I mean if you posted on a Russian novel forum and said that Crime and Punishment was overrated, you'd probably get hammered too. If you post something controversial, don't get pissy when people challenge you.

I'm not,it's that you make assumptions about peoples tastes if they don't agree with you.

Originally posted by Martian_mind
I'm not,it's that you make assumptions about peoples tastes if they don't agree with you. What's wrong with that?

Have you never done it?

Originally posted by Blight
What's wrong with that?

Have you never done it?

i've never said people have poor taste just for liking something i hate.


he said just because someone doesn't like it they must only read comics for spectacle,but it could a whole host of reasons.I could just as easily say people always say how badass Roscharch is,so people who like watchmen only like badassery

kinda stupid thing to say.

Originally posted by Martian_mind
i've never said people have poor taste just for liking something i hate.


he said just because someone doesn't like it they must only read comics for spectacle,but it could a whole host of reasons.I could just as easily say people always say how badass Roscharch is,so people who like watchmen only like badassery

kinda stupid thing to say. Really. If you were hanging out with someone and they told you there favorite band was Hanson... you'd have no bias in further conversation regarding music toward that person, and you would never EVER bring it up when arguing about music with them again?

Originally posted by Blight
Really. If you were hanging out with someone and they told you there favorite band was Hanson... you'd have no bias in further conversation regarding music toward that person, and you would never EVER bring it up when arguing about music with them again?

who the **** is hanson?

and no,i don't really care about stuff like that.

Originally posted by Martian_mind
who the **** is hanson?

and no,i don't really care about stuff like that. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown

Originally posted by Blight
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown

I really wouldn't.I hate Superman and knock him constantly,but i don't make assumptions about peoples tastes just based on it.


Oh,and my eyes are blue thankyou very much.

like the ocean,which ironically is filled with turd and whale sperm haermm

My eyes are blue like the sky.... which is filled with much cooler things like planes and jets and transformers.

Originally posted by Blight
My eyes are blue like the sky.... which is filled with much cooler things like planes and jets and transformers.

and falling bird poo with lethal co 2 that will slowly destroy the global economy.


DAM YOUR EYES!!! durfist

HEY! I take pride in my raining shit upon the rest of the world and slowly decaying the earth!!! furious

Originally posted by Blight
HEY! I take pride in my raining shit upon the rest of the world and slowly decaying the earth!!! furious


and i can't take pride in taking on sewage and repopulating the whales(that the dirty Japs have weakened)

Watchmen is definately up there as one of the best classic comic stories of all time. Kingdom Come and Marvels is pretty cool too...oh and The Dark Knight Returns....of course

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
IMO, Watchmen is the best graphic novel - bar none. Nothing "ass-kissing" in this statement, either. I just reread it. If anything, it's even better than I remembered. The quality of the story, characterization, themes, symbolic density, and attention to detail are staggering. I don't understand how anyone could fail to be blown away when reading it - unless the only thing you go for in comic books is pure spectacle.

I agree with this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3_gO8awPic

Just reread it.

One of my favourite, and one of the best graphic novels, ever.

Maybe I oughta read it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Maybe I oughta read it.

Do it!

IT was a good comic and I thought it was done well but I didn't like it as much as other people do.

I enjoyed it quite a lot, certainly among my favorites. Unfortunately something is clearly lost from having not lived during the ColdWar.

Two decades after it was published, I wonder what a brand new reader would think of it now. If you weren't around in the 1980's with the political climate, and seeing how the comics medium was transforming itself into being more adult - maybe they couldn't relate.

Well I read it a few months ago for the first time and I was born in 89 so I'm not aware of what it was like during the cold war. I still found it an entertaining read, although there are plenty of Graphic novels I prefer to it

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I enjoyed it quite a lot, certainly among my favorites. Unfortunately something is clearly lost from having not lived during the ColdWar. I liked it thought it was a good story but nothing special to right home about. Maybe it is the Old Movie syndrum. When it first comes out it is ground breaking like Star wars for Special Effects but now not so much.


I just didn't like some of the elements of the story and in some ways it seemed crammed with information that I thought took away fro mthe overall story. Of course this is just me.

I donno if I should read it.

Originally posted by B.A
I donno if I should read it. I would recommend reading it. Just some of it wasn't with my taste was all.

Originally posted by Newjak
I liked it thought it was a good story but nothing special to right home about. Maybe it is the Old Movie syndrum. When it first comes out it is ground breaking like Star wars for Special Effects but now not so much.


I just didn't like some of the elements of the story and in some ways it seemed crammed with information that I thought took away fro mthe overall story. Of course this is just me.

That's part of it. Watchmen and Alan Moore's style has become very influencial in comics as a whole; he and Frank Miller were the big two that hepled shape the medium from that time onward.
If people are capable of standing back and reading it - it's like old movies. Many are influencial in forming later movies to come, but some of them don't age well for new viewers. Me, I know how important Marvel Comics was in re-shaping the medium in the 1960's & early 70's, but I don't find a lot of them very readable, anymore.

i really like the rape parts of WM.......yeah i said it......so i have a thing for rape....sue me

Originally posted by manjaro
i really like the rape parts of WM.......yeah i said it......so i have a thing for rape....sue me ...

Originally posted by manjaro
i really like the rape parts of WM.......yeah i said it......so i have a thing for rape....sue me

I think most people went for the philosophy (or Rorschac) but to each his own srug

Originally posted by manjaro
i really like the rape parts of WM.......yeah i said it......so i have a thing for rape....sue me Originally posted by Mr. Slippyfist
...

yeah lets all pretend that it wasnt intriguing as hell.. the comedian is the Boss!!!

hm. Watchmen . The classic "graphic novel."

Watchmen is a masterwork, and it's clear that Alan Moore was trying to elevate a desperately puerile and decaying medium, and to a vast extent, it worked. Without Watchmen in the canon (and here I use canon in the literary sense, not in the silly fan-boy sense), we don't get Dark Knight Returns, Arkaham Asylum; A Serious House on Serious Earth, Doom Patrol, or Sandman, in the same way that without Muddy Waters we can't have the Rolling Stones, the Who, or the Doors. It's also a stunning indictment of Cold War-era America, and her crippling cultural insecurities. It is, deeply, (and in some ways, this does hamper it) a product of its time. It's much more Jack Kerouac, Christopher Lasch, or Rudyard Kipling than it is Dante, Allen Ginsburg, or Jean-Paul Sartre. To use a comic book example, it's more in the vein of (and this is not an insult) Liefield than it is Morrison. Liefield could only exist and write in the nineteen nineties; the themes of Invisibles are far more universal than the contextual and aesthetic specific work characteristic of Liefield's work. I'm not saying Watchmen is anything like, say, X-Force artistically, I'm saying they both exist to a particular time.

However, Watchmen is more than just about the legacy it inspired, or the fact that The Times named it as one of the greatest 100 novels of all time. Even if you do cut it out of its contextual time, and consider it outside of the Cold War, you're still left with a massively impressive piece of literature. The philosophical force of each character, and the questions raised by their conflict, are powerful and still, years after it was written, pressing when you read it.

The brilliance resides in the prime emotive movement of the plot and its deconstruction of the central characters. The theme, which in a lesser work would be extremely mundane, is the effects of the questioning of authority- IE, after the breakdown of trust in government and institutions that accompanied the Civil Rights movement, Watergate, and Vietnam, would the average citizen be inclined to trust an institution that declared itself a public guardian- the superheroes. Ergo, the human decline of the individual costumed adventurers mirrors the institutional decline of public trust in our "real " world in the United States Government and the military. A fascinating subject when written about well- Norman Mailer and Louis Menand are prime examples of this- and it's indicative of Moore's genius that he didn't attempt to dilute this comparison.

Of course, the other major conflict in the work isn't sociological or political, it's philosophical. Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach play out the difficulties of determinism, rather obviously put in Manhattan's observation: "We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings." Not for nothing (and again, Alan Moore goes out of his way to make this obvious) was Dr. Manhattan growing up as a watchmaker, the classic determinist symbol of the functioning of the universe. In counterpoint, the conspiracy theorist Rorschach acts as if events are inevitably outside of his control; although in action and in purpose he aims to halt the Ozymandias forced plot, he is disillusioned by the fact that he believes, in the grand scheme of things, no human being can possibly be an actor in the movement of destiny.

The artwork is damn near perfect. Clearly inspired by William S. Burroughs' work on the underground Brit mag, Cyclops, in which Burroughs adopted the term that T.S. Eliot would cleverly define in his exegesis of Hamlet as "the objective correlative," in which a set of items would be adopted and repeatedly used, and thus, become infused with meaning and emotion, the technique works perfect. The gritty and realistic feel of the art matches the subject's tone pitch-perfectly.

Does this mean that the work has carte blanche, and should automatically be assumed to be the perfect comic book? I would disagree. Moore's failings come across in two ways- one, is the extent to which he took three of the major characters, Ozymandias, Rorschach, and Dr. Manhattan, and reduced them, basically, into labels, shouting "post-modern utilitarianism," "moral absolutism!" and "determinism" (in that order). The work is staggeringly unsubtle, and while, to an extent I believe that was intentional, it's obvious that Moore could have made his message just as clear without insulting the reader by bashing you over the head on every single page, and on every single panel, with the exact subtext of what was being said was. The subtext overwhelming the text, is, while a great method of getting your point across, makes at times for rather poor literature.

The other problem is that at many times, Moore is simply too erudite. He knows he's smart, well-read, and clever. So he goes out of his way to display how smart, well-read, and clever he is. The function of the pirate story, at the surface an example of what comic books might be like on a world where superheroes actually existed, is also to function as a sort of Greek chorus for the plot- expounding, explaining, contrasting, and sneering at the action of the main plot. But it's knowingness, and Moore's need to display in every other line, just how intelligent he is heavily detracts from the overall motive force of the work. The major problem I have whenever I pick it up is being annoyed at how Moore hits me over a head with something and at the same time shouts "I'm smarter than you!" (and I picture him saying this in a jeering British accent), and it's a double insult to the capabilities of the reader, and it crowds and dirties a work that is otherwise elegant and clean.

I've never understood why people adore Rorschach (and apparently, some poster above who loves rape, loves the Comedian) while panning Nite-Owl. In my opinion, he's one of the most enduring and powerful characters not just in Watchmen itself, but in comics fiction as a whole. He's one of the few truly pragmatist (and I mean this not in the blase-day-to-day way, but in the tradition of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Charles Pierce, and James Dewey) characters we see in a spandex-clad expolision laden universe of idealist costumed characters, and he's much more representative of the every-man hero, than say, Spider-man, regardless of how much Marvel wants us to believe Spider-man represents the everyman. William James argued that ideas are tools- we seek out the ones that will get us through the night and discard them when they are no longer useful, and Nite-Owl is the epitome of that philosophy. Plus, it's thrilling to see him go out into battle one last time (and the sub-plot with his sexuality being re-reinvigorated by superheroing was fantastic).

All in all, is it perfect? Hell no. But it's impossible to intelligently discuss the history of comic books or why comic books are the way they are today without having read it, and it's still an amazing piece of work. My hat is off to Moore for it.

as if anyone is going to sit down and read through that pretentious chunk of text I just wrote.

Originally posted by tjcoady
as if anyone is going to sit down and read through that pretentious chunk of text I just wrote.
I read it. Only becuz I can glance the paragraph and read most of it. Speed reading course and all. I say it was well thought out. I'm surprised that we have so many intelligent posters here.

You can't get around the fact, though, that it remains the only Graphic Novel to win the Hugo Award for Science Fiction, and made TIME magazine's list for the top 100 Novels of the 20th Century, despite the fact it was illustrated.

Originally posted by tjcoady
I've never understood why people adore Rorschach

What the hell did I ever do to you!?

Originally posted by tjcoady
as if anyone is going to sit down and read through that pretentious chunk of text I just wrote. I read and I agree with mst of what you wrote ok almost all of it


My favorite scene out of the series though is when Doc Manhattan is first on Mars holding the picture.

Originally posted by Rorschach
What the hell did I ever do to you!?

sorry

As long as you use that as your name, you should type like Rorschach would.

Originally posted by Newjak
I read and I agree with mst of what you wrote ok almost all of it


My favorite scene out of the series though is when Doc Manhattan is first on Mars holding the picture.

Oh yeah. That whole chapter was great. First medium I've seen that gave me a good sense of what it feels like to experience the past, present, and future all at once. I'm excited and scared to see how the movie will portray that.

Originally posted by celestialdemon
Oh yeah. That whole chapter was great. First medium I've seen that gave me a good sense of what it feels like to experience the past, present, and future all at once. I'm excited and scared to see how the movie will portray that. I think it was mostly how Manhattan portrayed it... "Now it is 1965, and I am...", instead of "Back in 1965..."

Meh .... I just read it, I think it's a little overrated. Might be because I'm reading it so long after it was written ... like how some older films had that "whoa" factor when they came out but now they just feel dated.

Point is that I wasn't overly impressed by it at all.

Love the film. Never read the book.

Would my KMC'ers suggest I get the graphic novel or the Motion Comic dvd?

Keep in mind the graphic novel is loads more expensive.

Originally posted by Scoobless
Meh .... I just read it, I think it's a little overrated. Might be because I'm reading it so long after it was written ... like how some older films had that "whoa" factor when they came out but now they just feel dated.

Point is that I wasn't overly impressed by it at all.



When did you grow up?

I was excited to see how they'd portray that scene too, Celestial.

Shame they decided it wasn't important. Despite it factually being important.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Love the film. Never read the book.

Would my KMC'ers suggest I get the graphic novel or the Motion Comic dvd?

Keep in mind the graphic novel is loads more expensive.

This is almost actual blasphemy, considering you go around hyping the movie to the sky.

Also, don't get the "motion comic". Pick up the book, stop being so lazy. You should have read Watchmen by now. It's sad that it took a movie to give you interest in the greatest comic of all time.

-AC

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Love the film. Never read the book.

Would my KMC'ers suggest I get the graphic novel or the Motion Comic dvd?

Keep in mind the graphic novel is loads more expensive. Not really, the graphic novel at Walmart is 12 dollars.
the motion comic is 19.
at least my local store.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I was excited to see how they'd portray that scene too, Celestial.

Shame they decided it wasn't important. Despite it factually being important.



This is almost actual blasphemy, considering you go around hyping the movie to the sky.

Also, don't get the "motion comic". Pick up the book, stop being so lazy. You should have read Watchmen by now. It's sad that it took a movie to give you interest in the greatest comic of all time.

-AC

Honestly I didn't read it till I heard about a movie coming out.

and I don't like it as much as most people, i mean its good but its not the greatest

I think that people who don't think it deserves the praise it gets, for what it is and what it did for the medium, simply don't understand the book properly.

Yes, that's presumptuous and elitist, but I believe it to be the truth. I believe there is a certain level of intellect required to TRULY appreciate it fully. Obviously, nobody's gonna admit that, but still.

-AC

No like i said It's good and did alot for comics, but that doesn't mean i think it's the greatest comic. In terms of influence and what all it accomplsihed yes. But overall quality no

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This is almost actual blasphemy, considering you go around hyping the movie to the sky. What's blasphemy is the fact that you continue to insult me because I appreciate the film for what it is: a movie. I have not read the book so I've not ever compared the film to such. Just because you didn't like the film, doesn't mean anyone else can't. Also, if you feel it was such shit which films of the genre do you feel are superior to it. Obviously, you've stated your opinion on The Dark Knight and it's pretty evident you feel that is superior but I'm curious to know which other films you think are.

I asked a question on suggestions towards which I should purchase. No need to call anyone lazy. I was under the impression to a point the Motion Comic was better in the fact that there is just that: motion.

Do you feel I'd get a better experience out of the graphic novel? By your reactions, I take it you do.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I was excited to see how they'd portray that scene too, Celestial.

Shame they decided it wasn't important. Despite it factually being important.



This is almost actual blasphemy, considering you go around hyping the movie to the sky.

Also, don't get the "motion comic". Pick up the book, stop being so lazy. You should have read Watchmen by now. It's sad that it took a movie to give you interest in the greatest comic of all time.

-AC

Pretty stupid to have that reaction over one comic. Its good yes but hasn't kept me coming back, I'm on the 4th right now and will finish it eventually.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I think that people who don't think it deserves the praise it gets, for what it is and what it did for the medium, simply don't understand the book properly.

Yes, that's presumptuous and elitist, but I believe it to be the truth. I believe there is a certain level of intellect required to TRULY appreciate it fully. Obviously, nobody's gonna admit that, but still.

-AC I think you have to be have been reading comics for some time, to truly understand what sets it apart from the rest as well. You can't just hand someone kingdom come, or Watchmen, Sandman or any of the all time classics really, and expect them to appreciate it as much as an avid comic reader who gets ahold of them for the first time

Originally posted by celestialdemon
Oh yeah. That whole chapter was great. First medium I've seen that gave me a good sense of what it feels like to experience the past, present, and future all at once. I'm excited and scared to see how the movie will portray that.
I think that was my favorite chapter. I thought the movie did an okay job portraying what I thought the chapter was conveying to me but it was a kick in the pants when one of my friends said one of his other friends said they did a good job livening up the most boring issue of the series.

Originally posted by Juntai
I think you have to be have been reading comics for some time, to truly understand what sets it apart from the rest as well. You can't just hand someone kingdom come, or Watchmen, Sandman or any of the all time classics really, and expect them to appreciate it as much as an avid comic reader who gets ahold of them for the first time
I have to agree. It really doesn't have the same impact, at least for me, nowadays. I understand its importance for its time but remain unwilling to give its story any extra credit for that.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
What's blasphemy is the fact that you continue to insult me because I appreciate the film for what it is: a movie. I have not read the book so I've not ever compared the film to such. Just because you didn't like the film, doesn't mean anyone else can't. Also, if you feel it was such shit which films of the genre do you feel are superior to it. Obviously, you've stated your opinion on The Dark Knight and it's pretty evident you feel that is superior but I'm curious to know which other films you think are.

I asked a question on suggestions towards which I should purchase. No need to call anyone lazy. I was under the impression to a point the Motion Comic was better in the fact that there is just that: motion.

Do you feel I'd get a better experience out of the graphic novel? By your reactions, I take it you do.

Sin City, 300, Ghost World, Iron Man, The Dark Knight.

All more enjoyable as movies to me, and all more loyal to one degree or another. Story or character-wise.

-AC

300's action scenes were awesome no doubt.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Sin City, 300, Ghost World, Iron Man, The Dark Knight.

All more enjoyable as movies to me, and all more loyal to one degree or another. Story or character-wise.

Iron Man I have in the top 5. The lack of action sequences and dull third act hurts it. Sin City? I enjoyed Harrigan and Marv's stories. The others I cared less about. 300? Good film but nowhere near Watchmen in my book. Could care less about Ghost World, not my type.

The Dark Knight and Watchmen are in the same orbit. Right now I prefer Watchmen because it's relatively new and I'm strung out on TDK after viewing too many times. But nothing will ever top when I saw TDK for the first time in IMAX.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Iron Man I have in the top 5. The lack of action sequences and dull third act hurts it. Sin City? I enjoyed Harrigan and Marv's stories. The others I cared less about. 300? Good film but nowhere near Watchmen in my book. Could care less about Ghost World, not my type.

The Dark Knight and Watchmen are in the same orbit. Right now I prefer Watchmen because it's relatively new and I'm strung out on TDK after viewing too many times. But nothing will ever top when I saw TDK for the first time in IMAX.

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

They're all more accurate, to one degree or another, than Watchmen. Watchmen fails because all Alan Moore's stories fail as movies, compared to the source material. That's not subjective, that's fact.

Whether you LIKE these movies or not is subjectiive. I just think that, as a comic fan already, you should have read the book if you knew a movie was coming out. That's just courtesy.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Whether you LIKE these movies or not is subjectiive. I just think that, as a comic fan already, you should have read the book if you knew a movie was coming out. That's just courtesy.

-AC

Why would he? The movies tend tom be extremely inaccurate to the comics and I find it far more enjoyable not to have read the comics before hand. Like x-men which is so in accurate to the comic it hurts ones eyes, spiderman ect.

Originally posted by Battlehammer
Why would he? The movies tend tom be extremely inaccurate to the comics and I find it far more enjoyable not to have read the comics before hand. Like x-men which is so in accurate to the comic it hurts ones eyes, spiderman ect.

Spider-Man, like most Marvel movies, took plot liberties.

However, it was heavily character accurate and wasn't so changed that it became unclear as to who Spider-Man was, or was meant to be.

Genetic webbing was the biggest change and that, I totally get. Simply because the guy is struggling to pay for a car. How is he ever gonna afford webshooters?

Watchmen severly crippled certain characters.

-AC

Who did they severly cripple?

Sure some weren't quite as fleshed out but i think you're exxagerating

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Watchmen severly crippled certain characters.

-AC
They also had far more characters to focus on, instead of mainly one like spiderman. Watch men was a far better then spiderman.


also many of spiderman villains were every inaccratly poytraid as well as the events that took place.

x-men was reidculously bad as was other comic movies.

Watchmen was far from the worst and it at least made up for it by being a solid movie which many of the others can not say the same.

I have read this graphic novel over 3 times and i still think its horrible...i just dont see it...but hey we all have our likes and dislikes.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Watchmen severly crippled certain characters. Like who? The only one I wasn't impressed with was Silk Spectre. I thought all the other actors did a quality job.

The book is a great. One of, if not the best reads going, along with the Sandman.

Movie was good, on par with the Dark knight.

I thought the movie was good. Nowhere near as good as the book but I've yet to see a movie that is.

Even my Dad who doesn't read any kind of comics, afterwords described the movie as much more high brow than your average comic book movie.

Like I've said in earlier posts on this thread the graphic novel is brilliant. It's nowhere near my favourite, but there is a difference between personal enjoyment of a piece of literature for the interest you get from the content and an appreciation for the complexity of the text that can be exclusive from that enjoyment.

e.g.

As an Eng lit student at university, I don't like all Shakespeare's plays (although some are awesome) but I have yet to read one of his works that isn't incredibly complex and intricately woven together.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Like who? The only one I wasn't impressed with was Silk Spectre. I thought all the other actors did a quality job.

How would you even know? You've never read the book, so you won't know what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Nihilist
Movie was good, on par with the Dark knight.

Never in a million years is it in the league of The Dark Knight.

If it was, it wouldn't need multiple cuts to express the story. The Dark Knight did it all in one release.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How would you even know? You've never read the book, so you won't know what I'm talking about.



Never in a million years is it in the league of The Dark Knight.

If it was, it wouldn't need multiple cuts to express the story. The Dark Knight did it all in one release.

-AC The Dark Knight was overated, although it wasn't a bad movie, it only did so well because of the tragic death of Heath Ledger sadly.. imo.

Originally posted by Nihilist
The Dark Knight was overated, although it wasn't a bad movie, it only did so well because of the tragic death of Heath Ledger sadly.. imo.

Oh please.

Don't use that as an excuse. His role was leagues ahead of anyone in Watchmen, not because he died, because he was better.

If Watchmen was half what The Dark Knight is, it could have got the job done in one cut. An R rating, a director's cut, two additional DVD side stories and three hours of movie; nothing close.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh please.

Don't use that as an excuse. His role was leagues ahead of anyone in Watchmen, not because he died, because he was better.

If Watchmen was half what The Dark Knight is, it could have got the job done in one cut. An R rating, a director's cut, two additional DVD side stories and three hours of movie; nothing close.

-AC LOL, so your opinion is absolute then is it.

Originally posted by Nihilist
The Dark Knight was overated, although it wasn't a bad movie, it only did so well because of the tragic death of Heath Ledger sadly.. imo.

No.

Never a fan of Ledger until Joker.

Every little thing Joker did just made him more awesome, even the little tiny things Joker done all added to an overall great character and great performance.

Watchmen had some great characters and acting I say (Rorshack) but Joker was one of my favourite characters (in the movies) for years.

Originally posted by Premium
No.

Never a fan of Ledger until Joker.

Every little thing Joker did just made him more awesome, even the little tiny things Joker done all added to an overall great character and great performance.

Watchmen had some great characters and acting I say (Rorshack) but Joker was one of my favourite characters (in the movies) for years. Bale was awful as Batman though.

Based on what?

The voice? Yeah, because a more suitable disguise would be to just take his glasses off like Clark Kent...

-AC

Originally posted by Nihilist
The Dark Knight was overated, although it wasn't a bad movie, it only did so well because of the tragic death of Heath Ledger sadly.. imo.

Agreed

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh please.

Don't use that as an excuse. His role was leagues ahead of anyone in Watchmen, not because he died, because he was better.

If Watchmen was half what The Dark Knight is, it could have got the job done in one cut. An R rating, a director's cut, two additional DVD side stories and three hours of movie; nothing close.

-AC

This just proves there is a lot more to the content of Watchmen than the content of TDK ...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Based on what?

The voice? Yeah, because a more suitable disguise would be to just take his glasses off like Clark Kent...

-AC Partly yes, and his acting was terrible.

Originally posted by Nihilist
Partly yes, and his acting was terrible.

The voice was for disguise purposes, obviously. He's Bruce Wayne, world famous. He can't go around chatting normally.

His acting wasn't terrible at all, but to each their own.

-AC

bale's voice was outstandingly ridiculous in "the dark knight" imo. i fully understand that he had to disguise his true voice, but it was just WAY over the top

Originally posted by Galan007
bale's voice was outstandingly ridiculous in "the dark knight" imo. i fully understand that he had to disguise his true voice, but it was just WAY over the top Rorscach did a much better job of disguising his voice.

He didn't need to disguise it because he hardly ever spoke to anybody as Kovacs.

Wayne did.

-AC

I don't see what's so bad about his voice.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He didn't need to disguise it because he hardly ever spoke to anybody as Kovacs.

Wayne did.

-AC I'm not talking about why he had to disguise his voice, it's about how awful it sounded.

Originally posted by Premium
I don't see what's so bad about his voice.
Because he sounded like the offspring of a human and a grizzly bear if they could reproduce?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How would you even know? You've never read the book, so you won't know what I'm talking about. I'm just judgning from a movie fan standpoint. The overall performances, not accuracy to the book. But if we go by this, most everybody I've talked to have said Watchmen is as close as you'll gome to the graphic novel and the only thing paramountly missing is the squid arc at the end.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Don't use that as an excuse. His role was leagues ahead of anyone in Watchmen, Way better? No. I thought he was spectacular, but so was JEH as Rorschach. And if your so geeked up about accurate potrayals to source material Ledger's Joker, while great, had little in common with the comic book character.

And for the record, I thought Bale is underrated in his potrayal of Bruce Wayne in both films.

Clooney's rubber nipples make him the best Batman, ever.

Originally posted by Galan007
bale's voice was outstandingly ridiculous in "the dark knight" imo. i fully understand that he had to disguise his true voice, but it was just WAY over the top
Agreed. In fact, when I whip out my Batman impression nobody can keep a straight face. Granted, it may be horrible and half the time I'm telling the cat/dog "You were the best of us! He wanted to prove that even someone as good as you could fall!"

Originally posted by Nihilist
The Dark Knight was overated, although it wasn't a bad movie, it only did so well because of the tragic death of Heath Ledger sadly.. imo.
I actually went in with that mindset but Heath Ledger's Joker is probably one of the few things I've known to live up to its hype.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
I'm just judgning from a movie fan standpoint. The overall performances, not accuracy to the book. But if we go by this, most everybody I've talked to have said Watchmen is as close as you'll gome to the graphic novel and the only thing paramountly missing is the squid arc at the end.

Way better? No. I thought he was spectacular, but so was JEH as Rorschach. And if your so geeked up about accurate potrayals to source material Ledger's Joker, while great, had little in common with the comic book character.

And for the record, I thought Bale is underrated in his potrayal of Bruce Wayne in both films.

Well everyone you've talked to clearly hasn't read the book properly. They cut insane amounts of important stuff out. Hence why there are multiple different cuts and they STILL don't fit it in.

It's nowhere close to being the most accurate comic book movie. Is it the best Watchmen movie possible? Yes. Does that make it close to the book? No.

As for Ledger, not really. He was based on The Killing Joke, and he did so quite well.

-AC

I'm not sure why people are complaining it was closer to the book that most comic book movies. After all they had to cover the whole novel in one movie which is a daunting task in itself. So cutting stuff out for a movie was excepted even with cutting many things out it was still to long for a movie. This was expected no point bitching.

I mean is Spider-Man , X-men , Hulk, FF movies any better at portraying the comics than Watchmen? No it had many flaws even morose than watchmen in terms of comparing it with it's comic counterpart.

Heck Watchman had most of the movie copy scene by scene for most parts of the movie. What other comic book movie have you seen do this? Not many

Overall it was a good enough movie it kinda sucked knowing beforehand what would happen so people who have never read watchmen might enjoy it more. But if you are a comic book reader you should defiantly read the comic first. Like any other comic book movie the comic it always better.

Originally posted by kgkg
I'm not sure why people are complaining it was closer to the book that most comic book movies. After all they had to cover the whole novel in one movie which is a daunting task in itself. So cutting stuff out for a movie was excepted even with cutting many things out it was still to long for a movie. This was expected no point bitching.

I mean is Spider-Man , X-men , Hulk, FF movies any better at portraying the comics than Watchmen? No it had many flaws even morose than watchmen in terms of comparing it with it's comic counterpart.

(all the following is opinion, I'm not going to stick "IMO" after everything)

The Spiderman, X-Men etc films explored the characters, gave a specific glimpse of who they were (with varying success). This was only possible because they concentrated on the characters over specific stories. The recent Batman movies have been so good because, they took the idea of Batman and made a movie out of it rather than copy a story out of the comics. The movies were written to be movies.

When the script for Watchmen was drawn up they had to stick close to the book, because no one wanted an attempt to expand on the book. Unfortunately that made it a doomed endeavor because comics simply don't translate to the screen so simply. In fact pretty much nothing can travel from medium to medium without a great deal of change in recognition that it's a completely different style of storytelling.

As a result we got a middling quality movie adaptation of Watchmen that is fairly close to the book but loses far too much in the process. It was a good effort and far from a terrible movie, it just should have been less strict about the story.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
(all the following is opinion, I'm not going to stick "IMO" after everything)

The Spiderman, X-Men etc films explored the characters, gave a specific glimpse of who they were (with varying success). This was only possible because they concentrated on the characters over specific stories. The recent Batman movies have been so good because, they took the idea of Batman and made a movie out of it rather than copy a story out of the comics. The movies were written to be movies.

When the script for Watchmen was drawn up they had to stick close to the book, because no one wanted an attempt to expand on the book. Unfortunately that made it a doomed endeavor because comics simply don't translate to the screen so simply. In fact pretty much nothing can travel from medium to medium without a great deal of change in recognition that it's a completely different style of storytelling.

As a result we got a middling quality movie adaptation of Watchmen that is fairly close to the book but loses far too much in the process. It was a good effort and far from a terrible movie, it just should have been less strict about the story.

I completely agree with you in principle, however I feel that Watchmen was successful in this endeavour. The movie had to be close to the text, it was, I really enjoyed seeing iconic moments moved directly from panel to screen

But it's all matter of preference like you say

Originally posted by kgkg
Heck Watchman had most of the movie copy scene by scene for most parts of the movie. What other comic book movie have you seen do this? Not many

1) Sin City.

2) 300.

3) No it didn't. What movie were you watching?

There's a wealth of important stuff left out. Hollis Mason's murder, Under the Hood, Tales of the Black Freighter, the news-stand segments, Dr. Manhattan's entire Mars musings, Rorschach's psych evaluation, all the Veidt interviews that make up who he is, the ending with Veidt and Manhattan talking etc. That is the REAL ending, but no.

Not to mention they changed a lot of the dialogue.

Laurie was saying things that Manhattan said in the comics, despite the fact that the reason she didn't get along with him was because she didn't understand him. She was nowhere near the neurotic, chain-smoking wreck she is in the book.

So it had some good scenes that were faithful, so what?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
1) Sin City.

2) 300.

3) No it didn't. What movie were you watching?

There's a wealth of important stuff left out. Hollis Mason's murder, Under the Hood, Tales of the Black Freighter, the news-stand segments, Dr. Manhattan's entire Mars musings, Rorschach's psych evaluation, all the Veidt interviews that make up who he is, the ending with Veidt and Manhattan talking etc. That is the REAL ending, but no.

Not to mention they changed a lot of the dialogue.

Laurie was saying things that Manhattan said in the comics, despite the fact that the reason she didn't get along with him was because she didn't understand him. She was nowhere near the neurotic, chain-smoking wreck she is in the book.

So it had some good scenes that were faithful, so what?

-AC

Actually not one of those things they had to omit (for the sake of showing what they could) would I consider to be as important as what they kept. In fact a lot of Dr Manhattan's Mars musings was word perfect. But when you are making a movie you have to prioritise certain things. If it was all from panel to page (which I feel a lot more of it was than you appear to be giving credit for) then the movie would be 6 hours long and nobody would watch it with the exceptions of the die hard fans like us and then we'd (along with everyone else) complain it was too long and too faithful!!!!

Of course they couldn't include all the tales of the Black Freighter. That's a separate story within a story to reflect the events and tone of Watchmen. In fact, as shown by the recent DVD release, that's a whole other movie. That's how much space it would have taken up.

Also you say "so what," as if you don't care that there were some scenes that were faithful. Yet all your comments preceding that question are about the things omitted which would suggest you do care about how faithful the movie was. It really seems you didn't think it was faithful enough.

Ultimately, in a broad stroke method of thinking, the movie makers had two paths to go down. They could either go with their own movie adaptation of Watchmen which explored and captured a completely different feel tone or possibly plot of Watchmen, using only the text as a springboard. I'm sure this would have caused a massive backlash from the comic community (even though we're a minority, we're vocal) so instead they went down the path of creating a movie that was so faithful many, many scenes are panels from the comics onscreen. Of course they had to prioritise what could and should be included otherwise you risk alienating the wider audience (which vastly outnumber the die-hard fans.) That's why in all the buildup to the movie, the filmmakers stress that it is their own adaption remaining faithful to the original material, but it's obviously not the text, the text is the text

Watchmen is a great read. It is not a graphic novel and was never intended to be read that way despite Mr. Moores comments to the contrary. It is an excellent series of comics, although it\'s impact as Scoobless, who is not clueless about this said, many better comics exist.

Originally posted by willRules
Actually not one of those things they had to omit (for the sake of showing what they could) would I consider to be as important as what they kept. In fact a lot of Dr Manhattan's Mars musings was word perfect. But when you are making a movie you have to prioritise certain things. If it was all from panel to page (which I feel a lot more of it was than you appear to be giving credit for) then the movie would be 6 hours long and nobody would watch it with the exceptions of the die hard fans like us and then we'd (along with everyone else) complain it was too long and too faithful!!!!

All of Watchmen is about how everything is affected by everything else. It doesn't matter if it drives plot or not. Everything adds up to the over-arching meaning of the story and that was entirely lost in this movie.

His musings were not word perfect to my memory, and if they were, so? There was ONE and it lasted about 20 seconds. They didn't tour Mars in the glass palace, they didn't discuss the simultaneous time thing etc.

Don't say "If they included everything panel for panel it'd be six hours long!" as an excuse. If you can't make it how it deserves to be made, don't do it at all. The same happened with Juggernaut in the X-Men movies. "You can't have him in it as C.G.I., it'd look ridiculous.", but then they had Vinnie Jones. Either have it right or don't have it.

Originally posted by willRules
Of course they couldn't include all the tales of the Black Freighter. That's a separate story within a story to reflect the events and tone of Watchmen. In fact, as shown by the recent DVD release, that's a whole other movie. That's how much space it would have taken up.

Yeah, I can see why what they cut out wasn't important.

It was only a story to reflect the tone and events of Watchmen.

Originally posted by willRules
Also you say "so what," as if you don't care that there were some scenes that were faithful. Yet all your comments preceding that question are about the things omitted which would suggest you do care about how faithful the movie was. It really seems you didn't think it was faithful enough.

Because making scenes faithful isn't hard.

I am well aware that they couldn't have done it all or it would have been impossibly long. My point is; don't do it at all then.

It absolutely was not faithful enough.

Originally posted by willRules
Ultimately, in a broad stroke method of thinking, the movie makers had two paths to go down. They could either go with their own movie adaptation of Watchmen which explored and captured a completely different feel tone or possibly plot of Watchmen, using only the text as a springboard. I'm sure this would have caused a massive backlash from the comic community (even though we're a minority, we're vocal) so instead they went down the path of creating a movie that was so faithful many, many scenes are panels from the comics onscreen. Of course they had to prioritise what could and should be included otherwise you risk alienating the wider audience (which vastly outnumber the die-hard fans.) That's why in all the buildup to the movie, the filmmakers stress that it is their own adaption remaining faithful to the original material, but it's obviously not the text, the text is the text

I think you are misremembering, because it wasn't that faithful at all.

You're almost making it out to have been Sin City faithful. It wasn't.

It couldn't be, though. Thus, it shouldn't have been made. Snyder said he respected Moore's wishes not to be on the credits, why didn't he respect him enough to not make it?

-AC

Because if Synder hadn't of made the movie, someone else would have made the movie who was not a fan of the book, and may well of made a complete and utter mess of it, by not trying to be a faithful as possible to the book.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
All of Watchmen is about how everything is affected by everything else. It doesn't matter if it drives plot or not. Everything adds up to the over-arching meaning of the story and that was entirely lost in this movie.

Well surely if you feel the meaning of the story was lost and I don't then its a matter of personal preference.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
His musings were not word perfect to my memory, and if they were, so? There was ONE and it lasted about 20 seconds. They didn't tour Mars in the glass palace, they didn't discuss the simultaneous time thing etc.

They did use Dr Manhattan's perspective of time occur all within the same instance. Don't you remember the scene where he's on Mars holding the photo of his ex-girlfriend and reminiscing? So much of that was taken direct from the comic.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Don't say "If they included everything panel for panel it'd be six hours long!" as an excuse. If you can't make it how it deserves to be made, don't do it at all. The same happened with Juggernaut in the X-Men movies. "You can't have him in it as C.G.I., it'd look ridiculous.", but then they had Vinnie Jones. Either have it right or don't have it.

It's not an excuse it's a valid reason. You're a much more patient man than me if your willing to sit through a 6 hour adaption even if it conformed to your hopes for the "faithful" movie adaption. I'd find it boring, and I thought the graphic novel was great.

And whilst you blame them for the attempt, I congratulate them, because I thought it was good. There's probably movies out there that we both agree to be great, that die-hard fans of the book consider atrocious.

But apart from that you're right. Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut was truly awful. X-3 didn't know which X-men storyline it wanted to be. So it was several and it didn't mesh well.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, I can see why what they cut out wasn't important.

It was only a story to reflect the tone and events of Watchmen.

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic here or not. I'm glad they omitted the Black Freighter scene. It felt convoluted to me in the Graphic novel and movie is trying to make the most of every moment. Like you say it's merely a story to reflect the tone and events. Completely unnecessary and betrays a lack of trust in the audience's perceptions of the story. It's pretentious.


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because making scenes faithful isn't hard.

I am well aware that they couldn't have done it all or it would have been impossibly long. My point is; don't do it at all then.

It absolutely was not faithful enough.

Well fair enough sir if you think that. You're absolutely wrong, but fair enough.



Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I think you are misremembering, because it wasn't that faithful at all.

You're almost making it out to have been Sin City faithful. It wasn't.

It couldn't be, though. Thus, it shouldn't have been made. Snyder said he respected Moore's wishes not to be on the credits, why didn't he respect him enough to not make it?

-AC

I don't like the Sin City comics and the movie was crap. It was too far up it's own backside to see that it was gritty noir for the sake of being gritty noir. It forgot to be entertaining along the way. Only good thing in it was Bruce Willis and that's not a compliment.

You can tell Watchmen was directed by the same man as 300. It was visually stunning. It was incredibly faithful to the original text. One review described it as "The world's most expensive motion comic" which I think is a great way of summing it up. In fact here's the review if you're interested.........

TRYxUyZMAbg

Originally posted by willRules
They did use Dr Manhattan's perspective of time occur all within the same instance. Don't you remember the scene where he's on Mars holding the photo of his ex-girlfriend and reminiscing? So much of that was taken direct from the comic.

They didn't have the entire thing, and thus, it felt disjointed and pointless.

Originally posted by willRules
It's not an excuse it's a valid reason. You're a much more patient man than me if your willing to sit through a 6 hour adaption even if it conformed to your hopes for the "faithful" movie adaption. I'd find it boring, and I thought the graphic novel was great.

And whilst you blame them for the attempt, I congratulate them, because I thought it was good. There's probably movies out there that we both agree to be great, that die-hard fans of the book consider atrocious.

But apart from that you're right. Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut was truly awful. X-3 didn't know which X-men storyline it wanted to be. So it was several and it didn't mesh well.

A six hour movie is pointless and non-functional. My point remains; don't make it at all.

Watchmen deserved more than a faithful movie, it deserved to be left as it was intended to be by the writer, at the request of the writer. It's honestly not that hard of a concept to grasp.

I don't congratulate them because it was a fun movie, because that's still a failure to me.

My whole opinion on book to movie adaptations is this; if the author says no, don't do it. End of story. Fight Club altered the book, but Chuck didn't have issue with it, he loved it. It was handled responsibly. Watchmen wasn't. Snyder loved his job, but it still didn't make him succeed.

Originally posted by willRules
I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic here or not. I'm glad they omitted the Black Freighter scene. It felt convoluted to me in the Graphic novel and movie is trying to make the most of every moment. Like you say it's merely a story to reflect the tone and events. Completely unnecessary and betrays a lack of trust in the audience's perceptions of the story. It's pretentious.

It's also necessary. It's a very necessary story, it clearly mirrors and conveys the underlying themes regarding the plight of multiple characters. It not being there is one of the main reason's Veidt was so paper-thin with regards to audience relation.

Originally posted by willRules
Well fair enough sir if you think that. You're absolutely wrong, but fair enough.

Besides being factually right, sure.

Originally posted by willRules
I don't like the Sin City comics and the movie was crap. It was too far up it's own backside to see that it was gritty noir for the sake of being gritty noir. It forgot to be entertaining along the way. Only good thing in it was Bruce Willis and that's not a compliment.

The precise point of it was to be a slight parody of those kinds of cheesy noir films. They don't contain cheesy dialogue because it was written poorly, it was meant to be that way.

As for the comics, I think they're excellent.

Originally posted by willRules
You can tell Watchmen was directed by the same man as 300. It was visually stunning. It was incredibly faithful to the original text. One review described it as "The world's most expensive motion comic" which I think is a great way of summing it up. In fact here's the review if you're interested.........

It wasn't "incredibly faithful" to the comic by any stretch of the imagination.

It being the best they could do does not mean it was incredibly faithful.

As the review said; "It missed the ideas of the graphic novel.".

Oh, the ideas? You mean...the reason the book exists? No biggie. Who cares about the ideas and such behind a story? Let's just have lots of speed up, slow-down action with some unspeakably awkward and unnecessary sexual scenes.

That's the way to go.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


They didn't have the entire thing, and thus, it felt disjointed and pointless.

Disagreed.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

A six hour movie is pointless and non-functional. My point remains; don't make it at all.

Watchmen deserved more than a faithful movie, it deserved to be left as it was intended to be by the writer, at the request of the writer. It's honestly not that hard of a concept to grasp.

I don't congratulate them because it was a fun movie, because that's still a failure to me.

My whole opinion on book to movie adaptations is this; if the author says no, don't do it. End of story. Fight Club altered the book, but Chuck didn't have issue with it, he loved it. It was handled responsibly. Watchmen wasn't. Snyder loved his job, but it still didn't make him succeed.

Speaking as an Eng Lit student at University, I'm the first to admit that a book almost always beats the movie format. But to base the production of movie upon the whims of the author is to deny the great potential for a good quality movie. What if Tolkien were alive and denied permission for the LOTR movies to be made? We'd miss out on a brilliantly adapted trilogy.

I'm not trying to deny any respect for the authors and their toys, just that the authorial intention is by no means a good indicator of the quality of a movie adaption. Watchmen is a good example of this.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's also necessary. It's a very necessary story, it clearly mirrors and conveys the underlying themes regarding the plight of multiple characters. It not being there is one of the main reason's Veidt was so paper-thin with regards to audience relation.

No it bludgeoned the reader of the head with already carefully constructed themes. Watchmen is very dense in tone. It conveys the depressive feel of the cold war very well, the Vietnam defeat feels present especially in the American consciousness and the urban vigilantism highlights this dark and dreary context.

The tales of the Black freighter stresses these themes over again as if the originally presented themes could somehow be misconstrued as subtle!!!! As if that isn't repetitive enough, the Tale is possible even more heavy handed (especially in it's imagery of corpses) than the rest of Watchmen! Really, really unnecessary.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Besides being factually right, sure.





Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The precise point of it was to be a slight parody of those kinds of cheesy noir films. They don't contain cheesy dialogue because it was written poorly, it was meant to be that way.

Well I didn't pick up on the parody, I just saw it as very over the top. I suppose I can see the appeal with the parody, but the dialogue was still pretty bad. It's not one of my favourite Miller works.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It wasn't "incredibly faithful" to the comic by any stretch of the imagination.

It being the best they could do does not mean it was incredibly faithful.

As the review said; "It missed the ideas of the graphic novel.".

Oh, the ideas? You mean...the reason the book exists? No biggie. Who cares about the ideas and such behind a story? Let's just have lots of speed up, slow-down action with some unspeakably awkward and unnecessary sexual scenes.

That's the way to go.

-AC

Well firstly I obviously disagree upon the issue of how faithful you consider it to be.

Secondly, the point of posting that review was to show that quote I referred to. I don't agree entirely with the review. Whilst I do agree that the actresses were terible and stiff, I don't feel the ideas were lost. I thought it was captured really well. Especially through the Comedian, who wasn't really mentioned in the review.

Originally posted by willRules
Speaking as an Eng Lit student at University, I'm the first to admit that a book almost always beats the movie format. But to base the production of movie upon the whims of the author is to deny the great potential for a good quality movie. What if Tolkien were alive and denied permission for the LOTR movies to be made? We'd miss out on a brilliantly adapted trilogy.

I'm not trying to deny any respect for the authors and their toys, just that the authorial intention is by no means a good indicator of the quality of a movie adaption. Watchmen is a good example of this.

We're not short on good quality movies, and I find it to be a sad state of affairs when the only time directors try to be creative is when they're adapting someone else's work.

If Tolkien said no, you wouldn't have known what the movies would be like, because they'd not have been made, so that's a void point. Furthermore, I thought those movies were boring as all Hell.

It wasn't a good adaptation (Watchmen). At all.

Also, as Alan Moore said, Watchmen was written to be impossible to accurately reproduce in terms of cinema. He was right, because it wasn't. From Hell wasn't, V for Vendetta wasn't, League wasn't and Watchmen wasn't.

Originally posted by willRules
No it bludgeoned the reader of the head with already carefully constructed themes. Watchmen is very dense in tone. It conveys the depressive feel of the cold war very well, the Vietnam defeat feels present especially in the American consciousness and the urban vigilantism highlights this dark and dreary context.

The tales of the Black freighter stresses these themes over again as if the originally presented themes could somehow be misconstrued as subtle!!!! As if that isn't repetitive enough, the Tale is possible even more heavy handed (especially in it's imagery of corpses) than the rest of Watchmen! Really, really unnecessary.

Chill out with the exclamation points, Mary Menopause.

I am well aware what Watchmen's tone is and what it's messages are, so stop repeating them to me. The very point of Freighter is precisely to do what you criticise it for doing, to bludgeon the reader into a feeling of dread and inescapble darkness or pessimism.

It was absolutely necessary.

Originally posted by willRules
Well firstly I obviously disagree upon the issue of how faithful you consider it to be.

When you leave out and change as much as they did, it's obviously not faithful. Why was Laurie saying things that Dr. Manhattan originally said? It's dumb, it didn't work well and it shouldn't have happened. Among all the other issues.

Originally posted by willRules
Secondly, the point of posting that review was to show that quote I referred to. I don't agree entirely with the review. Whilst I do agree that the actresses were terible and stiff, I don't feel the ideas were lost. I thought it was captured really well. Especially through the Comedian, who wasn't really mentioned in the review.

Well, I disagree. I thought it was a shitty adaptation that happened to be a fun movie.

It's not Watchmen in any faithful way.

Originally posted by willRules
movie. What if Tolkien were alive and denied permission for the LOTR movies to be made? We'd miss out on a brilliantly adapted trilogy.


Though I agreed with your entire arguement, gimli character suffered greatly in the films compared to the books.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri




Also, as Alan Moore said, Watchmen was written to be impossible to accurately reproduce in terms of cinema. He was right, because it wasn't. From Hell wasn't, V for Vendetta wasn't, League wasn't and Watchmen wasn't.

No comic movie can be compeltely accurate to the comics, your setting an unachievable standard and whining about a film that was vastly better then most any other comic movie.

Xmen was vastly more in accurate, your statement here can be said of almost any movie based on a comic.

Originally posted by Battlehammer
No comic movie can be compeltely accurate to the comics, your setting an unachievable standard and whining about a film that was vastly better then most any other comic movie.

Xmen was vastly more in accurate, your statement here can be said of almost any movie based on a comic.

Those movies are character-based and not set on depicting an accurate, comic-to-movie story.

Iron Man wasn't accurate, totally, storywise. It was accurate character-wise.

There are too many singular stories in those franchises to cram everything true in, and they're often considered to be BASED on the comics, USING the characters.

Watchmen is Watchmen. One story, one set of characters.

You fail in perceiving the difference it seems. There is a factual difference.

Either way, I've said all I need to on the topic. So, Will can reply, or you can reply, and that can be that.

-AC

I don't need to reply, I think our opinions are quite clear by now

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Also, as Alan Moore said, Watchmen was written to be impossible to accurately reproduce in terms of cinema.
I read that somewhere.. but I didn't see it. Maybe with some of the gimmicky stuff like the "mirrored" fight scene with Veidt and the hired gun. I dunno, maybe I'm overestimating my flowin' prose, but I think Alan Moore's claim is only valid if it's held so strict that the fact that pictures would be moving instantly voids the accuracy.

Originally posted by willRules
I don't need to reply, I think our opinions are quite clear by now

Respect to you, sir.

T'was fun.

-AC

lulz @ anyone think they're going to win any of these "debates" against AC.

Originally posted by -V-
lulz @ anyone think they're going to win any of these "debates" against AC.
That's factually true.

Originally posted by -V-
lulz @ anyone think they're going to win any of these "debates" against AC.

I need therapy afterwords cry

Never before have I felt that something so subjective was expressed as factual.....


Originally posted by Doctor-Alvis
That's factually true.

Originally posted by -V-
lulz @ anyone think they're going to win any of these "debates" against AC.
lol

Battlehammer, don't be sad.

Be glad.

-AC